Findings Of Fact Harry L. Wilson is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license, Number RC 0041328, was first issued in March of 1982. The license was issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing, 1943 Hardy Street, Jacksonville, Florida, with the Respondent as qualifier. The Respondent has been the qualifier of Harry L. Wilson Roofing at all times relevant to this proceeding. On December 6, 1984, the Respondent and Robbie L. Hicks, entered into a written contract (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2). Pursuant to this written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), the Respondent agreed to perform the repair work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" and Ms. Hicks agreed to pay the Respondent $2,395.00. The property to be repaired is rental property owned by Ms. Hicks. The property is located at 1508 Eaverson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent commenced work sometime during the early part of 1983. Shortly after commencing work, however, the Respondent and Ms. Hicks began having disagreements as to the work to be performed and the quality of the Respondent's work. These disagreements continued after the Respondent completed the work in November of 1983. Ms. Hicks testified that the work that the Respondent completed was done in an unprofessional manner and that the Respondent had not completed all of the work that he had agreed to perform. In particular, Ms. Hicks testified that the Respondent had failed to paint the interior of the house beige as required by the Contract, had failed to remove saw dust and other debris from the house following completion of the work, had failed to finish cabinets installed in the house, had failed to repair screens and generally had not performed in the manner he had agreed to perform. Ms. Hicks paid the Respondent all but $410.00 of the contract price. The Respondent testified that all off the work called for pursuant to the Contract had been performed. According to the Respondent, he had performed some work not required by the Contract and had not performed other work requested by Ms. Hicks because the work was beyond the scope of the Contract. The Respondent also stated that the work which Ms. Hicks expected would have cost considerably more than the price agreed upon in the Contract. The Respondent did not perform all of the work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" as required by the Contract. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Claude Bagwell, Deputy Chief, Building and Zoning, Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville, it is clear that no permit was issued by the City of Jacksonville to perform the work required by the Contract. The only permits issued with regard to Ms. Hicks' rental property was a permit issued in 1961 and the original building permit issued in 1949. Additionally, due to the fact that no Florida registered roofing contractor's license in the name of "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" had been filed with the City of Jacksonville, no permit could be issued to Harry L. Wilson Roofing with regard to the Contract. The Respondent admitted that he had not obtained a permit to perform the work required by the Contract. The Respondent indicated that he had not obtained a permit because he was not aware that one was required in order to perform the work. He did indicate that he had obtained permits to perform other jobs. The Respondent could not, however, have obtained permits for other jobs because no license issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing had been filed with the City of Jacksonville. The Respondent did take the examination required in order to obtain a registered roofing contractor's license. The Petitioner suggested in its Proposed Findings that the "permit requirement was explained" when the Respondent took the exam. No evidence to support such a finding was presented at the hearing. The Respondent in entering into the Contract clearly used the name "Wilson Recycling". Nowhere on the Contract is the name "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" used. The Respondent ultimately admitted that no Florida license authorizing the use of the name "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained by him. The Respondent, however, when initially asked whether a Florida license in the name of "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained indicated that such a license had been issued. On further examination, however, the Respondent testified that an occupational license in the name of "Wilson Recycling' had been obtained by him and not a Florida license. The work to be performed pursuant to the Contract was beyond the scope off the Respondent's license. As pointed out by Mr. Bagwell the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract would require licensure as a registered residential contractor or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting in a name other than the name as set forth on the Respondent's license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.119(2) and(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the Respondent failed to qualify the business name "Wilson Recycling" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), when he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting to perform and actually performing work beyond the scope of his Florida contracting license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this17th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry L. Wilson 1943 Hardee Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0040275. In approximately 1980, Respondent entered into a contract to erect a screen room for a Mr. Lewis. Under the terms of the contract, Respondent was to obtain the necessary building permit. After the contract had been signed, Respondent's grandfather died, and Respondent therefore went to New Jersey. He left the permit application with his qualifying agent to sign and process through the building department. When Respondent returned from New Jersey approximately 30 to 35 days later, he went to the Lewis job site and found the project almost completed. Respondent did not check to ascertain if the permit had been obtained, but rather completed the screen room himself. Lewis subsequently contacted Respondent to say that he had received a notice of violation from the building department for erecting a screen room without a permit. Respondent contacted the building department and advised that it was not Lewis's fault, but rather that it was Respondent's responsibility to pull the permit. Respondent was charged with unlawfully erecting a screen room without a permit; he appeared in court and pled guilty; and he paid a $250 fine pursuant to the adjudication of guilt entered on April 20, 1981, in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, in Case No. 81-50438. On June 24, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Construction Industry Licensing Board a Contractor's Registration application. On that application, Respondent answered in the negative the following question: "Has any person named in (i) below ever been convicted of any offense in this state or elsewhere other than traffic violations?" At the time Respondent gave that answer, he believed it to be true. He understood the question to call for information on criminal acts and did not comprehend the "screen room" charge to have been criminal conduct. Since Respondent answered that question in the negative, his application for registration was processed in accordance with normal procedures. Had Respondent answered that question in the affirmative, his application would not have gone through normal processing but rather would have been presented to the Construction Industry Licensing Board for the Board's determination of whether to approve the application based upon a consideration of the facts. On November 22, 1982, Respondent contracted with Naomi Blanton to construct an addition to Blanton's home located in the City of Miami, in Dade County, Florida, for a contract price of $11,250. When Respondent had first met with Blanton several months earlier, he had told her he could guarantee completion of the project within 45 days. No contract was entered into at that time, however, since Blanton had not obtained the financing she needed in order to construct an addition. When the contract was signed on November 22, Respondent told Blanton he would start the job when he finished the Chamber of Commerce building he was con structing but that he was starting a 12-unit duplex project around Christmas and would not be able to guarantee any 45-day completion deadline. Accordingly, when the contract was signed, no completion date was included in the terms of that written contract, since Respondent did not know when he could guarantee completion. The Blanton contract written by Respondent specifically provided that Respondent would obtain the building permit. On December 22 and 23, 1982, two of Respondent's employees arrived at the Blanton job site, dug a trench, knocked down the utility room, and moved Mrs. Blanton's washing machine. No further work was done until January 1983. Since Respondent knew that he was required to obtain the building permit before commencing any construction work, Respondent submitted his plans and permit application to the City of Miami Building Department. After the plans had been there about a week, he was advised that his plans would not be accepted unless they were drawn by an architect, although that is not required by the South Florida Building Code. After attempting several more times to obtain approval from the City of Miami Building Department, Respondent hired an architect to redraw the plans and secure the building permit. By this time, Respondent found himself unable to concentrate on operating his business efficiently, since he was preoccupied with spending time with his father who was dying of cancer. Also by this time, Blanton had commenced telephone calls to Respondent on an almost daily basis as late as 11:00 p.m. at his office, at his home, at his mother's home, and at his father's home. Respondent offered to return Blanton's deposit, but she refused to cancel the contract and threatened Respondent that she would sue him if he did not comply with that contract. Respondent commenced working on the Blanton job, although no permit had yet been obtained. The contract on the Blanton job called for payments at certain stages of the construction. By January 27, 1983, Respondent had completed a sufficient amount of the work under the contract so that Blanton had paid him a total of $8,270 in accordance with the draw schedule contained in the contract. Respondent ceased working on January 27, 1983, and advised Blanton and her attorney that he would do no further work until he could obtain the building permit, which he had still not been able to obtain. Although he told them his work stoppage was due to his continued inability to obtain the permit, he also stopped work due to his father's illness and his continued inability to get along with Mrs. Blanton. A delay occurred with the plans being redrawn by the architect Respondent hired to obtain the Blanton building permit, since the architect needed information from Blanton and she was out of town. After Blanton returned, the architect made unsuccessful attempts to obtain the building permit. Respondent and his architect were finally able to speak to one of the top personnel in the City of Miami Building Department about the problems they were experiencing in obtaining a building permit, and, at about the same time, Blanton contacted that same individual to complain that Respondent had no permit. On May 4, 1983, the building department finally accepted the second permit application together with the plans drawn by the architect, and the building permit was issued on May 4, 1983. No work was performed on the Blanton job between January 27, 1983, when Blanton paid Respondent the draw to which he was entitled by that date, and May 4, 1983, when the building permit was finally issued by the City of Miami. Respondent immediately resumed work and quickly completed the next stage of construction called for under the Blanton contract. Upon completing that next stage, he requested his next draw payment; however, Blanton decided not to pay Respondent for the work completed and had her attorney advise Respondent not to return to the job site. Blanton then had a friend of her son come to Miami from Wisconsin to complete the addition to her home. At all times material hereto, Respondent held a certificate of competency issued by Metropolitan Dade County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willfully and deliberately violating Section 301(a) of the South Florida Building Code; imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $2,000 to be paid by a date certain; and dismissing the remaining charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph F. Scioli, Jr. 246 North Krome Avenue Florida City, Florida 33034 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Ruben S. Ares was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number CG CO 14769. Sentinel Building Company of Central Florida, Inc. was engaged in the business of building residential homes for sale. It was the practice of Sentinel Building to buy the land, engage the services of a general contractor to obtain a building permit and help in the supervision and consultation on construction and sell the hones built to others. The contractors were paid a fee of between $250 and $500 per residence for obtaining permits and providing consultation and services. The Vice-President of Sentinel Building was responsible for hiring and paying subcontractors and suppliers. Sentinel Building was not a Florida licensed general contractor, nor was it qualified by respondent or other Florida registered or certified licensee to engage in the business or contracting in Florida. Respondent Ares was not an officer, stockholder, member of the board of directors or employee of Sentinel Building Company. In 1980, respondent entered into an agreement with Sentinel Building to act as the general contractor for the con- struction of at least four residences. His responsibilities were to supervise the construction of the hones and obtain all necessary permits, including the original building permit and the final certificate of occupancy. The responsibility for engaging subcontractors and ordering and purchasing materials and supplies remained with Sentinel Building Company. Respondent was paid a fixed fee of $350 per house. During the period of time in which four residences in Seminole County were constructed, respondent held another full time job with a building company for which he worked 43 to 44 hours per week. His activity with Sentinel Building consisted of obtaining permits and periodic checks on the construction work. According to respondent, his inspections on construction activity occurred once every three to ten days and consumed approximately too to four hours of respondent's time per week. In 1980 and 1981, respondent applied for and obtained building permits for four single-family residences in Delmar Estates, Seminole County. The applications and permits listed Sentinel Building as the owner of the property and respondent Ruben S. Ares as the contractor. At least one of the four homes was under a contract of sale prior to construction. Three of the four purchasers were under the impression that the homes were built by Sentinel Building. None of the three had ever met respondent Ares, nor were they aware that he was the general contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes, that an administrative fine in the amount of $1500 be imposed against respondent and that the remaining charges of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Aldo Icardi, Esquire P.O. Box 879 990 Lewis Drive Winter Park, Florida 32790 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its one-count Administrative Complaint filed herein on April 3, 1980, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, alleged that the Respondent, William O'Brien, violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), due to his failure to deliver a security deposit to a property owner and that Respondent thereafter tendered a protion of the deposit in the form of a check which, when presented for payment, was not honored due to insufficient funds. During times material, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner and is the holder of Florida Real Estate License No. 168869. Gary ;Heide is the owner of the duplex apartment situated at 2407 Northeast 33rd avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The pertinent facts surrounding the allegations herein are, for the most part, simple and undisputed. The subject premises had been leased by owner Heide to Maurice L. LaReau. LaReau had leased the premises for approximately eleven (11) months when he found a residence that he intended to purchase and was therefore desirous of subletting the subject property with the owner's permission in an acceptable manner such that he would not incur any losses due to his vacating the premises prior to the expiration of the lease term. He, therefore, approached owner Heide and advised him of his intentions. According to LaReau, Heide gave him "carte blanche" authority to find a tenant to sublease the apartment but that he would appreciate it if he would "screen" the sub-lessee. Heide suggested that LaReau place an ad in the newspaper to secure a tenant and he also made known to LaReau his overall objective of not sustaining any loss of rents due to a vacancy in the apartment. During that conversation Heide also advised LaReau that he would be leaving for a vacation in Germany shortly. When LaReau leased the subject premises from Heide he entered a twelve (12) month lease and paid a $900.00 fee which included the first and last month's rent plus a security deposit. During times material, Respondent was the registered corporate broker for Exclusively Rentals and Management Company (Exclusively). Through the efforts of Respondent and Exclusively, Gregory A. Costa, III, was secured as a tenant to sublet the subject property from Maurice LaReau on or about October 8, 1977. Respondent had been approached by owner Heide to manage the subject property while Respondent was visiting an apartment complex adjacent to the Heide property on which Exclusively had the managing contract. According to the agreed terms for the subletting of the Heide property from LaReau to Costa, Costa agreed upon an occupancy date of October 15, 1977, for a total rental of $150.00 plus payment for the twelfth month rent for a fee of $300.00; a security deposit of $300.00 and a $150.00 commission to Exclusively for a total of $900.00. This amount was paid to tenant Maurice LaRaeau. Exclusively retained the agreed upon commission which represented on- half the monthly rental, or a fee of $150.00 See Respondent's Exhibit 1. Additionally, Messer. LaReau signed an agreement representing that the subletting was done with owner Heide's knowledge and was in accordance with his instructions. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Upon returning from Germany, owner Heide became upset that LaReau had sublet the premises to Costa and contended that the subletting was only to have been done through the aid and assistance of another rental management firm know as Home Finders Real Estate Brokers. Heide contended that Audrey Lester was the only agent connected with that firm who had the authority to accept tenants or sub-lessees in his absence. Heide, therefore, contended that he was entitled to recoup from Respondent, through its corporate entity, Exclusively Rentals and Management Company, the entire $900.00 in addition to a continued retention of the $900.00 deposit which had been paid by the tenant, LaReau. Although Heide contended that he never used Exclusively to rent or otherwise secure tenants for any of his apartments, he acknowledged that he signed a new lease and accepted Costa as a tenant for the subject property. Heide's other complaint with Respondent is that a check dated November 10, 1977, in the amount of $150.00 and signed by Michael J. Cochran was not honored when presented for payment due to insufficient funds. An examination of that check does not reveal that it was returned by the bank upon which it was drawn or that it was even presented for payment as testified to by Messer. Heide (see Petitioner's Exhibit D). Respondent was approached by owner Heide to act as an agent to secure tenants for his property as vacancies occurred while Respondent was visiting an adjoining rental property through which Respondent's agency represented, the Ocean Gardens Apartment building. Heide also visited Respondent's office building prior to the subject incident (TR. 37 of the June 3, 1981, hearing). Respondent did not sustain any loss of rents due to the subletting of the subject property from LaReau to Costa through the efforts of Respondent and/or Exclusively Rentals and Management. Respondent credibly testified that there were ample monies in the account of Exclusively to pay the $150.00 check drawn by that firm to owner Heide in November of 1977, had it, in fact, been presented for payment. Respondent severed his relations with Exclusively and advised all of the associates of that severance during December of 1977. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Wilmon Ray Stevenson was licensed as a registered building contractor in the state of Florida, holding license numbers RB 0035005 and RB A035005. License number RB 0035005 was issued on an active status qualifying an Individual in March 1987 and is still in effect. License number RB 0035005 replaced license number RR 0035005 issued in December, 1980. License number RB A035005 was issued on an active status qualifying Yankee Construction, Inc. d/b/a Olympic Homes of Citrus County (Olympic) in June 1987 and replacing license number RR A035005 issued in August 1981. In October, 1988 Respondent submitted a change of status application which was not acted upon by Petitioner until February, 1989 when it was deleted. However, Petitioner's file (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, page 2) indicates the license was in effect only until October, 1988. The Marion County Building Department was advised of this status change in September, 1988. Findings As To Case No. 90-1637 On April 16, 1988, Frank and Margaret Orkwis entered into a contract with Olympic to construct a home for $37,900 which was later modified, increasing the contract price to $39,363.00. On July 26, 1988 a permit for the Orkwis job was obtained from the Marion County Building Department in accordance with the Respondent's letter dated January 25, 1985 authorizing certain individuals to "pull" permits on his license. There was a total of $27,583.20 paid to Olympic on the Orkwis contract which included $27,483.20 paid by draw schedules and $100.00 as a down payment. Olympic stopped work on the Orkwis home sometime around November 27, 1988 and failed to complete the work under the contract. Olympic gave no notice to Orkwis that it intended to terminate the work on the Orkwis job. In fact, Olympic kept putting Mrs. Orkwis off about completing the job until sometime in late January, 1989 or early February, 1989 when she decided to get a permit and complete construction. Olympic terminated the Orkwis job without just cause. The following liens were recorded against the Orkwis property for the failure of Olympic to timely pay for materials and labor furnished to Olympic for the Orkwis's job in accordance with Orkwis contract: (a) Florida A/C Sales and Services, Inc., filed December 13, 1988 and; (b) Florida Forest Products, Inc. filed December 15, 1988. The labor and materials had been furnished between October 24, 1988 and November 22, 1988. Olympic was contacted by Mrs. Orkwis concerning the liens, with no response. However there was insufficient evidence to establish that the liens had not been removed from the property, by payment or bond, within 30 days after the date of such liens. Sometime in early 1989, Mrs. Orkwis obtained a permit and she and her husband completed the home. Although Mr. Orkwis had obtained an estimate of $27,050.00 from a contractor to complete the home, she and her husband invested 466.5 hours of their time and $10,340.00 for materials to complete the home. In addition to the material, a reasonable amount for labor to complete the home would be $10,000.00. Findings As To Case No. 90-1889 John J. and Josephine Grillo and Madeline Chapman entered into a contract with Olympic for construction of a home on June 11, 1987. A permit was obtained for the Grillo/Chapman home under Respondent's license. The Grillo/Chapman home was completed and a certificate of occupancy issued January 13, 1989. Olympic was paid in full under the contract. Before the expiration of the one-year warranty under the contract, Olympic was advised of certain problems with the construction which Olympic attempted to correct. It is unclear whether the problems were satisfactorily corrected by Olympic but it appears that the only complaint not resolved was a water stain on the carpet that was the result of water seeping in under a door. Respondent was not aware of these problems until after the expiration of the one-year warranty and upon learning of the problems, commented that he was not obligated since the warranty had expired. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the problems were not corrected in accordance with contract. Findings As To Case No. 90-1890 Veronica McPherson entered into a contract with Olympic on March 1, 1989 to construct a home for the contract price of $36,450.00 which was later modified increasing the contract price to $37,775.00. All permits were obtained under the Respondent's license pursuant to a letter dated January 15, 1985 authorizing certain individuals to "pull" permits under Respondent's license. McPherson paid $26,442.50 to Olympic pursuant to a draw schedule in the contract as the home was being constructed. Additionally, McPherson paid a $100.00 down payment. All work performed by Olympic pursuant to the McPherson contract was prior to November 22, 1988. The exact date of termination of work is uncertain. Olympic notified McPherson that it had terminated work and would not complete construction of the home. The exact date of this notification is uncertain. There is no evidence that notice was not given within 90 after termination of work. Olympic terminated work without just cause. McPherson paid a roofing contractor $998.00 to complete the roof on her unfinished home in order to protect the interior. McPherson was financially unable to complete construction of the home. A reasonable estimate to complete construction of the McPherson home at the time work ceased would be $20,000.00. On December 15, 1988 Florida Forest Products, Inc. recorded a lien on December 15, 1988 against the McPherson property for building materials furnished to the McPherson job on order of Olympic on October 24, 1988 for construction of the home pursuant to the McPherson contract in the amount of $1,450.08. There was insufficient evidence to establish that this lien had not been removed from the McPherson property, by payment or bond, within 30 days after the date of such lien. There were three other claims of liens for labor and materials furnished to the McPherson job on order of Olympic between October 19, 1988 and December 2, 1988 for construction for the home pursuant to the McPherson contract as follows: (a) Florida A/C Sales and Services, Inc. dated December 8, 1988 for $1,059.00; (b) Masons Concrete of Crystal River dated December 14, 1988 for $354.97 and (c) Panning Lumber Company, a Division of Wheeler Consolidated, Inc. for $2,284.13. There is no evidence that any of the above liens were ever recorded against the McPherson property. Likewise, there is no evidence to establish that these liens had not been removed from the McPherson property, by payment or bond, within 30 days after the date of such lien, if in fact they were recorded. General Findings Respondent was advised by Larry Vitt in February, 1988 that Olympic was having financial problems. Respondent never supervised the financial aspects of Olympic. Respondent did not participate in the contract process or supervision of the construction of homes contracted to be built by Olympic. More specifically, he did not participate in the contract process or the supervision of the construction of the Orkwis, McPherson or Grillo/Chapman homes. Respondent's main purpose in being involved with Olympic was to use his license to qualify Olympic and to contract all of Olympic's concrete block work. In March, 1989 Respondent advised the Marion County Building Department that no one was authorized to "pull" permits under his license. However, at no time did Respondent withdraw the permits for the Orkwis and McPherson jobs that had been issued under his license. The record is clear that Respondent did not understand his relationship with Olympic nor did he understand the responsibility he incurred when he used his license to qualify Olympic. However, his inexperience or ignorance in this regard does not relieve him of his responsibility to those whose homes were built or not completely built pursuant to a permit issued under his license.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the demeanor of the witnesses and the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k) and (m), Florida Statutes, and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $2,500.00. It is further Recommended that Counts I and II for the Administrative Complaint in Case Nos. 90-1637, 90-1889, and 90-1890 be Dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1637 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(20, Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Covered in Conclusions of Law. 2.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, and 3. 4.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 16, and 17, respectively. 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20, but modified. 8.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 4, 5, 6, and 8, respectively. 13.-14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, respectively, but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21 through 25. Restatement of testimony; not stated as a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 10 and 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, but modified. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. Covered in Preliminary Statement. 2.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 3, 15, 15, and 16, respectively. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. 10.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. 16.-20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 7, 11, 13 and 14, respectively, but modified. Not material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but modified. Not material. Copies furnished to: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred A. Ohlinger, Esquire P.O. Box 1007 Beverly Hills, FL 32665
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) preliminary award of funding to University Station I, LLC (“University Station”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Findings on Florida Housing and the RFA Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, and promotes public welfare by administering the financing of affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the State of Florida’s housing credit agency within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, Florida Housing is responsible for establishing procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. Florida Housing allocates housing credits and other funding via requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation methods identified in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing initiated the instant competitive solicitation by issuing the RFA on October 15, 2020, and anticipates awarding up to an estimated $88,959,045.00 in State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”)2 financing. The RFA set forth a process by which applications would be scored based, in part, on eligibility items. Only applications satisfying all of the eligibility items were eligible for funding and considered for selection. 2 Marissa Button, the Director of Multifamily Programs at Florida Housing, testified that the SAIL program finances the development of multifamily, affordable rental housing. The Florida Legislature traditionally appropriates money for the SAIL program via the State Housing Trust Fund. Site Control was an eligibility item because Florida Housing wants assurances that applicants selected for funding will be able to actually use the development sites.3 Applicants satisfy the Site Control requirement by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Site Control Certification Form (“the Site Control Form”). In order for the Site Control Form to be considered complete, an applicant had to attach documentation demonstrating that it: (a) was a party to an eligible contract or lease; or (b) owned the property in question. The RFA set forth specific requirements for contracts and leases used for demonstrating site control. For example, a contract had to satisfy all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021. It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant; and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or 3 Ms. Button explained that Site Control “is a component of how the applicant demonstrates its ability to proceed with the proposed development. And essentially it is the – the way that we require them to demonstrate they have control over the proposed development site.” As for why Site Control is important, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing wants “to be assured if the – the applicant is successful in its request for funding, that the – they will be able to actually use the development site.” conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The language quoted above indicates that the RFA was referring to a sales contract when it used the term “contract.” If an applicant used a lease to satisfy the Site Control requirement, then the RFA provided the following: (3) Lease – The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline and the lessee must be the Applicant. The owner of the subject property must be a party to the lease, or a party to one or more intermediate leases, subleases, agreements, or assignments, between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to lease the property for at least 50 years to the lessee. Marissa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that the RFA did not require a lease to have a commencement date. The RFA required that Site Control documentation for leases “include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” Ms. Button provided the following testimony about this requirement: A: Florida Housing includes the requirements for that documentation to – to essentially acknowledge that there are circumstances where there may be an intermediate contract or agreement that would demonstrate one of the criteria for those different types of site control and the requirements that we want to see that -- that chain back to the requirement itself. * * * Q: So Florida Housing considers this term to broadly include all different types of potential contract agreements, et cetera; correct? A: Yes. Q: Could you give me an example of an intermediate contract or agreement? A: Yes. An intermediate contract or agreement may be where – with regard to the [ ] contract, the terms require an owner of the subject property to be a seller of the subject property. And so there may be an applicant that has a contract with the seller of the property. And that seller might not be the actual owner; so there may be an intermediate contract that we need to see between the seller to the buyer and the actual owner of the subject property. Q: And that situation that you just described, that happened in the past few years; correct? A: I can think of one example where that happened, yes. Q: Okay. And in that case Florida Housing agreed that the intermediate agreement was necessary to include with the site documentation; correct? A: Florida Housing reviewed – yes. That – Florida Housing’s position was there was an intermediate agreement necessary because the site control documentation provided did not include the owner of the subject property. As for Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, the RFA provided as follows: Note: [Florida Housing] will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, [Florida Housing] will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. [Florida Housing] has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, [Florida Housing] may rescind the award. When questioned about Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, Ms. Button offered the following testimony: Q: If you look at the next page, Page 48, at the end of Subsection A there’s a note. It says Florida Housing will not review the site control during the scoring process. It will not evaluate the authority or enforceability of such documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: But even though Florida Housing does not review the site documentation during scoring, it will review the documentation during the bid protest; correct? A: Yes as it relates to the RFA requirements. * * * Q: If the documents attached to a site control documentation [do] not meet the RFA criteria, then that site control certification form would be incorrect; right? A: Yes. Q: And the applicant would be found ineligible; correct? A: Yes. The RFA and Ms. Button’s testimony indicate that Florida Housing intended, under most circumstances, to accept the representations set forth in an applicant’s Site Control documentation during the scoring process. In other words, Florida Housing did not go behind the Site Control documentation to verify the representations therein. The terms of the RFA were not challenged. Stipulated Facts Pertaining to Certain Parties Douglas Gardens and Florida Housing agree that Douglas Gardens’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. Quiet Meadows and Florida Housing agree that Quiet Meadows’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. MHP and Florida Housing agree that MHP’s Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA.4 MHP, Quiet Meadows, and Douglas Gardens agree that Fulham Terrace’s application remains eligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows and Florida Housing agree that the Willows Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows agrees that the HTG Astoria Application is eligible for funding via the RFA. 4 MHP, Florida Housing, Quiet Meadows, Douglas Gardens, and Fulham Terrace entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation on March 26, 2021, that was entered into evidence as Fern Grove Exhibit 1. SoMi Parc, Vista, and Florida Housing agree that the SoMi Parc Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. SoMi Parc has accepted an invitation to enter credit underwriting for the same Development in RFA 2020-203 and thus cannot be funding via the RFA. Findings Regarding the Applications of University Station and Vista Florida Housing received 90 applications in response to the RFA. Those applications were processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA. On January 22, 2021, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 17 applicants, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. University Station was one of the 17 successful applicants, and University Station’s Site Control documentation included: (a) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Hollywood, Florida (“the City”), and University Station (“the University Station I Lease”); (b) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD (“the University Station II Lease”); and (c) an Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement assigning University Station II, LTD’s interests in the Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD to University Station.5 The University Station I Lease described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the closing date of Tenant’s construction financing for the development of the Phase I Project (the “Construction Financing”), but in no event later 5 The Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement between University Station and University Station II was a relevant intermediate document for demonstrating Site Control. than June 30, 2022. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this Lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the later of the closing date of Tenant’s construction loan for the development of the Project (the “Construction Loan”) and the termination of the lease of the premises to Barry University, but in no event later than June 30, 2023. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the leased premises are currently improved with an educational facility and adjacent ground parking that is leased to Barry University through November 23, 2021 and the Landlord may enter into an additional one-year extension of the lease to Barry University at Landlord’s sole discretion. Until the Commencement Date, Landlord, or its tenant, shall be solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of the leased premises and any uses on the Leased Premises. University Station’s proposed Development site consists of five Scattered Sites. Barry University currently leases a building and parking spaces located on the Scattered Site described as latitude and longitude coordinates of 26.014703, -80.148572 in Question 5.d.2 of the University Station Application. This is the site described in the University Station II Lease. The City and Barry University, Inc., are the parties to the Barry University Lease (“the Barry University Lease”). The Barry University Lease was executed on May 23, 2011, with a term of 10 and one-half years, which would expire on approximately November 23, 2021. With regard to its term, the Barry University Lease states that “[t]he term of this lease shall be for ten and one-half (10 ½) years commencing upon the execution of this lease. The parties will have the mutual option to renew this lease subject to City Commission and the Lessee’s Board of Directors approval.” A copy of the Barry University Lease was not included in University Station’s application. In contrast to the statement in the University Station II Lease that the Barry University Lease could be extended by “an additional one-year extension” at the City’s “sole discretion,” the Barry University Lease simply says that the parties have a “mutual option to renew” with no mention of a particular term. Ms. Button provided the following testimony regarding the Barry University Lease: Q: And you are aware that University Station did not submit the Barry University lease as part of its site control documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: And does the existence of that Barry University lease change your position on whether University Station met the requirements in the RFA for a lease? A: No. Q: And why not? A: Because the documents submitted with the application meet the terms of the RFA for a lease site control documentation. Q: Did the existence of the Barry University lease impact whether or not the University Station site control documentation met the requirements for a lease? A: No. Q: As Florida Housing’s corporate representative, what is your position regarding University Station’s application? A: It is eligible for funding. Vista also applied for funding from the RFA. Florida Housing determined that Vista was eligible for funding, but Florida Housing did not preliminarily select Vista for funding. If University Station is deemed ineligible for funding, then Vista will be selected for funding subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. Ultimate Findings Vista has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that Florida Housing’s proposed award to University Station was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Also, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that: (a) Florida Housing’s proposed action is not contrary to the RFA’s terms; and that (b) University Station will have control over the site in question. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the University Station Lease I Lease, the University Stations II Lease, and the assignment of University Station II’s interest to University Station collectively satisfied the RFA’s requirements because: (a) there is unexpired term of at least 50 years after the application deadline; (b) University Station, i.e., the lessee, was the applicant for funding; and (c) the City, as the owner of the subject property, was a party to the lease. Upon considering Florida Housing’s preliminary approval of University Station’s application without the benefit of reviewing the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Florida Housing was not clearly erroneous when it determined that the Barry University Lease was not a relevant intermediate lease within the meaning of the RFA. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II requires the lease to begin no later than June 30, 2023. Also, the City and University Station II acknowledge that Barry University’s Lease runs through November 23, 2021, and they agree that the City may extend Barry University’s lease by “an additional one-year.” Accordingly, the Barry University Lease will end prior to June 30, 2023, and University Station will have site control no later than that date. In other words, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. The analysis set forth above does not change if one considers the Barry University Lease.6 Even though the Barry University Lease does not limit a renewal to one year, the lease cannot be renewed without the City’s assent, and the City agreed in the University Station II Lease that any renewal would not exceed one year. Therefore, even if one considers the terms of the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that it is a relevant intermediate document that was required to be included with University Station’s application. Again, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. 6 As will be explained in more detail in the Conclusions of Law below, “[n]ew evidence cannot be offered to amend or supplement a party’s response or application. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. However, new evidence may be offered in a competitive protest proceeding to prove that there was an error in another party’s application. Intercontinental Props., supra.” Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 14-1361BID, ¶ 116 (Fla. DOAH June 10, 2014; Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp. June 13, 2014).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: awarding funding to University Station I, LLC, via Request for Application 2020-205 subject to credit underwriting; and (b) finding that the applications submitted by Douglas Gardens IV, Ltd., MHP FL VIII, LLLP, Quiet Meadows, Ltd, RST The Willows, LP, and Residences at SoMi Parc, LLC are ineligible for funding via Request for Application 2020-205. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marc Ito, Esquire Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2021. Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Hall, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Wharton, Esquire Dean Mead and Dunbar Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Ryan Russell, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Morris A. Shashoua is a registered professional engineer and was so registered at all times here relevant. On or about June 1979 a set of plans were submitted to the Palm Beach County Planning Department for approval. These plans had part of the title block cut out which would have shown the name of the architect, and Respondent's stamp and signature was placed alongside this cutout block. The plans aroused suspicion in the Planning Department and upon checking their files it was discovered that the plans containing Respondent's certification were identical to plans previously submitted which had been prepared and certified by Gene C. Monarco, a registered Florida architect. In both cases, Darl Homes, Inc. was the builder seeking permits for construction of the residences. Monarco was unaware of and had not authorized Respondent to certify the plans for any residence to be built by Darl Homes, Inc. The Planning Department refused to issue the permit for these plans until they were certified by Monarco. Respondent acknowledged placing his seal on the plans knowing they had been prepared by Monarco, but claimed he was unaware of any violation of law in so doing. The copy of the plans had been brought to Respondent by an employee of Darl Homes, Inc., for whom the original plans had been prepared by Monarco, with the plea that Respondent place his seal on the plans to meet the builder's deadline which the architect could not accommodate. When he placed his name and seal on the plans, Respondent believed the architect's seal would be placed on the plans before the construction was begun and the architect would receive the compensation due him.
The Issue At the commencement of formal hearing, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the pending Administrative Complaint, and the formal hearing proceeded upon Paragraphs 1-4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint. The Department of Professional Regulation prosecuted Respondent for one count of the following enumerated alleged violations: Sections 489.129(1)(d), willful or deliberate disregard of building codes; (j), failure in any respect to comply with the Act; (m), fraud, deceit, or gross negligence; and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, all of which arise out of a single incident.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Leonardo Sanchez, was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified general contractor holding license numbers CG C004810 and CG CA04810. Robert G. Wolf, Investigator Specialist II with Petitioner, investigated a complaint made by Mirta Garcia against a contractor named Leonardo Sanchez. Ms. Garcia told him she had entered into a contract with a Mr. Sanchez; that she had paid Sanchez a sum of money for an addition to her house; that Sanchez never supplied her a written contract; and that Sanchez pulled a permit for the work and never completed it. Ms. Garcia did not appear and testify at formal hearing and her representations to Mr. Wolf are mere hearsay. They do, however, supplement or explain other competent proof. Mr. Wolf spoke with a Mr. Sanchez who, in Mr. Wolf's words "acknowledged the contractual relationship with the Garcias." (TR-15) Mr. Wolf visited Ms. Garcia's home and determined that a job of construction had been begun there but that interior work had yet to be completed. John Delaney is Assistant Chief Code Enforcement Officer for the Board of Rules and Appeals for the Building and Zoning Department, Dade County. He also visited the Garcia home and on August 18, 1987 it was approximately 80 per cent complete, in his opinion. He presented as a certified business record, a building permit application for an owner "Mirta Garcia" by "Caribean Window" [sic] applied for in the name of Leonardo Sanchez, dated "accepted 12/9/85," and carrying the contractor number CGC004810 and the social security number 109-42- 4859 (P-2). The contractor number and social security number on the application match Respondent's contractor's license and social security number. "Caribbean Window" is one of the entities for which Respondent is the registered qualifying agent. Dade County Ordinance 57-22 establishes that the South Florida Building Code was in effect in Dade County at all times material to this Administrative Complaint. Section 305.2(a) of the South Florida Building Code establishes a mandatory duty for the permit holder to obtain a reinforcing inspection. Mr. Delaney also presented a certified computer printout of a Building Inspection log or record (P-3) showing that no one, including Respondent, had obtained the required reinforcing inspection related to the Garcia job as of the date of the computer inquiry. The computer printout reflects the dates of other inspections and the date and number of the application to which it pertains; it does not clarify when Mr. Delaney made his computer inquiry but a reasonable inference is that it was made the date of his visit to the Garcia home, August 18, 1987. No reason was presented to excuse Respondent as permit holder from obtaining the appropriate inspection.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), assessing an administrative fine therefor of $250.00, and dismissing the remaining charges. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3445 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's PFOF 1-7 are accepted as modified to reflect the evidence of record. Respondent's PFOF Respondent submitted no proposals. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 G. W. Harrell, Esquire, and Donald Osterhouse, Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Leonardo Sanchez 12700 Southwest 37 Street Miami, Florida 33175 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
