Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hodges J. Jefferson, is a registered general contractor having been issued License No. CGC004463. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure status of contractors in the State of Florida, and with enforcing the requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pertaining to licensing and regulation of the practices of general contractors in Florida. On or about March 3, 1979, Respondent, doing business as H. J. Jefferson Brothers Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Gladston Kemp to construct a room addition on his residence for a total sum of $14,900. The construction loan by which Mr. Kemp was to finance the addition was ultimately approved sometime in April 1979. The Respondent commenced work on the property after the first check was paid him by Mr. Kemp on May 3, 1979. The Respondent worked for two to three days digging the foundation, constructing the foundation and the brick wall involved and then stopped work for a period of four to five weeks. He then came back and worked on the addition, finishing construction of the foundation, the block walls, the tie beam and the bedroom portion of the roof up to the first layer of tar paper on one side of the addition. The other side of the addition to Mr. Kemp's house was left at that point with the roof not being constructed at all. Up to July 20, 1979, Mr. Kemp had paid the Respondent a total of $7,500, inasmuch as the contract called for payments in one-third increments of the total contract price at various stages of construction. At that point the Respondent left the job after being paid $7,500 of the total price. By letter of July 24, 1979, the Respondent demanded an additional $2,900 which would complete approximately the second one-third of the total contract price and on the following day, July 25, Mr. Kemp paid the Respondent the $2,900. Thus, at that point, July 25, 1979, Mr. Kemp had paid the Respondent a total of $10,400. The Respondent did not come back and continue construction of the project. Mr. Kemp tried repeatedly to contact the Respondent, to no avail. After numerous efforts, he contacted him by telephone and the Respondent assured him that he would come by and send "his man" out to commence work, but no one ever appeared to continue the construction. Finally, in October, 1979, Mr. Kemp contacted the Respondent and he once again assured Mr. Kemp that he would come back to finish the job. Additionally, sometime after July 25, 1979, the Respondent demanded $375 from Mr. Kemp to pay for the architectural plans drafted by Edna Mingo, the architect who drafted the plans for the job in January, 1979. Mr. Kemp had already paid the $375 to Edna Mingo in January of 1979. In any event, he relented and gave the Respondent the additional $375 in order to induce him to come back and finish the job. Finally, in the latter part of October 1979, the Respondent returned to the job and began putting rafters on the bedroom portion of the addition. He then asked Mr. Kemp to advance him some more money, over and above the $10,775 Mr. Kemp had already paid him. The roof on one-half of the addition was still not finished, but Mr. Kemp gave the Respondent another $1,700 by check dated November 16, 1979. Approximately two weeks thereafter Mr. Kemp gave the Respondent another $500 in cash. Shortly before Thanksgiving 1979, the Respondent came to the project and asked Mr. Kemp to advance him some more money which Mr. Kemp refused to do. Several days later Mr. Kemp received a "demand letter" from the Respondent asking for more money and reminding him of his obligation to honor the contract. At that point Mr. Kemp contacted the Respondent and met with him at the job site, whereupon Mr. Kemp displayed to him all the checks he had already paid him, informing him of the total amount of money paid and that he did not feel that he owed him any more money. He demanded that the Respondent complete his job. The Respondent, in turn, sent Mr. Kemp a letter on November 21,1979, informing him that he would complete the job if Mr. Kemp gave him the last one- third of the contract price. At that point Mr. Kemp had already given the Respondent $12,975, so, less than one-third of the contract price was still outstanding. The Respondent assured Mr. Kemp in that letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 17, in evidence) that he would complete the job by December 15, 1979. Mr. Kemp gave the Respondent another $2,100 making a total of $15,075 paid to the Respondent (the contract price being $14,900). Respondent did not complete the job in December 1979 and indeed never completed it. He went to Mr. Kemp's house "one night in December" and discussed the job with Mrs. Kemp's wife and assured her that he was going to try and get the job "out of the way" by January. The Respondent never came back to continue working on the job and never communicated with the Kemps after December 1979, except for a fist fight between Mr. Kemp and the Respondent engendered by the bitterness resulting form this dispute which occurred in July 1980. Mr. Kemp and his wife, however, went to the Respondent's home in January 1980 to ask him when he would complete the job. He became abusive and would not give them a copy of the plans so that the Kemps had to get a duplicate copy from the architect so Mr. Kemp could then obtain the appropriate inspections from the building department. There were no extra additions to the contract and the only work ever required of the Respondent was that described on the building plans. The fees fro the electrical, plumbing, and building permits were paid by Mr. Kemp. At the time the Respondent left the job it was approximately 55 percent complete. The roof was incomplete. Mr. Kemp had to do the "rough plumbing," the "finish plumbing," install a half bath, a utility room and a full bath in the bedroom. Mr. Kemp also had to "rough in" the electrical wiring, that is, run the electrical service wiring inside the house for the finish electrical work. Mr. Kemp also had to install drywall and plaster inside and outside the house and completely "finish out" the addition to his home. He supplied some of the labor for this himself and hired various subcontractors to do other portions of the work such that he ultimately spent approximately $9,000 in excess of the amount paid Respondent in order to finish the job in accordance with the building plans. Completion of the work thus cost the Kemps an additional $9.000 above the $15,075 already paid the Respondent, with the use of the monies paid Respondent for the last 45 percent of the work required of him by the contract being unexplained, except for the Respondent's general statement that some of that money was attributable to unaccounted for "overhead" costs. The Respondent left the job in terms of performing any work in October 1979, promised to finish it in December and later in January 1980, and never returned to finish the job or perform any more work such that sometime in the summer of 1980 the Kemps ultimately finished the job through their own labors and that of various subcontractors and materialmen they were forced to hire and pay.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the contractor's license of Hodges J. Jefferson be suspended for a period of 5 years, provided however, that if he makes full restitution to the Kemps of all monies they expended for labor, materials and permits to complete the work he was contractually obligated to complete within one year from a Final Order herein that that suspension should be terminated and his license reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 14th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Hodges J. Jefferson 2250 Northwest 194th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Martin Gold is now, and has been since July, 1986, licensed by Petitioner as a Registered Specialty Contractor authorized to do painting and waterproofing work in Dade County. He holds license number RX 0051718, which expires June 30, 1989. Since receiving his license he has been disciplined twice by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Gold is the President of Team Leisure Corp., a construction company, and is also its "qualifying agent." On August 14, 1986, Team Leisure Corp. entered into a written contract with Terry Dudley and his wife, Patricia, in which it agreed, for $12,000, to build a two-room, 27-foot by 13- foot addition to the Dudley home located at 15510 Leisure Drive in Dade County and to install new windows in the existing structure. According to the terms of the agreement, Team Leisure was to do "no painting." In his capacity as President of Team Leisure Corp., Gold hired William Sernaker to directly oversee the completion of the construction work specified in the Dudley contract. At the time, Sernaker was licensed as a general contractor in Dade County. As part of his arrangement with Gold, Sernaker assumed responsibility for ensuring that all work permits and inspections necessary to complete the Dudley project were obtained. On September 4, 1986, Sernaker obtained a building permit for the Dudley project. Thereafter, work on the project commenced. The foundation for the addition was laid and, on September 10, 1989, it passed the inspection of James Tucker, a Dade County building inspector. Fifteen days later, Tucker conducted a tie beam inspection. This phase of the project also received his formal approval. Sernaker obtained a roofing permit on October 14, 1986. The exterior of the roof was inspected by Russell Bergsma, another Dade County building inspector, on October 21, 1986. It too passed inspection. An electrical permit was obtained for the Dudley project on November 17, 1986, by Robins Electric, a subcontractor. When the electrical work was initially inspected by Grant Morse, another Dade County building inspector, it was rejected because there were a "few outlets missing." The record is unclear as to the results of any subsequent electrical inspections. Morse also conducted an inspection of the framing work done on the Dudley project. He did so on or around November 21, 1986. In his view, the framing was "not to code." Accordingly, he left a "tag" at the job site on which he gave the following written explanation for his rejection of the framing work: All window bucks must be tight with caulking, no gaps. When the stucco meets the window frame, it should be set back at approximately a 45-degree angle at a width of one quarter to provide a groove to be filled with caulking. Continuous back bed of caulking must be maintained. A follow-up inspection of the framing work was performed by Bergsma on December 1, 1986. In Bergsma's opinion, while some corrections had been made, deficiencies remained. He therefore issued another rejection. A third framing inspection was conducted on December 3, 1986. Tucker was the inspector who performed this inspection. He approved the work that had been done. Prior to this inspection, Gold had paid another contractor $600 to "redo" the framing. This additional expense was not passed on to the Dudleys. Morse attempted to conduct a final building inspection on December 22, 1989. He was unable to do so, however, because "[n]o one was home." From the outset, Gold kept abreast of the progress that was being made on the Dudley project by communicating with Sernaker. He also visited the job site on at least a weekly basis. Gold also heard from the Dudleys concerning the status of the project. The Dudleys closely monitored the work of Sernaker and his crew. If the work was not done to their satisfaction, they expressed their disapproval to Sernaker and, if he did not rectify the matter, they complained to Gold over the telephone. The following were among the complaints made by the Dudleys: the foundation was not level; the roof did not contain any fiberglass material; the window frames did not fit properly; the wood used for the open beam ceilings had cracks in it and was unsightly; the walls in the den were not level and had cracks in them; the linoleum on the Dudleys' screened-in porch was ripped by workers putting up a wall; the outside stucco was cracking and peeling; and trash was left on the property. An effort was made to address the Dudleys' concerns. For instance, in response to the Dudleys' complaints, a "thin cap" was placed over the foundation to make it level. The roof was redone with fiberglass material. The Dudleys were reimbursed for the linoleum they needed to replace on their porch. A contractor was hired to correct the framing problem. Nonetheless, the Dudleys became increasingly dissatisfied with Team Leisure Corp.. Sometime shortly before January 6, 1987, they became so dissatisfied that they ordered Sernaker and his crew off their property and refused to make any additional payments. Following this incident, Gold met with the Dudleys and attempted to mollify them. This was his first face-to-face meeting with them. He offered to send another contractor to the Dudleys' home to perform the work the Dudleys believed needed to be done to satisfactorily complete the project. The Dudleys accepted this offer. On January 6, 1987, Gold sent the Dudleys a letter which read as follows: As per our mutual agreement, these are the items you requested be taken care of. Once taken care of, you agree to sign completion certificate so we can be funded. COMPLETED (please check upon satisfaction) 1.) Touch up outside windows. 2.) Windows to be locked in. 3.) Walls in den to be taken down and leveled out. 4.) Frame around closet door. 5.) Fix two windows; replace concrete in doors and windows. 6.) Clean up. 7.) Replace vinyl, in rear den. 8.) $100.00 dollars to Mrs. Dudley, for clean-up. 9.) 10 year guarantee- roof and release of lien [sic]. 10.) Concrete over build. 11.) Crack under window sill. 12.) Nail in door frame. 13.) Gaps in drywall bedroom. 14.) Stucco cracking outside. 15.) Electrical inspection. (not to be Mike Charles.) Accepted and Approved: x x After receiving this letter, Mr. Dudley checked all but items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 on the letter's "completion certificate." Neither he nor his wife, however, signed this "completion certificate." Although the cracks in the outside stucco had been repaired at the time Dudley checked item 14, the stucco subsequently started cracking again. A final building inspection of the Dudley project was conducted by Tucker on January 13, 1989. The project was "turned down" by Inspector Tucker because it was unpainted. Under their contractual agreement, the Dudleys, not Team Leisure Corp., were responsible for the painting of the project. The painting was not done because the Dudleys noticed cracks reappearing in the outside stucco. On or around March 4, 1987, Mr. Dudley telephoned Inspector Bergsma and asked him to conduct an informal field inspection of the project. Bergsma complied with Dudley's request. When he arrived at the Dudley home, Dudley showed him a "gap on the rear of the house ... where the two roofs are at different levels and come together." Bergsma told Dudley that "[i]t didn't belong there" and that it would have to be eliminated if the structure was to pass a final building inspection. As of the date of the hearing, the structure had not passed such an inspection. Team Leisure Corp. received $10,200 for the work done in connection with the Dudley project. The remaining $1,800 of the $12,000 that the Dudleys were to pay pursuant to the contract was held in escrow by a bank. Ultimately, this $1,800, along with approximately an additional $500 from Team Leisure Corp., was given to the Dudleys as part of a settlement between them and Team Leisure Corp.. The money was to be used by the Dudleys to pay another contractor to complete the project to their satisfaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of contracting outside the scope of his license in violation of Section 489.129(1) (j) , Florida Statutes; (2) imposing a $750 administrative fine upon Respondent for said violation, and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent set forth in the instant administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 323399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Carlos Garcia, Esquire 8603 Dixie Highway Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33143 =================================================================
The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, seeks to revoke the registered contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, Respondent, based on allegations, which will be set forth in detail hereafter, that he engaged in conduct violative of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent aided or abetted and/or knowingly combined or conspired with Mr. Howard North, an uncertified or unregistered contractor, to evade the provisions of Chapter 468.112(2)(b), and (c), Florida Statutes, by allowing North to use his certificate of registration without having any active participation in the operations, management, or control of North's operations. Based on the testimony adduced during the hearing and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor who holds license no. CGC007016, which is current and active. On or about July 25, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Csobor entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard North for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for a total price of $35,990. Neither Mr. or Mrs. North are certified or registered contractors in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #2). Respondent applied for and was issued a permit by the Martin County Building Department to construct a residence for the Csobors at the same address stipulated in the contract between the Csobors and the Norths, i.e., Northwest 16th Street, Palm Lake Park, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1). Howard North, a licensed masonry contractor for approximately nine (9) years was contacted by the Csobors through a sales representative from a local real estate firm. It appears from the evidence that North had previously constructed a "spec" house which the local realtor had sold and thus put the Csobors in contact with Mr. North when they were shown the "spec" house built by North. Evidence reveals that North contacted Borovina who agreed to pull the permit "if he could get some work from the job and could supervise the project". Having reached an agreement on this point, North purchased the lot to build the home for the Csobors and he orally contracted with the Respondent to, among other things, pull the permit, supervise construction, layout the home and do trim and carpentry work. North paid Respondent approximately $200 to layout the home for the Csobors. By the time that North had poured the slab and erected the subfloor, the Csobors became dissatisfied with his (North's) work and demanded that he leave the project. According to North, Respondent checked the progress of construction periodically. Prior to this hearing, the Csobors had never dealt with Respondent in any manner whatsoever. According to Csobor, North held himself out as a reputable building contractor. A contractor is defined in relevant part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. . . . real estate for others. . . Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephen J. Borovina 2347 Southeast Monroe Street Stuart, Florida 33494 J. Hoskinson, Jr. Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, 2347 S. E. Monroe Street, Stuart, Florida 33494, Respondent. / This cause came before the FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD at its regular meeting on February 10, 1978. Respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did not appear The FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD on February 10, 1978, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of STEPHEN J. BOROVINA. It is therefore, ORDERED that the certification of respondent STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, Number CG C007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has 30 days after the date of this final order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. DATED this 13th day of February, 1978. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President ================================================================= SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, Respondent/Appellant, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner/Appellee. / This cause came before the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at its regular meeting on August 3, 1979. The respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did appear. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, on August 3, 1979, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded, voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016. On February 13, 1978, the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016, was revoked by order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On April 25, 1979, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, in Case Number: 78-527, reversed the final order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That Court remanded the above captioned case to the Board to further consider the matter and enter such order as it may be advised in conformity with Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977). In accordance with the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, the Board has reconsidered the above captioned matter and finds as follows: The Board rejects the recommended order as the agency's final order. The Board adopts the first paragraph of the hearing officer's finding of fact. The Board, however, rejects the findings of fact found in the second paragraph of the hearing officer's findings. The second paragraph states as follows: A contractor is defined in relevent(sic) part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. real estate for others...Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. The findings of fact found in the above-quoted paragraph were not based upon competent substantial evidence. The competent substantial evidence supports a finding that the respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, did not supervise the project and that Borovina evaded the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The following evidence supports the Board's position: There was no written agreement entered into between Howard North and the respondent which indicated that the respondent was to supervise the construction of the Csobors' house (T- 14); It was conceded at the hearing that the only subcontractors or draftmen who worked on the Csobors' house were contracted solely by Howard North and they had no contract whatsoever with the respondent (T-19, 25); The respondent never advised or informed Mr. and Mrs. Csobor that he was the contractor on the job. (T-51); At all times during the act of construction of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Csobor were under the impression that Howard North was the contractor (T-44-51). It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, Number CG 0007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) days after the date of the Final Order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. Dated this 3rd day of August, 1979. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building contractors pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a Florida State Certified Building Contractor who holds license number CBC053702. On December 9, 2002, Mack Hayes entered into a contract with "McKay Engineering/Construction" to build an addition to the Hayes residence located at 3011 East Deleuil Avenue in Tampa, Florida. Although the contract refers to McKay Engineering/Construction rather than McKay Engineering Services, Inc., subsequent change orders to the contract show the Respondent's license number in the letterhead. In correspondence to the Petitioner, the Respondent also acknowledged that he was the contractor on the Hayes project. The Hayes contract did not contain a statement explaining the consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, stated that Mr. Hayes remains eligible for assistance from the Fund. The original contract price for the construction was $54,700. Change orders created an adjusted price of $57,450. During the course of the construction, Mr. Hayes made four payments to the Respondent totaling $49,000. Not long after the construction commenced in January 2003, Mr. Hayes and his wife became frustrated with the slow pace of the construction. Mr. Hayes originally understood that the work would take about 90 days. Instead, the construction remained uncompleted after nine months. In July 2003, the pace of work on the Hayes' addition slowed substantially and in October, the Respondent ceased work altogether. The Respondent ceased work on the project despite the fact that he had not been fired or otherwise given a reason to cease work. In order to facilitate progress on the construction, Mr. Hayes paid the air conditioning subcontractor $1,836, the electrical subcontractor $1,000, and the stucco subcontractor $800, even though it was the Respondent's responsibility under the parties' contract to pay the subcontractors. The Respondent's construction of the new roof of the residence was of particular concern to Mr. Hayes. The tie-in of new roof framing with the existing roof was misaligned and otherwise improperly installed which caused the new roof to sag. The records of the City of Tampa indicate that the Respondent did not obtain a permit from the City for the roofing work at the Hayes residence. In an attempt to repair the roof, large holes were cut in the ceiling to gain access for cutting some of the rafters. The holes in the ceiling were not repaired by the Respondent. The plywood and other wood used on the unfinished eaves was left exposed to weather for months, which has resulted in water damage to the wood that will necessitate that it be replaced. Mr. Hayes obtained cost estimates from two other contractors to repair the roof, gables, and eaves installed by the Respondent. One estimate was $17,490 (including materials) and the other estimate was $15,550 (without materials). Numerous aspects of the construction project were never started or were started and then abandoned, including the gables and eaves, the door trim and hardware, internal electrical box, attic access, plumbing, and front trim. Mack Hayes paid $2,500 to Ezekial Bain and $2,500 to Drains, Etc. to finish some of this work after the Respondent abandoned the project. Taking into account the adjusted contract price of the construction, the amount paid to the Respondent by Mr. Hayes, the direct costs paid to subcontractors by Mr. Hayes, and the reasonable estimated costs for repair of the roof, gables, and eaves, the total financial damages that the Respondent caused to Mr. Hayes is $17,676. The Petitioner did not present expert testimony regarding the competency of the Respondent as a building contractor. Without such testimony, the record evidence is not sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the problems associated with this particular project were due to incompetence. The problems could have been caused solely by the Respondent's mismanagement and misconduct. The Petitioner incurred investigative costs of $817.66 for the investigation and prosecution of this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring: that the Respondent pay financial restitution to the Hayes of $17,676; that the Respondent obtain seven hours of continuing education in the area of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, in addition to the hours required for renewal of the Respondent's certification; that the Respondent's license be suspended for two years; and that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner for its investigative costs of $817.66. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Elzweig, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Curt L. McKay 9726 Timmons Loop Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (g)3., (j), (o) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Spencer holds a current, active Florida State Certified Building Contractor License, having been issued license number CBC 1252039. He is certified with the Department as doing business as KCLS Spencer, Inc. (KCLS), and is the primary qualifying agent thereof. Mr. Spencer submitted a Proposal, bearing the letterhead of KCLS and dated September, 14, 2004, to Jesse J. Ross, Sr. (Mr. Ross), which pertained to the exterior remodeling of Mr. Ross' jewelry store located at 6290 North Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Initially, the Proposal put the cost for the remodeling at $48,762.86. After some negotiating, the Proposal that ultimately formed the basis of their contract set the cost at $45,000.00 and relieved Mr. Spencer of the obligation of constructing walkways. The Proposal's explicit terms provide: As per specifications and blueprints pricing is as follows; labor and material to renovate existing exterior building. Prices to include all demolition of all exist [sic] structures, installation of siding, columns, dormers, cupolas, two (2) French doors, windows, front gutters and down spouts, electrical, and final painting. Notes: Signs by owner. Paint colors by owner. Power and water supplied by owner. Color of pre-painted metal roof determined by owner. Material storage space to be provided by owner. Quotes good for 10 days (after 10 days, please reconfirm material pricing). 20% deposit $9752.57 due to start project, invoicing to [sic] made weekly per actual costs. Essentially, much of the exterior remodeling to be performed is simply stated as being based on the specifications and blueprints, which Mr. Ross provided to Mr. Spencer. These specifications and blueprints have not been received in evidence, but there appears to be no dispute among the parties regarding the scope of the work. The terms of payment were for an initial 20 percent deposit of $9,752.57, with weekly invoices to follow based on actual, ongoing costs. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Ross' lender, Coastal Bank, drafted a loan check for $9,752.57 made payable to KCLS. Sometime shortly thereafter, KCLS began the work of remodeling the exterior of Mr. Ross' store. As work progressed, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with an invoice, dated November 11, 2004, requesting payment for costs incurred. Despite listing on the invoice an "off set balance" of $2,515.32 that applied costs to date against the initial deposit, the total amount due was nevertheless listed as $12,268.04. On November 23, 2004, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $12,268.04 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. Later, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with another invoice, dated December 23, 2004, requesting payment for further costs incurred. The total amount due was $8,475.24. By check dated that same day, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $8,475.24 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. At this time, Mr. Ross received assurance from Mr. Spencer that no further money would be due, until the work was entirely completed. Sometime between Christmas 2004 and New Year's 2005, Mr. Spencer returned again to Mr. Ross' store and requested from him an additional $3,000.00. At this point, Mr. Ross refused, because of Mr. Spencer's earlier assurance that no further ongoing payments would be demanded and because of the lack of any work performed since the last payment. Mr. Spencer insisted that he had all of the necessary materials in his warehouse and that he would be back on the Monday following the New Year's holiday to work on the store. He never returned and could not be contacted by Mr. Ross. As the storefront remained in disrepair, Mr. Ross was compelled to contract with other parties to complete the work. Sunland General Contractors, Inc. (Sunland); Baker Roofing (Baker); and D.A.B. Painting, Inc. (DAB), completed the work that Mr. Spencer had previously been contracted with to perform. According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, they based their work upon the same specifications and blueprints that Mr. Ross had previously provided to Mr. Spencer. Sunland, except for the roofing and painting, performed what work that remained. Based on a payment history dated December 16, 2005, the total cost of Sunland's work for Mr. Ross was $23,770.00. However, this cost includes $3,990.00 for walkway decking, which Mr. Ross and Mr. Spencer, in their previous negotiations, had agreed would not be part of their final agreement. As such, the relevant cost in the instant case for Sunland's work is $19,780.00. According to a Baker invoice, dated November 10, 2005, the cost to Mr. Ross for the new roof was $14,935.00. According to a letter from DAB, dated April 23, 2005, Mr. Ross paid $6,500.00 for the painting of his store. In sum, the relevant costs to Mr. Ross for this subsequent work total $41,215.00. Sometime in October of 2005, Mr. Ross provided Mr. Frank A. Wisniski (Mr. Wisniski), a general contractor and owner of Sunland, with a set of blueprints and asked him to takeover the job that Mr. Spencer had not completed. Mr. Wisniski further testified on the condition of the building, as Mr. Spencer had left it. According to his testimony, some of the siding was not nailed properly, and the columns in the front of the store were not well secured, a potentially hazardous situation. Overall, in his opinion, he felt that Mr. Spencer had completed approximately 25 percent of the total scope of the job. Mr. Robert T. Shindo (Mr. Shindo) is an investigator for the Department. He responded to Mr. Ross' complaint to the Department regarding Mr. Spencer's work on the store. He found, "basically, a building that was not in repair." Some siding work had been done on the north face of the building, as well as some column work. However, the columns appeared damaged or incomplete, and the siding appeared incomplete as well. Besides the siding and columns, Mr. Shindo testified that "[t]here did not appear to be any other work." Overall, Mr. Shindo had familiarized himself with the Proposal and estimated that between ten and 15 percent of the job appeared to be complete. Mr. Michael McCaughin (Mr. McCaughin) is employed at the Building Code Division of Brevard County and is the chief building official for the county. Mr. McCaughin concluded that based on the work specified in the Proposal of Mr. Spencer, the only item which would not have required permitting is the gutters. Mr. McCaughin personally searched the county permit database, and no permits were ever pulled by Mr. Spencer for the remodeling of Mr. Ross' store. Petitioner's Exhibit 14, a printout of the permits that have been pulled for Mr. Ross' store, confirms Mr. McCaughin's testimony. Moreover, Mr. McCaughin "performed a search of Mr. Spencer under his name, under his state license number, and also under the company name, KCLS and, could not find any record of any permits being pulled, nor was he registered with Brevard County contractor licensing." Mr. Spencer, in testifying in his own behalf, mainly confirmed the testimony of the other witnesses and the other facts in evidence. Among other things, he confirmed that he and Mr. Ross had an agreement for KCLS to remodel the exterior of the store and that the agreement was based on the Proposal he had submitted to Mr. Ross. He agreed that he received the payments that Mr. Ross testified to having paid and testified that he never pulled the permits for the job, because he "[j]ust didn't take the time to do it." Mr. Spencer's recollection of his final conversation with Mr. Ross was substantially the same as Mr. Ross' testimony, with Mr. Spencer testifying that he had told Mr. Ross he would be back to work on the job and that there was an understanding that final payment would be made at the end of the project. He goes on to testify that he did actually go back after this final conversation to finish up the siding on the south side of the store and that the siding was completed. This last testimony is not credible. In Mr. Spencer's defense, some of the work was farmed out to subcontractors, and they were paid in full. He then testified that he was planning on continuing the work but that he was waiting on a roofer. While he was waiting for the roofer, he testified that there was some dispute between himself and Mr. Ross regarding a ring he had received from Mr. Ross. He testified that the ring fell apart and that the dispute ended their working relationship. But for "$8200 - Ring" being handwritten on the Proposal alongside the other payments made by Mr. Ross, no mention of this ring was made by the Petitioner. Presumably, this ring was given as in-kind payment to Mr. Spencer, but without anything more to go on, the insufficiency of the relevant evidence precludes any recognition of the ring as payment. Therefore, the three previously described checks, furnished by Mr. Ross and made payable to Mr. Spencer or KCLS, are found to represent the entirety of the consideration furnished. To refresh, these checks are dated October 25, 2004; November 23, 2004; and December 23, 2004, and amount to $9,752.57; $12,268.04; and $8,475.24, respectively. In sum, they total $30,495.85. Mr. Spencer also testified about the installation of French doors at Mr. Ross' store. Mr. Ross earlier testified that he had refused delivery of two French doors, when a subcontractor arrived to install them, because they were not the style, size or number he desired. He further testified that Mr. Spencer was aware that he desired six doors with plastic slats (not two as listed in the Proposal), because he had directed Mr. Spencer to examine the doors of a nearby storefront, whose style he wished to replicate. Mr. Spencer was questioned about these doors by opposing counsel. Opposing counsel asked, "Were the French doors ever installed into the building?" Mr. Spencer responded, "Not that I know of, by Bill, no." Several questions later, opposing counsel asked, "Okay. My point is, the doors were never installed in the project; is that your understanding?" Mr. Spencer responded, "My understanding from Bill was that, yes, they were installed." On this issue, Mr. Spencer could only speculate, because he never returned to the job site to check whether the doors had been installed. Mr. Spencer's testimony on this topic is not credible. Despite never being installed, Mr. Ross paid a $4,700.00 deposit for the French doors that was never refunded. When asked why this money was never refunded to Mr. Ross, Mr. Spencer goes on to testify that he trusted the subcontractor delivering the doors, that he assumed they were delivered, and that that's why he never attempted to receive a refund of the doors' cost from the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; requiring Respondent to make restitution to Mr. Ross in the amount of $26,710.85; placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years; and requiring Mr. Spencer to attend a minimum of seven additional hours of continuing education classes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated Section 468.621(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building code administrators and inspectors in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 468, Part XII, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a certified standard building inspector in the State of Florida, having been issued license number BN 3816. He held this license at all times relevant to this complaint. Respondent provides building inspections as a private provider within the City of Jacksonville. In the course of his duties as a building inspector, Respondent has inspected structures at the following locations in Jacksonville: 1142 Johnson Creek Circle; 8242 Maple Street; 9127 5th Avenue; 7053 Civic Club Drive; 11658 Pleasant Creek Drive; and 2700 Jane Street. The City of Jacksonville Quality Assurance Office (QA Office) in the Building Department conducted audits of the inspections provided by Respondent at the above-named locations. The QA Office determined that there were deficiencies concerning the inspections for the six structures, and prepared an "Audit Report" with respect to each structure. However, Audit Reports are only prepared where the QA Office perceives a pattern of violations, presumably for a particular private provider. Audit Reports are not prepared with respect to every audit performed. The Audit Report for the 11442 Johnson Creek Circle address listed 22 "deficiencies." Joshua Gideon, a construction trades inspector for the City of Tallahassee, testified that the "deficiencies" ranged from building code violations to missed items that that were required by the engineer. He testified that, as a whole, the deficiencies could not be considered minor, and that some individual items would not be considered minor standing alone. However, no evidence was presented to identify which alleged deficiencies represented code violations, which deficiencies were considered "major," or to identify exactly what code provisions were at issue. In addition, Mr. Gideon testified that the majority of items that were listed were items required by the engineer of record. No evidence was presented to explain whether items required by the engineer of record would also be building code violations. The Audit Report for the inspection at 8242 Maple Street indicates there were seven deficiencies. It does not, however, indicate what the building code required or how those requirements were not met. Further, Mr. Gideon did not physically inspect this property and no inspector that visited the site actually testified. While Mr. Gideon assisted in preparing the report, his assistance would be based on what was reported to him, and both his testimony and the contents of the report are uncorroborated hearsay. Like the job at 8242 Maple Street, Mr. Gideon did not visit the actual property at 9127 Fifth Avenue, but simply assisted in preparing the report. Although it is alleged that the permit and plans were not posted on site, so that it would not be possible to post inspections on the permit card, no one who visited the site testified at hearing. Mr. Gideon also did not perform the audit of the job located at 7053 Civic Club. Although the Audit Report indicates that there were 18 deficiencies, there is no indication which of these deficiencies represented building code violations and which were variations from the plans. Further, no one who actually visited the site testified at hearing. Mr. Gideon did visit the job at 11658 Pleasant Creek Drive. The Audit report that he prepared indicated that there were 19 deficiencies. He testified at hearing that deficiencies were items that were required by the engineer of record. No evidence was presented, however, to identify a deficiency that was a violation of building code standards or, in the event of such a deficiency, what provision in the building code was at issue. The final property at issue is a property located at 2700 Jane Street. This structure, which Mr. Gideon visited, is a multi-story wood-framed hotel. Several deficiencies were noted with respect to this building, including fire assemblies not constructed according to their tested assemblies, incorrect insulation installed, incorrect channeling in the ceiling, and multiple cut or broken floor truss joists. However, as with the other properties, no evidence was presented to indicate which deficiencies were items required by the engineer of record, and which deficiencies actually represented violations of the building code. In addition, it was stated at hearing that there were multiple framing inspections of this property because of its size. However, there is no testimony that provides the sequence of events related to the alleged deficiencies. In other words, while there is an attachment to the Audit Report indicating the times of different inspections, there was no evidence presented that indicated what was wrong each time Respondent inspected the property, and what he should have but did not flag as not meeting building code requirements.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Morris Tesh Post Office Box 721 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
