The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1997), and Subsections 489.129(1)(n) and (o), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Frazier was licensed by the Department as a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC CO56955 as Ronald Lee Frazier, d/b/a Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak. On or about November 24, 1995, Frazier, contracted with Victor and Janie Anderson to remove and replace the roof of the Anderson's home at 433 111th Street, Marathon, Florida, for $4,657.25. The Andersons paid the full contract price to Frazier in two increments. On or about November 24, 1995, they paid $2,328.62, and on or about January 25, 1996, they paid $2,328.63. In January 1996, Frazier removed and replaced the Anderson's roof, but Frazier applied the new roofing material without first installing a base sheet or moisture barrier. No evidence was presented on the specific manufacturer's specification for the product installed by Frazier; however, the evidence did establish that typical manufacturers' specifications for products such as urethane require the installation of a base sheet before such products are applied. The Monroe County Building Code does require that self-adhesive roofs such as the one installed by Frazier must have a one ply ASTM D226 type II anchor sheet with a four-inch headlap. In other words, the roof should have a base sheet of 30-pound felt before the urethane is applied. The base sheet or moisture barrier helps keep water off the roof, and it also facilitates removal and replacement of the roof. Failure to install the base sheet contributed to the development of roof leaks which the Andersons began noticing approximately 17 months after the work was done, a much shorter time than the normal life expectancy for the urethane roof materials that Frazier used. Frazier's failure to install a base sheet on the Andersons' roof constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. The only way to correct Frazier's work on the Anderson's roof is to remove the roof installed by Frazier and install a new roof in a proper manner. The Andersons began noticing leaks in the roof in June 1997. They notified Frazier by telephone and by letters. Frazier and his employees inspected the Anderson's roof and agreed to perform work to stop the leaks. In September 1997, Frazier went to the Anderson's home and began attempting to work on the roof. Monroe County roofing inspector Al Forrest met with Frazier that day at the Anderson's home and discussed the work that needed to be done. Frazier agreed to correct the deficiencies in the roof; however, Frazier left that day without completing the work and never returned to perform further work. On or about December 1, 1995, Vivian Haverly contracted with Frazier to repair the leaky roof on her home at 1711 Avalon Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. Frazier was to install a new urethane roof on Ms. Haverly's house. Among other things, the contract called for Frazier to "raise the A/C unit on stand as per code." The contract price was $5,039.00. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. Haverly paid Frazier $1,039.00 on December 1, 1995, and $3,900 on January 19, 1996. The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) has been adopted as the building code by all counties in Florida except for Dade and Broward Counties. Section 1509.1.2 of the SBCCI provides that "[r]oof coverings shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof." Frazier's crew worked on Ms. Haverly's roof but never fixed the leaks. The leaks worsened, causing damage in the interior of Ms. Haverly's house. Frazier failed to raise the roof-mounted air conditioning equipment and sprayed urethane on the air conditioning unit, damaging it to the point that the air conditioner became inoperable and had to be replaced at a cost of $2,700. Frazier did not spray urethane on the portion of the roof below the air conditioning unit as he should have done. Ms. Haverly had to have another company repair her roof. On or about April 18, 1997, John Ward entered into a contract with Frazier as Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak to repair the roof of a two-story building in Marathon, Florida, owned by Virginia Ward and managed for her by her son John Ward. Frazier was to apply a urethane coating to the roof and fix roof leaks for $4,200. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 in the amount of $1,219.18. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case No. 99-3573 in the amount of $244.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did not violate Subsections 489.119(2) and 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 98-5212; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), as set forth in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 and Count II of Case No. 99-3573; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count II of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; suspending Ronald Lee Frazier's license for six months; assessing costs of $1,463.83 for investigation and prosecution in Case Nos. 98-5213, 99-2186, and 99-3573; and taking no action to enforce or collect payment of the fines or assessed costs without authorization of the bankruptcy court unless Ronald Lee Frazier's bankruptcy petition is dismissed or discharged. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Susan B. Kirkland 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 30th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Ronald Lee Frazier Post Office Box 12735 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34979-2735 Ronald Lee Frazier 1006 Southwest Sultan Drive Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact Respondent was registered with Petitioner as a pool contractor, Registration No. RP0017996, from January to June 30, 1974 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On February 22, 1974, Respondent entered into a contract with John G. Hartong, 813 Kings Bay Drive Southwest, Crystal River, Florida, to construct a screened swimming pool for the total price of $7,331.25. Construction of the pool began in July of 1974. Prior to that time, Respondent sent his foreman to the building department of Citrus County to obtain a building permit for the job because the county had issued such permits for work in Crystal River in the past. In actuality, the City of Crystal River began issuing such permits for construction work in that community commencing June 15, 1974. Neither Citrus County nor the City of Crystal River issued a permit for the work at the Hartong residence. Respondent assumed that his foreman had obtained the necessary permit and did not inquire into the matter further. City officials of Crystal River discovered the job in progress in late July. At that time, the gunite for the pool was about two-thirds completed and it would have been impossible to inspect unless everything was "pulled out". Respondent had been ill during this period and receiving daily medical checkups. As a result, he had entrusted his foreman with a great deal more responsibility than usual. Respondent normally had five to ten pool jobs in progress at the same time. In August, 1974, Respondent suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Work apparently ceased on the Hartong pool at this point or somewhat earlier and, after numerous attempts to contact Respondent as to completion of the work, Mr. Hartong secured another contractor to do so. However, this firm required that Hartong obtain a release from Respondent prior to taking over the work. Hartong therefore visited Respondent in the hospital and the parties settled the matter by executing a release. Prior to entering the hospital, Respondent had been on the Hartong job on only two different occasions and his first contact from city officials came just before he was hospitalized. After the parties had entered into their settlement, Respondent did no further work on the pool. In October, 1974, the building official of Crystal River advised Respondent by correspondence that he should obtain a permit for the work and furnished him an application for a local Certificate of Competency as a contractor. Although Respondent submitted an application for such a certificate, the city tabled the application pending his compliance with city ordinances concerning permit requirements for the Hartong pool. In view of his release from Hartong, Respondent did not pursue the matter any further. Hartong had been particularly disturbed by the fact that electrical wires from a switch on the wall of his house ran to the pool deck and when the switch was on, the wires were live. He was fearful that his children might put them in the water and create a shock hazard (Testimony of Pulver, Hartong, duPlanti, Respondent; Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3, Petitioner's Exhibits 4 & 6.) About the middle of 1974, Respondent entered into a contract with Craig Marlett to build a pool. It was not established at the hearing as to whether this work was to be performed in Citrus County or within the city limits of Crystal River. Respondent testified that there was no building permit obtained for this work, but that he had subcontracted the job to his foreman and provided him with funds to obtain a proper permit. However, he did not check to see if one had been obtained (Testimony of Respondent, Pulver, Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Approximately February 28, 1975, pursuant to a pool contract with Jack Freeman, Ocala, Florida, Respondent commenced work by excavating the hole on the site. He testified that he was not aware that he did not have a building permit when he began this work, but obtained it the following Monday. In fact, the application for a building permit to Alachua County was submitted on March 4, 1975, a Tuesday, and the permit was issued on March 10, 1975. Article XIV, Section V, Zoning Regulations for Alachua County, Florida requires that no building shall be constructed, reconstructed, altered or extended unless a building permit has been issued, indicating that such use complies with county requirements (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 5 & 8.) Respondent has been building swimming pools for approximately 10 years. His experience includes construction of approximately 700 pools (Testimony of Respondent.)
Recommendation That the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida James A. Shook, Esquire 415 North West First Avenue Post Office Box 924 Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should correct a health violation and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule and statute, as alleged in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an allegation that Respondent, Steve DeLuca, violated an agency regulation and statute by making repairs to a drainfield on property located at 1444 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida, without obtaining the necessary permits from the Volusia County Department of Health (Health Department). That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). Respondent denies the charge and, as clarified for the first time at hearing, contends that the repairs were minor in nature and thus did not require a permit, no authorization was given to the excavation firm which performed the repairs, and the Citation was not issued to the actual owner of the property. On October 29, 1999, William N. VanderLugt (Vanderlugt), a Health Department environmental specialist, received a complaint regarding a septic tank repair being undertaken at 1430 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida. During the course of inspecting that property, Vanderlugt observed excavation activities on the drainfield located next door at 1444 East New York Avenue. More specifically, Vanderlugt observed an area in the back yard approximately 6 feet by 20 feet in size which had been recently excavated and a large pile of sand nearby. In the excavated site, he saw a rock bed of the size commonly used in drainfields, "clean" and "newly installed" rocks, and a "black paper" covering a part of the rocks. Therefore, he concluded that the excavating firm had just installed a new rock drainfield. This type of activity constitutes a repair to an existing drainfield and requires that such work be performed by a licensed septic tank contractor. It also requires that appropriate permits be obtained from the Health Department. Although Respondent contended that the work was merely to correct a "minor structural flaw" which would not require a permit, Vanderlugt's testimony is more persuasive on this issue, and it is found that a more substantial repair to the drainfield was made. Further inquiry by Vanderlugt revealed that no permits had been obtained for the repair of a drainfield from the Health Department by the excavating company, Collier Enterprises. After a brief conversation with a Collier Enterprises employee, the substance of which is hearsay in nature and cannot be used, Vanderlugt visited the offices of Delco Oil Company and spoke with Respondent, who is employed by that firm. In doing so, Vanderlugt was under the impression that Respondent owned the property in question. During his brief conversation with Repondent, Vanderlugt pointed out that he had to issue a citation because no permit had been obtained for the work at the property in question. DeLuca responded with words to the effect that "they [Collier Enterprises] broke a pipe and they fixed what they broke." Apparently, there was no discussion as to whether Respondent or someone else actually owned the property. Vanderlugt returned to the property in question and performed a second inspection on November 3, 1999. Because no permits had been obtained by that date, and the drainfield site had been covered, a recommendation for a citation was prepared by Vanderlugt. A Citation for Violation was later issued by the Department on December 22, 1999, alleging that Respondent had failed to obtain permits before making a drainfield repair. The Citation was delivered to Respondent at Delco Oil Company. Because Collier Enterprises was not licensed to perform the work, it was given a first violation "warning" letter by the Health Department, as required by a Department rule. During later meetings with Respondent and others, Vanderlugt learned that the actual owner of the property in question was Deluca Properties, Inc., and not Steve DeLuca. For some reason, however, the Department declined to amend its citation and charge the actual owner with the alleged violation. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent is the owner's registered agent, there is no competent evidence of record to support this assertion. According to the general manager of Delco Oil Company, which is apparently owned by Steve Deluca and others, no permission was given to the excavating company to make any repairs. Indeed, Deluca Properties, Inc. has a licensed septic tank contractor who makes all septic tank repairs, when needed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Christopher R. Ditslear, Esquire Post Office Box 41 Deland, Florida 32721-0041 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Larry Neil Heckerd (Heckerd) was licensed as a real estate salesman in the state of Florida, holding license number 0431546. Heckerd's license is presently in an inactive status. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Jayne R. Phoenix (Phoenix) was licensed as a real estate salesman in the state of Florida, holding license number 0069088. At all times material to this proceeding, both Heckerd and Phoenix were working under the brokerage license of Charles E. Earhart of Charles Earhart Realty. During June 1988 the owners of the property located at 317 Lagoon Drive, Ozona, Pinellas County, Florida retained Charles Earhart Realty to list and sell the property. Heckerd was the listing agent and prepared the multiple listing service (MLS) information sheet on this property. Sometime before December 8, 1988, Rafael C. Lopez and his wife, Barbara Lopez were driving through the neighborhood and viewed the property at 317 Lagoon Drive, Ozona, Florida during an "open-house". Rafael and Barbara Lopez were aware at this time that the property was in a flood zone, and there were certain restrictions on the use of this property. Phoenix was the salesperson present at the "open-house" and was advised by the Lopezes that they were looking for a 4-bedroom home so that Rafael Lopez could convert one of the bedrooms into an office. Before showing the Lopezes through the house, Phoenix provided them with the MLS information sheet prepared by Heckerd. This sheet described a 3- bedroom stilt house with a 4-car garage and a 10'6" x 19' game room on the first level. On the day the Lopezes were shown the house the game room was enclosed and was being used as a storage room. Shelving was built on all of the wall space, and the only visible electrical outlet was a single bulb ceiling light with a pull string switch. Additionally, there were no phone lines or phone jacks visible in this room. While showing the Lopezes this home during the open-house, Phoenix never suggested, inferred or advised the Lopezes that this room could be converted into, or utilized as, an office. The Lopezes left after viewing the home without any commitment on the purchase of the house, and Phoenix did not expect to hear from them again since the house did not meet their stated needs. However, the Lopezes did contact Phoenix, and on or about December 8, 1988 entered into a Contract For Sale And Purchase (contract) with Bonnie Conover as seller. The contract was prepared by Phoenix, and it referred to the "game room" as the "downstairs storage area". The contract called for the closing to be on January 31, 1989, and on that day, Heckerd and Phoenix gave the Lopezes a "walk-through" inspection of the house. During the walk through inspection it was evident that the so called game room was being used as a storage area, since boxes were packed on all the shelves and on the floor. Again, the only electrical outlet that could be observed that day was a single bulb ceiling light with a pull-string switch. Although it was later determined that there were no other electrical outlets in this room and that there were no phone jacks or phone lines in this room, that could not have been determined during the walk through inspection because of the boxes being stacked against the walls. During the walk through inspection, Heckerd pointed out to Rafael Lopez the electrical outlets on the walls in the garage, and their unusual high placement on the wall was due to the mean high water level established for the flood zone in this area. Heckerd thought the storage area could be used as a game room, and he may have referred to the storage area as a game room during the walk through inspection on January 31, 1989. However, Heckerd did not advise the Lopezes that the storage area could be used as an office. Likewise, Phoenix did not advise the Lopezes that the storage area could be used as an office. During the walk-through inspection on January 31, 1989, neither Phoenix nor Heckerd, while together or apart, heard either or both of the Lopezes discuss or refer to using the storage area as an office. After purchasing the house the Lopezes converted the storage room into an office, and on July 25, 1989 was issued a notice of violation for the use of the storage area as an office in that such use was an alleged violation of Section A107 of the Standard Building Code or Pinellas County Ordinance 77-12 as amended. Rafael Lopez abated the alleged violation without requesting a hearing, and there was no further action taken to determine if the use of the storage area as an office was in fact a violation of the building code or the county ordinance. Neither Section A107 of the Standard Building Code or Pinellas County Ordinance 77-12, as amended, were placed into evidence or made a part of the record by submitting them for official recognition. There was insufficient evidence to show that the use of the storage area as an office or a game room was in fact a violation of the building code or the county ordinance.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the Respondents not guilty of violating Section 475.5(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that both Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 7th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6199 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Not necessary. 2.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, and 7. First sentence adopted in substance in Finding of Fact Second sentence rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but modified. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 13. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The third sentence is neither material nor relevant. Neither material nor relevant. Adopted Finding of Fact 19, but modified. Neither material nor relevant. 11.-12. Restatement of testimony, not a finding of fact, but see Finding of Facts 21, 22 and 23. Restatement of what Phoenix said to investigator, not a finding of fact but see Findings of Fact 6 and 9, otherwise not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18 and 19 but modified. 16.-17. Restatement of testimony, but see Findings of Fact 16, 17 and 19. 18. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Not necessary. 2.-3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified. 5.-6. Neither material nor relevant. 7.-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 6, respectively. Restatement of testimony, not stated as a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Restatement of testimony, not stated as a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 9. Unclear as to whether a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19. 13.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, 11, 12 and 13 but modified. 16. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Second sentence a restatement of testimony and not a finding of fact, but see Findings of Fact 17, 18 and 19. 17.-18. Not material or relevant. More a restatement of testimony than a finding of fact, but see Findings of Fact 9, 17, 18 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but modified. 21.-24. More of a restatement of testimony than a finding of fact, but see Findings of Fact 20, 21 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 but modified. More of a restatement of testimony than a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 6. More of a restatement of testimony than a finding of fact, but see Findings of Fact 9, 17, 18 and 19. 28.-29. More of a restatement of testimony than a finding of fact, but see Findings of Fact 17 and 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR-Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Leslie M. Conklin, Esquire LARSON CONKLIN STANLEY & PROBST, P.A. 16120 US 19 North, Suite 210 Clearwater, FL 34624 Larry Neil Heckerd c/o Multimax, Inc. 15673 60th Street North Clearwater, FL 34620 Larry Neil Heckerd 119 Allens Road Drive East Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a registered plumbing contractor, holding license number RF 0049725. He was first licensed in October, 1985, and has practiced plumbing contracting continuously since that time. Respondent has not previously been disciplined. In early 1989, Respondent entered into a subcontract with A-1 Properties to provide various plumbing labor and materials in connection with a residential construction job on which A-1 Properties served as general contractor. The total price of the subcontract was $5100. In general, Respondent performed his work in a timely and competent manner. A minor problem arose involving gas lines that Respondent installed in the kitchen. When a representative of the gas company inspected them during construction, he objected to certain fittings. After giving Respondent a few days to change the fittings, the owner authorized the gas company to make the changes when Respondent failed to do so. The record does not disclose what, if anything, the gas company charged the owner for the work. However, the work was not extensive, and the owner withheld from Respondent only $165 to cover the anticipated invoice from the gas company. In the course of performing the plumbing work, Respondent purchased, at a cost of $2117.77, materials from Shamrock Plumbing. The dates of the invoices reflecting these purchases and the amounts of the invoices are: August 2, 1989- - $1066.57; August 12, 1989--$37.77; August 25, 1989--$814.86; and August 25, 1989--$198.57. Respondent never paid Shamrock Plumbing for these materials. The owner and A-1 Properties timely paid Respondent for all of his work. As a result of change orders, the price for the job increased by $1355.45 to a total of $6455.45. In August, as Respondent's work drew to a close, the owner and A-1 Properties paid Respondent $2337 as follows: August 25, 1989-- $700; August 29, 1989--$500; and August 30, 1989--$1137. These payments total $2337. In making the final payment to Respondent, the representative of A-1 Properties was aware that Shamrock Plumbing had sent to a Notice to Owner for the plumbing materials that Respondent had purchased. Except possibly for the $165, item, Respondent and the general contractor were in agreement, when the final payments were made in August, that Respondent had been paid substantially in full and that he would pay Shamrock Plumbing. When Respondent failed to pay Shamrock Plumbing, it recorded a Claim of Lien on September 28, 1989, against the real property and initiated an action to foreclose the lien. The owner was required to retain the services of an attorney to defend the foreclosure action, pay Shamrock: Plumbing's legal costs, and obtain a release of lien. In so doing, the owner expended a total of $3984.19, as follows: his attorney--$456; Shamrock Plumbing's attorney--$1410.42; Shamrock Plumbing's invoice--$2117.77. The owner paid his attorney by checks dated January 16 and July 31, 1990. The check to pay Shamrock Plumbing and its attorney was dated February 26, 1990. On March 12, 1990, Shamrock Plumbing executed a Release of Lien, which was recorded on April 10, 1990. Respondent has not since reimbursed the owner for his expenditure of $3984.19 because Respondent lacks the money. He applied the August, 1989, payments received for the present job to satisfy obligations arising out of other jobs. Respondent testified that his money problems began when he was not paid for work he performed on other jobs, but they were unrelated to the job involved in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h), assessing Respondent for the costs of the investigation and prosecution up to a maximum of $1000; placing Respondent on probation for two years; requiring Respondent to pay the owner $3984.19, plus interest at the legal rate, in restitution; and, if at the end of the two-year probation Respondent has failed to pay the owner in full, imposing an administrative fine of $1500 and suspending Respondent's license for one year. ENTERED this 20 day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20 day of May, 1991. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-8 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 8 (remainder) : rejected as irrelevant. 9-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (second sentence): adopted that Respondent accepted the final payments. Rejected as unnecessary that Respondent did-not protest the $165 retainage. 13: rejected as unnecessary. 14: first clause rejected as unnecessary. Second clause adopted. 15: rejected as unnecessary. 16-17 and 22: rejected as subordinate. 18-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as unnecessary. 23-24: adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent first page: adopted or adopted in substance. second page, first incomplete paragraph: rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary, and not finding of fact. second page, first complete paragraph: rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. second page, second complete paragraph: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Attorney William S. Cummins Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399 James E. Todd, pro se 1621 Truman Rd. Orlando, FL 32807
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of any or all of six alleged violations of the law governing lodging establishments and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a lodging establishment known as Salazar's at 412 South 2nd Street in Immokalee. Respondent holds license control number 21-01901H. Petitioner's inspector inspected the lodging establishment on April 10 and 30, 1997. On April 10, the inspector completed a report citing violations. The alleged violations were the presence of expired fire extinguishers, a missing floor drain in the men's restroom, a locked women's restroom, leaking shower faucets in the showers in the men's restroom, no hot water in the showers in the men's restroom, a broken toilet in the men's restroom, no backflow device for the hose threaded to the faucet in the men's room, a chirping smoke detector suggestive of dead batteries, no cold water in one of the stalls in the men's restroom, a torn screen in the men's restroom, a strong smell of urine in the men's restroom, no hot water in the wash basin outside the women's restroom, a dumpster on dirt, and peeling paint in the shower stalls in the men's restroom. The inspector characterized the report as a warning. She mailed the report to Mr. Christman, who is Respondent's manager, and she gave Respondent five days from receipt of the report to correct the violations. However, several items bore asterisks, and, according to the form, Respondent had to correct these violations immediately. These violations were for the fire extinguishers, smoke alarm, lack of hot and cold water, and odor of urine. On April 30, 1997, the inspector returned and reinspected the lodging. She found nine violations. The alleged violations were expired fire extinguishers, a missing floor drain in the men's restroom, a broken toilet in the men's restroom, no backflow device between the faucet and hose, no cold water in one stall of the men's restroom, a torn screen in the men's restroom, a locked women's restroom, a dumpster on the dirt, and peeling paint in the shower stalls in the men's restroom. The only urgent violations remaining from the last inspection were for the fire extinguishers and lack of cold water. On May 29, 1997, the inspector returned and performed a second reinspection. She found the same violations as found previously, except for those concerning the dumpster and peeling paint. The following day, Petitioner issued Respondent the Notice to Show Cause that commenced this case. Respondent failed to repair or replace the torn screen in the men's restroom within the allotted time after the first inspection. It is no defense that the screen is immediately redamaged. Respondent made the women's restroom reasonably available to guests of residents by giving the key to a resident who made it available to women as needed. Respondent failed to repair the cold water in the men's restroom within the allotted time after the first inspection. Respondent failed to replace the missing floor drain or repair the toilet within the allotted time after the first inspection. Respondent failed to install a backflow device between the hose and the faucet within the allotted time after the first inspection. However, Respondent did not understand what Petitioner was requiring, and Petitioner's inspection reports did not clarify this requirement. Respondent was not available during the correction period, and he later had some trouble trying to obtain help from Petitioner in explaining what he needed to do. Although a backflow device serves the important purpose of preventing contaminated water from backflowing up the hose and into the public water supply, the circumstances of this case do not permit a finding of a violation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order imposing a fine of $1300 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott R. Fransen Chief Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Robert J. Christman, Manager Salazar's 4799 State Road 29 South Punta Gorda, Florida 33935 Dorothy W. Joyce, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, sex, familial status, or association with handicapped individuals in violation of Subsection 760.23(2), Florida Statutes (2003), by refusing to renew Petitioner's lease when it expired or by subjecting Petitioner to different treatment than other similarly situated tenants.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner is a female whose race is African-American. Petitioner's household includes children who are under the age of 18 and who are, or who are perceived to be, handicapped. Respondent rents dwelling units to the public at 5455 Pointe Vista Circle, Orlando, Florida. The apartment community is identified in the record as Pointe Vista Apartments (Pointe Vista). Petitioner applied to lease an apartment at Pointe Vista on November 1, 2001. Respondent approved the application and the parties entered into a written lease for a term of "one year" beginning on December 21, 2001, and ending on November 30, 2002. The parties subsequently entered into a renewal lease covering a term from December 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003. Respondent performed various repairs and maintenance jobs in Petitioner's apartment from sometime in March 2003, through September 17, 2003. Petitioner requested most of the repairs, but some of the jobs involved required maintenance. Respondent made six repairs to the air-conditioning system. Some of the repairs to the air-conditioning system were required because Petitioner, or members of her household, had damaged the thermostat. The property manager notified Petitioner in writing that Petitioner was not in compliance with the lease because Petitioner failed to operate the air- conditioning system properly and that a repeat violation within 12 months would be grounds for termination of the lease. The property manager observed the apartment during one of the repairs. On June 26, 2003, the property manager notified Petitioner in writing that Petitioner was not in compliance with the lease because Petitioner failed to maintain the apartment in accordance with the terms of the lease. In particular, doors were "punched" out, wet newspaper was in the kitchen, the carpet was damaged and "extremely" dirty, and the microwave was broken. The notice stated that a repeat violation within 12 months would be grounds for termination of the lease. Orange County scheduled an inspection of Petitioner's apartment on August 12, 2003, to determine if the apartment was eligible for continued "Section 8 rental assistance." Petitioner refused to allow the inspection, and Orange County rescheduled the inspection for August 29, 2003. Petitioner's apartment failed the inspection conducted on August 29, 2003. In order to pass an inspection, Petitioner needed to repair a living room window, stove burners, a garbage disposal, and a loose door panel. Petitioner also needed to eliminate roach infestation and improve housekeeping. The apartment passed a subsequent inspection conducted on September 19, 2003. Respondent notified Petitioner of Respondent's intent not to renew the lease on October 23, 2003. The notice informed Petitioner that she would need to vacate the apartment by November 30, 2003. Petitioner remained in possession of the apartment during December 2003, and paid no rent. The property manager issued a "Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Deliver Possession." Petitioner returned the keys to the apartment in early January 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order determining that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner when Respondent refused to renew Petitioner's lease. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fornetha Judge Rizos 5215 Limelight Circle, Apartment One Orlando, Florida 32839 Cathy L. Lucrezi, Esquire Law Offices of Heist, Weisse, & Lucrezi, P.A. 1661 Estero Boulevard, Suite 20 Post Office Box 2514 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33932 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondent was charged in a November 19, 1998, Administrative Complaint, filed December 7, 1998, with ten counts of professional violations. The statutory violations alleged are: Count I: Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), obtaining a certificate or registration as a Certified Roofing Contractor by fraud or misrepresentation; Count II: Section 489.129(1)(h)2, Florida Statutes (1995), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer; Count III: Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1995), by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor; Count IV: Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; Count V: Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; Count VI: Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department plumbing permits and inspection; Count VII: Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department electrical permits and inspection; Count VIII: Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department framing, insulation, and/or final inspections; Count IX: Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing gross negligence, repeated negligence, or negligence resulting in a significant danger to life or property; and Count X: Section 389.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), by violating any provision of Chapter 455, to wit, Section 455.227(1)(o), practicing beyond the scope permitted by law and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, he is not competent to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a Certified Residential Contractor, having been issued license number CR C057235, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At the time of hearing, Respondent's license had been suspended. Since January 27, 1998, Respondent also has been a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CC C057649, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material was Respondent licensed, registered, or certified to perform electrical work. At no time material was Respondent licensed, registered, or certified to perform plumbing work. On or about February 27, 1997, Respondent entered into a $39,050.40, contract with Reuben M. Adams to restore and repair the Adamses' home at 7037 Mark Street in Jacksonville, Florida, which had been destroyed by fire on February 1, 1997. The work contracted-for included complete restoration of the living room, kitchen, two hallways, two bathrooms, four bedrooms, a laundry room, and a dining room; restoration of heat and air conditioning; and a virtually new roof. Among the electrical and plumbing restoration involved, Respondent specifically agreed to install a ceiling fan and a light kit in the living room; install a sink and faucet for the sink and a ceiling light fixture and vented range hood in the kitchen; install a ceiling light fixture in a hallway; remove floor mounted with tank commode and reinstall a floor mounted with tank commode; replace commode sink, remove and reinstall sink, install new faucet for the sink, install shower head and faucet set for bathtub, install bathroom exhaust fan and light kit for ceiling fan in the bathroom; install ceiling fan and light kit in bedrooms; replace faucet for sink and provide a shower head, faucet set and install a ceiling light fixture in the second bathroom; install a ceiling fan and light kit in the third and fourth bedrooms and dining room and hallway; install 960 square foot electrical and provide temporary utilities for dimensions of 40 feet by 24 feet by eight feet. These types of activities require electrical and plumbing licensure. On or about April 15, 1997, Respondent received and endorsed the first draw check of $22,245.23 from the Adamses. In May 1997, Respondent's site supervisor, Aaron Mitchell, requested that Mr. Adams give him $1500.00, cash to buy materials because Respondent was out of town and Mitchell could not perform the work without the materials. Mr. Adams paid this amount in cash to Mr. Mitchell but was never reimbursed by either Mr. Mitchell or Respondent. In early June 1997, the Adamses became concerned because little work had been completed on the restoration of their home. The house had been cleaned out and gutted and the slab for the room addition had been poured. Mr. Adams contacted Respondent several times about the lack of work being performed on the home. Between mid-June and early July 1997, Respondent completed the framing and installed the roof. On or about July 24, 1997, the Adamses released the second draw of $11,122.62 to Respondent, and Respondent deposited the money into his bank account. In approximately August 1997, Respondent ran electrical wire in the roof, installed electrical outlets in the walls, and completed the electrical work, including installing electrical outlets in the walls. Mr. Adams personally observed Respondent and his workers performing electrical wiring. The electrical work performed by Respondent required licensure as an electrical contractor, that a permit be obtained prior to the electrical work being performed, and that inspections of the electrical work be made before the walls were sealed up over the electrical work. Respondent failed to obtain a permit or to have an electrical inspection performed. Respondent completed the electrical work and covered up the electrical work with the walls without an inspection being performed. Respondent performed plumbing work on the Adamses' home, although he held no plumbing license. Respondent failed to pull a permit for the plumbing work and failed to call for the required inspections. Ultimately, he covered up the plumbing work with the walls without an inspection having been performed. The City of Jacksonville "red-tagged" the home for this reason. The effect of "red-tagging" was to prevent occupancy until compliance with the building code was assured. Such assurance required inspection, which in turn, ultimately required that at least the interior walls be taken down. Respondent also never obtained a framing, insulation or final inspection on the project. In October 1997, the Adamses filed complaints against the Respondent with the State Attorney's Office and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Case No. 97-18544). On or about October 31, 1997, Respondent signed a Letter of Intent with Mr. and Mrs. Adams agreeing to have their home ready for occupancy no later than December 1, 1997, and promising that Respondent would be responsible for all permits and inspections necessary for the project to be considered complete. At that time, Respondent apologized for all of the delays, the decline in their relationship, and the stress he had caused. Respondent and Mrs. Adams prayed together, and Respondent promised that from that day forward, the Adamses would see progress on their home every day until it was finished. Respondent did not abide by the requirements set forth in the Letter of Intent. Specifically, he never obtained the required permits and inspections. Mr. Adams confronted Respondent about the permits and the inspections, and the Respondent indicated that he had the permits at his office. He assured Mr. Adams that he was taking care of the electrical permit. In December 1997, Respondent requested that Mr. and Mrs. Adams drop their complaint with Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation because he had applied for his roofing license and the complaint was holding up that roofing license being granted. Respondent told the Adamses that if they would drop their complaint, he could obtain his roofing license, which would allow him to generate money to complete their project. Around mid-January 1998, Respondent requested that the Adamses release the final construction draw and drop their complaints with Petitioner and the State Attorney. Respondent stated that if they paid him the final draw of $5,682.55, he would work every day on their project and have it ready for them to move in no later than February 4, 1998. The Adamses paid Respondent the remaining construction draw of $5,682.55, and withdrew their complaint with Petitioner. Respondent accepted the final draw on or about January 27, 1998. Respondent obtained his roofing license after the Adamses withdrew their complaint with Petitioner. After receiving the final construction draw, Respondent did minimal work on the project in January. On or about February 23, 1998, the Adamses reinstated their complaint with Petitioner against Respondent, resulting in the instant case. Respondent has not returned to work on the Adamses' project since March 1998. As of March 1998, Respondent had been paid the full contract price, but the home remained uninhabitable. The workmanship was substandard and the project was less than 100 percent complete. As a result of Respondent's unlicensed electrical and plumbing work on the Adamses' home and his covering-up his work with the walls, the Adamses were unable to obtain an inspection without the walls being taken down. This in turn, required that the walls be rebuilt. In addition to the money paid to Respondent for work improperly done or not done at all, the Adamses had to pay another builder $14,900.00, to remove the walls, re-install the electrical wiring and plumbing which had been completed or partially completed by the Respondent, and complete the renovation. Testimony of Roy Brand, Raymond Smith, and Douglas Arnold supports a finding that Respondent committed repeated negligence and created a dangerous condition when he performed electrical and plumbing work which he was not licensed to do and which he did not have the knowledge to perform. Particularly upon the testimony of Mr. Brand, it is clear that three types of very serious electrical installation errors or omissions had been performed once or more than once by Respondent. At least one of these would have been sufficient, under certain circumstances, to burn down the entire house. By installing electrical universal polyethylene boxes and using them as junction boxes, a purpose for which they were not designed, Respondent created what Mr. Brand described as "short of a 'Molotov Cocktail' that would burn your house down just about as quick." Likewise, one serious error occurred in the type of glue Respondent used on plumbing pipe throughout the home. Mr. Brand gave credible expert evidence that the construction undertaken by Respondent was undertaken for a reasonable amount of $39,050.40, and that a reasonable time to construct the entire contract would have been two and one half to three months after permitting. In addition to the money Mr. and Mrs. Adams paid to Respondent and the substitute contractor, Douglas Arnold, they incurred additional expenses and spent additional time out of their home as a result of Respondent's shoddy workmanship and unlicensed electrical and plumbing work. The Adamses also had to take out a second mortgage of $18,800.00 at 16.3 percent interest for 15 years in order to finance the repairs necessitated by Respondent's substandard and incompetent work, so that they could move back into their home. Mr. and Mrs. Adams and their child had to live somewhere during construction. Their insurance company paid them $750.00, for each of three months. However, they were unable to move back into their home from August 1997 until November 1998, as a direct result of Respondent's incompetence and misconduct.3 During this fifteen-month period, the Adamses paid $300.00 rent per month to Mrs. Adams' mother, plus an additional $100.00 per month for water and utilities, and storage fees of $119.00 per month to a storage facility for keeping their items which had not been destroyed by the fire The Adamses also incurred an additional expense of $1,500.00, for an air conditioning unit which Respondent was to have purchased under their contract with him.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of one violation of each of the following: Sections 489.129(1)(h)(2); (1)(k); (1)(m); (1)(n); (1)(p); (1)(o); and (1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995); Revokes Respondent's General Contractor's and Roofing Contractor's licenses; Imposes a total fine for all violations, in the amount of $30,000.00; and Requires Respondent to pay restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Adams in the amount of $49,835.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 1st day of May, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George A. Wallace, was, at all times material hereto, licensed as a Class "A" air conditioning contractor by the State of Florida, having been issued license number CA CO13239. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, the qualifier for EMC Corp. On May 14, 1981, EMC Corp. entered into a written agreement with Sophie Griffin to replace the heating and air conditioning unit at Ms. Griffin's home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The unit was installed in May, 1981, and Ms. Griffin promptly paid the full contract price of $2,200.00. Section 301(a), South Florida Building Code, provides: It shall be unlawful . . . to install or alter any equipment for which provision is made or the installation of which is regulated by this Code without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefore from the Building Official. A permit shall be deemed issued when signed by the Building Official and impressed with the seal of the governmental agency issuing said permit. Section 301.1(1), South Florida Building Code, provides: Permits, to be issued by the Building Official, shall be required for the following operations: * * * The installation, alteration, or repair of any air conditioning or refrigeration apparatus. . . . The South Florida Building Code has been adopted by Broward County. EMC Corp. installed the new heating and air conditioning unit at Ms. Griffin's home without first having obtained a building permit from the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On March 20, 1984, EMC Corp. obtained the required permit, and paid a penalty of $25.00 for having failed to secure the permit before undertaking the work. On March 26, 1984 an inspector with the City of Fort Lauderdale inspected the installation of the unit and found, contrary to the provisions of Sections 2306 and 4801.10, South Florida Building Code, that the unit had not been anchored. EMC Corp. promptly anchored the unit. Section 4505.1. South Florida Building Code, provides: PERMITS REQUIRED: It shall be unlawful to do or commence to do any electrical work on a new installation of permanent or temporary wiring, any electrical apparatus or equipment or make extensions and/or changes to existing wiring systems . . . without having first filed application and obtained an electrical permit therefore from the Electrical Inspector. APPLICATIONS: Applications for permit will be accepted from only qualified persons or firms. . . . Neither Respondent nor EMC Corp. was a qualified electrician, nor were they licensed by the state of Florida as electrical contractors. EMC, without an electrical permit, connected the wiring of the new unit with the existing electrical service. Respondent contends, and the City of Fort Lauderdale agrees, that it is an accepted practice for an air conditioning contractor to disconnect the leads from an existing air conditioning unit and reconnect them to the new unit, without the necessity of an electrical permit, if there is no difference between the units. In this case the evidence establishes that, although the replacement and existing units were 3-ton units, the amperage demands of the replacement unit were greater than the existing unit, and that the existing wiring was inadequate. However, no hazardous condition was created by EMC Corp. reconnecting the leads from the existing unit to the replacement unit. Apart from the foregoing discrepancies, EMC Corp.'s installation of Ms. Griffin's new unit met all standards established by the South Florida Building Code. Further, EMC Corp. has faithfully fulfilled all warranty and service work it contracted to perform.
