The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, License Number CB C043621, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on July 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified Building Contractor, having been issued license number CB C043621, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as an individual. At no time pertinent to this proceeding was Respondent the licensed qualifying agent for Merrill Homes. On or about June 17, 1992, Kathy Rose and Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, executed a Letter of Intent to build a house for the Roses in the Heathrow Woods subdivision in Seminole County, Florida. At the time the Letter of Intent was signed, Kathy Rose gave Respondent a check for $2,500.00 as a partial deposit. Subsection D of the Letter of Intent provided that "[s]hould the Buyers not proceed with construction of the residence, the Builder will refund the Buyers' deposit less any expenses incurred on the Buyers' behalf by the builder." On or about June 25, 1992, Respondent stopped by the Rose residence and picked up a second check for $2,500.00 made out to Merrill Homes by Jeff Rose as the second half of the Rose's $5,000.00 deposit. On or about August 10, 1992, Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, and Jeff and Kathy Rose executed a contract to build a house in the Heathrow Woods subdivision as described in the Letter of Intent. The contract executed between Respondent and the Roses did not list Respondent's state contractor's license number. Respondent provided the Roses with a set of drawings of the proposed house, but did not provide the Roses with any other goods or services. Performance by Respondent under the contract was contingent upon the sale of the Roses' existing house. From the time the contract was signed until about October or November 1993, the Roses were unable to sell their existing house. Therefore, no work as performed by Respondent under the contract except for the production of the drawings of the house. In October or November 1993, Heathrow Realty contacted the Roses and informed them that someone was interested in the lot that they had placed a down payment on in Heathrow Woods Subdivision. Since their existing house had not sold in over a year, the Roses decided to release their option on the lot in Heathrow Woods and to cancel the contract with Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Kathy Rose contacted Respondent in November 1993 and informed him that they had released the lot. They requested that their deposit be returned from Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Respondent informed Kathy Rose that he would have their deposit refunded sometime after the first of December 1993. Having heard nothing from Respondent, the Roses had their attorney send a letter, dated December 30, 1993, to Respondent demanding a refund of their deposit. In January 1994, Kathy Rose once again contacted Respondent via telephone. At that time, Respondent informed Ms. Rose that their refund would only be $500.00, the balance of their deposit having been used for the house plans Respondent had provided. Respondent also informed Ms. Rose that he would mail an accounting to her. Respondent has not provided the Roses with an accounting, refunded all or any part of their deposit, or had any contact with them whatsoever since January, 1994. Examination of the plans, supplied to the Roses by Respondent, indicated that they were not really house plans per se, but rather hand-drawn sketches of a floor plan. The plans have no value with respect to their use in building the house depicted and could not be used to obtain a building permit in Seminole County. The plans Respondent supplied the Roses are valued somewhere between one and two hundred dollars. As a Certified Building Contractor, Respondent knew the actual value of the plans he supplied to the Roses. Respondent knowingly attempted to deceive the Roses by making false statements as to the value of the plans in order to deprive the Roses of a substantial portion of their down payment that they were entitled to have refunded to them.
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, as follows: Dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint. Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(c), (g), (j), (m) and (n), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1992). Suspending Respondent's license as a Certified Building Contractor for a period of three months, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500,and requiring, as a condition of reinstatement, restitution to Jeff and Cathy Rose in the amount of $4,800, and such other reasonable and necessary conditions as the Board may require. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 13th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0669 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-19, 21-24. Rejected as subsumed : paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Senior Construction Attorney G. W. Harrell, Esquire Lead Construction Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Alan Merrill 813 Largo Court Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent has been a Florida-licensed general contractor (holding license number CGC 062108) since February 5, 2001. At all times material to the instant case, JQC held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for JQC. On or about May 10, 2007, JQC, through Respondent, entered into a written contract (Building Contract) with Marienne Cavalier, agreeing, for $95,000.00, to construct an addition to the Miami, Florida residence (Residence) of Ms. Cavalier and her husband, Wilfrid Pierre-Louis (Project). The Building Contract provided as follows: For Architectural, Engineering, Permit Expediting and Construction Services in the sum of Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000.00) based on the following criteria: Architectural services to be provided consist of the following: Bringing into compliance the existing residence with the Zoning & Building Department[']s Requirements for the City of North Miami Beach, in the State of Florida. Complete set of working drawings to include, Design Development, Site Plan/Floor Plan in compliance with the "Florida Building Code" & the Florida Accessibility Code (Handicapped). Exterior Elevations (Facades). Wall Sections & details as required to assure design intent and constructability. Engineering services to be provided consist of the following: Foundation plan and specifications. Plumbing plan and specifications. Electrical plan and specifications. Mechanical plan and specifications. Roof framing plan and specifications. Air conditioning system calculations as per the State of Florida. Home Energy calculations as per the requirements of the State of Florida. Hurricane Wind Load calculations as per the requirements of the Florida Building Code. Permit Expediting services to be provided consist of the following: Submitting of Plans and Application to the Building Department for processing. Going to the Building Department to pick up Plans each time there are revisions to be made, delivering the Plans to the Architect/Engineer for review and re-submitting the Plans to the Building Department. Coordinating plan review between Architect/Engineer and Building Department so as to obtain the Building Permit in a reasonable amount of time. Construction services to be provided consist of the following: Labor and materials included Relocating existing front door Entrance and construction of new Terrace. Demolition of existing Bathroom. Extension of kitchen wall. Relocation of existing Air Conditioning Unit and Duct Work. Demolition of Existing Partitions and Installation of new Partition work to include Dining Room, Living Room and Florida Room. Raising of concrete floor Slab at existing addition. Installation of tiles at new concrete floor. Construction of new Master Bedroom, Master Bathroom and Walk-In Closet. Construction of new Laundry Room. Construction of new Office Room. Demotion of existing flat roof addition. Raising existing tie-beam of flat roof to match the height of the house. Construction of new roof. Installation of new Doors and Windows. New concrete sidewalk at rear of house. Stucco and Painting of new Addition. Painting of Interior walls. Insulation of new Addition Walls and Ceiling. Mechanical work to existing addition as per plans. Plumbing work to existing addition as per plans. Electrical work to existing addition as per plans. Trash Container and Disposal of construction debris. Portable Toilet. Items not included: New Air Conditioner if required by Building Department. Any work related to the existing Septic Tank system. Driveway. Landscaping. Terms of Agreement First Payment (Initial Down Payment) $3,000.00 Second Payment $4,000.00 (Due at Submittal of Plans Building Department) to the Third Payment $24,000.00 (Due at Approval of Construction Permit) Fourth Payment $20,000.00 (Due after First Inspection) Fifth Payment (Due at 50% of $20,000.00 Work Completion) Sixth Payment (Due at 75% of $20,000.00 Work Completion) Seventh Payment $4,000.00 (Due upon Final Inspection) Total cost of Work $95,000.00 Items not specified in this agreement are not part of this contract. Fees for Permits and other Inspections (if required) are not included in the indicated cost above. There was no written statement in the Building Contract explaining a consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as then required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2006). JQC commenced work on the Project after the Building Contract was signed by Respondent and Ms. Cavalier. There were expenses that JQC incurred in connection with the Project that were "unexpected" and "not anticipated," including those related to the demolition work required by the Building Contract. In addition to doing work required by Building Contract (Project Work), JQC did extra work on the Residence (Extra Work), at Mr. Pierre-Louis's request, resulting in further "additional expenses being incurred that were not [contemplated] in the original contract." Respondent (acting on behalf of JQC) and Mr. Pierre-Louis verbally agreed that this Extra Work would be undertaken by JQC, but nothing was ever reduced to writing.2 There came a time, after he and his wife had made several payments to JQC, that Mr. Pierre-Louis became dissatisfied with the pace of the JQC's efforts. Mr. Pierre- Louis confronted Respondent and erroneously "accused [Respondent] of stealing the money" he and his wife had paid (instead of using it to do the work JQC had agreed to do on the Residence). In fact, "the money was being spent on the [improvements to the Residence]." Mr. Pierre-Louis "even called the police on [Respondent]." Respondent was interviewed by a police detective, who, following the interview, told Respondent that "this seem[ed] to be a civil case," not a "criminal" matter. No criminal charges were ever filed against Respondent. To avoid any similar misunderstanding on Mr. Pierre- Louis's part in the future, Respondent told Mr. Pierre-Louis that he and his wife should not give Respondent "a single dollar," but they, instead, should themselves directly pay the workers JQC had working on the job site and also "buy the necessary materials." In or around June 2009, JQC temporarily stopped working on the Residence because "there wasn't any money available" to pay for labor and materials. As of the date of the stoppage of work, approximately 50% of the Project Work and Extra Work had been completed, and Ms. Cavalier and Mr. Pierre-Louis had made the following payments for the Project Work and Extra Work: payments by check to JQC and Respondent, totaling $86,478.85; cash payments to Respondent, totaling $1,553.62; payments by check to JQC workers, totaling $7,835.00; cash payments to JQC workers, totaling $3,600.00; $1,000.00 for concrete; $600.00 for tar paper; and $500.00 for plywood. Respondent explained to Mr. Pierre-Louis that JQC was stopping work on the Residence because the money had "run out," and he assured Mr. Pierre-Louis that JQC would resume the work "whenever [Mr. Pierre-Louis] ha[d] some money available," an assurance that was sincerely made. Mr. Pierre-Louis, in turn, told Respondent that it was his intention to secure the funds necessary to finish the work. Three months later, when Mr. Pierre-Louis "did get some money," he let Respondent know. JQC thereupon began working on the Residence again (as Respondent had promised it would),3 and it has continued to work on the Residence (doing the Project Work and Extra Work) on an ongoing basis (with Ms. Cavalier and Mr. Pierre-Louis paying for labor and materials,4 as they had done immediately before the work had stopped). While Ms. Cavalier and Mr. Pierre-Louis have paid the workers doing the Project Work and Extra Work, these workers have at all times been under Respondent's supervision. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, at least 90% of the Project Work and Extra Work had been completed. Undertaking the Project Work and Extra Work has been a money-losing venture for JQC and Respondent. Petitioner has incurred a total of $297.10 in investigative and prosecutorial costs in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; (3) fining him $375.00 for having committed this violation; and (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department for investigative and prosecutorial costs related to this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 6th day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether the certified general contractor's license of W. Bert Jones should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact By an Administrative Complaint filed October 27, 1976, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board sought to revoke the general contractor's license of W. Bert Jones alleging that the Respondent contractor entered into a contract with Mrs. Barbara Loewe to renovate her home and to add a room onto the back of the house; that the Respondent contractor was paid in full the contract price but the job was not completed and there were numerous building code violations. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. Pursuant to written agreements entered into between the Respondent and Mrs. Barbara Loewe of Tampa, Florida, Respondent agreed to renovate Mrs. Loewe's home and to add a room onto the back of the house. Mrs. Loewe, either by paying the Respondent directly or paying material suppliers, paid the full contract price. In June or July of 1975 the Respondent left the job contracted for partially or wholly incompleted as follows: the ceiling of the kitchen and drywall were in complete and the kitchen was not painted; the guest bathroom was not trimmed; two back rooms were incomplete. Inasmuch as the ceiling was left undone, it was not trimmed, the drywall was incomplete, the doorways were left uninstalled, and the paneling was incomplete; the bathroom had no toilet, no sink and no trim on the tub; in the master bedroom the ceiling was left sagging, there was no insulation in ceiling or walls, the door was untrimmed, siding was left partially undone and the windows weren't trimmed; holes were left unrepaired around the pipes in the home. The sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) was paid by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company in full settlement of the claims arising under the general contractor's bond. Additional money, approximately Thirty-Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500), was spent by Mrs. Loewe in addition to the Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) received from the bonding company in order to complete the jobs contracted for. Although there were minimum changes In the job as originally contracted for, work is still going on to complete the original work contracted for by the Respondent. The building inspector for the City of Tampa Building Bureau, Tom Burgoyme, inspected the job site on several occasions during the progress on the work contracted for between Mrs. Loewe and the Respondent. He found building code violations and submitted a list of corrections to the Respondent, Mr. Jones, which were not remedied. A number of problems arose during the construction work, some of which was not the fault of the Respondent. Another contractor was involved in the work on the project. Funds in excess of the purchase price were paid to the Respondent and funds in excess of Eighty-Five Hundred Dollars ($8,500) were needed or will be needed to complete the project.
Recommendation Revoke the general contractor's license of Respondent, Number C GC007323. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 W. Bert Jones 2300 Greenlawn Street Brandon, Florida 33511
The Issue The issue in this case involves the administrative charge which has been placed by the Florida Real Estate Commission in the person of Harold T. Mooney, against one Claude Talmadge Bray who is registered with the Florida Real Estate Commission as a real estate broker. The charging document which is drawn in the form of an information, says in pertinent part: COUNT ONE "(1) That the defendant did, on or about May 21, 1974, file his sworn application for registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission on a form provided by said Commission. Question 16(a) of the application read as follows: 16(a) Have you served an apprenticeship as a real estate salesman with a registered real estate broker in the State of Florida for the 12 consecutive months within 5 years next prior to the date of this application? If yes, who was the registered broker and what is his business adress? The defendant answered "yes" to the first part of the above question and "Tony Vaughan - Monteverde, Florida" to the second part of such question on his said application for registration. That thereafter the application of defendant, Claude Talmadge Bray, was approved and he subsequently received his registration as a real estate broker, being initially registered as1 such with the Commission on or about September 18, 1974. That, at the time of the execution of the application as aforesaid, the defendant knew or should have known that his answers to question numbered 16(a) thereof were false and untrue in that: From September 10, 1971, to June 30, 1974, inclusive, defendant Claude Talmadge Bray was a full-time employee of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., a construction company with offices at 3744 North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida 33610. While the defendant did register with the Commission as a real estate salesman employed by Lester Tony Vaughan, a registered real estate broker whose last business address is registered with the Commission as Division Street, Monteverde, Florida, 32756, said registration was effected solely for the purpose of attempting to show to the Commission that the defendant wads in compliance with the apprenticeship requirements of Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes; but that, in truth and fact, the defendant Claude Talmadge Bray had served no apprenticeship as required by, and within the intent and meaning of said Subsection 475.17(3), Florida Statutes, with the said Lester Tony Vaughan or any other registered real estate broker, and that the defendant, during said period of purported apprenticeship, had not handled any real estate transactions participated in any closings or received any instructions from, for or on behalf of the said Lester Tony Vaughan, Registered Broker. That by reason therof, it appears that the defendant1 Claude Talmadge Bray, does not possess the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trust worthiness and good character as required by Subsection 475.17(1), Florida Statutes; has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretenses, dishonest dealing and trick, scheme or device, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and that the defendant obtained his registration as a real estate broker with the Florida Real Estate Commission by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment, in violation Of Subsection 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Information be filed and notice of the filing thereof be given to the Defendant and that proceedings be had, all in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and if the evidence warrants, the registration of Claude Talmadge Bray be revoked." The Respondent has denied the allegations set forth in the charging document, which is entitled an information, and proceeded to a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the person of the undersigned, under authority of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner presented its case on the basis of oral testimony presented at the hearing and through tangible items of evidence. The Respondent elected to present evidence in the course of the hearing, and did so through the medium of oral testimony in the course of the hearing and through tangible evidence, which was the subject of a stipulation with the Petitioner. The first witness presented by the Petitioner was Ralph J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. Mr. Ramer was the former employer of the Respondent, and additionally was responsible for making a complaint which led to the investigation of this case by the Petitioner. This complaint was in the form of a letter from the witness, Ramer, addressed to the Petitioner and dated July 3, 1974. A copy of this letter has been received by the hearing officer as a Joint Exhibit of the Petitioner and Respondent and Is therefore made a part of the record in this cause. Mr. Ramer indicated that he had hired the Respondent on September 10, 1971, as a salesman with the witness's then existing company, and that the Respondent had been promoted to a vice president's position in 1971 or 1972 after the incorporation of the witness's company. It was further related that the Respondent was terminated from employment by the witness on June 30, 1974. During the course of the Respondent's employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes, Mr. Bray participated in a position which had as its major function the sale of construction contracts for the purpose of building homes on real estate which was held by the purchaser. In addition, when the Respondent became Vice President he made certain connections with the bank, in that he talked with the officers of the banks relative to financing. More specifically, Bray presented sales papers to banks, he followed up on proposed financing, he attended closings of loans if necessary, he took credit statements for potential purchasers, ordered surveys, ordered titles, ordered insurance, prepared deeds, prepared mortgage documents, worked with appraisers, conducted closings and he picked up certain bank draw disbursements from the lending institutions. At these closings, as aforementioned, mortgages were signed and funds were disbursed. In relation to the question of whether or not Mr. Ramer's company and, more particularly, Mr. Bray, were involved in the active sale of real estate, he said that salesman could assist a potential customer in finding land to build houses on. Ramer also indicated that the company, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., had bought four lots in Ocala and had built three houses on these lots. The cause for dismissal of the Respondent, according to Mr. Ramer, was for the reasons set forth in the letter of July 3, 1974, by the witness. Ramer further elaborated that he didn't know that Lester L. Vaughan had made application for professional license to the Florida Construction Licensing Board, while Vaughan was working for Ramer. Therefore, when he found out that Bray was working full-time for the witness and at the same time helping other employees to obtain a contractor's license, which was felt to not be in the best interest of the company because it would promote competition against the company through the employee of the company, Ramer dismissed the Respondent. In response to questions concerning the existence of a certain civil suit filed by the Respondent against Mr. Ramer, the witness acknowledged such a suit, but stated that he had no sense of vendetta against the Respondent. While the Respondent was employed with Hallmark Leisure Homes, the Respondent was preparing for a real estate license exam and serving an apprenticeship according to Lester Vaughan, the younger At the same time there were negotiations with the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in particular, Mr. Ramer, for the purpose of qualifying the real estate broker's license of Lester T. Vaughan in establishing a branch office at the Hallmark Leisure Homes office location on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida. Moreover, Mr. Ramer was in favor of this arrangement and it didn't appear that these negotiations to establish such an office were in any way designed to defraud the public from Vaughan the younger's observation. When the witness, Lester Vaughan, was specifically asked questions about the nature of the sales in which the Respondent participated, he stated that the sales were not the sale of real estate per se. However, he did indicate that there was a similarity in his mind to the sale of real estate and the sale of "on your lot construction contracts", and he stated this opinion from his knowledge of the function of a real estate broker, being a real estate broker himself. As a matter of fact, the witness felt that the function performed by the Respondent, Bray, was much more detailed than the function of a real estate broker in carrying out the broker's duties. Another significant comment by the witness was his statement that the contract form used by Hallmark Leisure Homes was similar to the form utilized for real estate contracts, testifying from his knowledge. In closing, the witness testified that he and the Respondent had looked for lots to be purchased to build homes on for prospective customers, but that they were never successful in achieving such an arrangement. The Petitioner placed Lester T. Vaughan on the stand, who at the time of his testimony was also charged by the Florida Real Estate Commission in Progress Docket #2671 for Hillsborough County, with an offense relating to the apprenticeship of Claude Talmadge Bray. The witness, Lester T. Vaughan, indicated that he was not working at the time of his testimony, but he had been and office worker for a citrus company. He has been a licensed real estate broker since August of 1972; however, he has never transacted any real estate sales. The witness was shown Petitioner's Exhibits "B", "C", "D", and "E" and identified those documents. Exhibit "B" is a reference statement signed by the witness upon the request for application to be a real estate broker made by Claude Talmadge Bray before the Florida Real Estate Commission. Exhibit "C" by the Petitioner is an application for a branch office registration certificate. Petitioner's Exhibit "D" is a declaration of employment for apprenticeship purposes and Petitioner's Exhibit "E" is a statement of the. applicant's employment and apprenticeship by the witness, Lester Tony Vaughan. (All these documents are copies of the originals). Lester T. Vaughan indicated that the Respondent, Bray, had not made any real estate sales while in his employ and that the figures in the affidavit which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", were transactions mad Respondent was working with Hallmark Leisure Homes. The witness then testified that the Respondent told him that these were sales while in the employ of Hallmark Leisure Homes and further that he, the Respondent, could use those sales as a basis for stating experience in applying for a Real Estate Broker's License, even though they were not sales of real estate. Lester T. Vaughan testified that he had not talked with Mr. Ramer about locating a branch office on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida, at the business of Hallmark Leisure Homes, but to his knowledge Mr. Ramer had never voiced any objection to such a branch office at that location. Lester T. Vaughan stated that he had never examined the contract forms or the closing statements utilized by Hallmark Leisure Homes. He had however talked with the Respondent 4 or 5 times in Tampa and several times at his, the witness's home address, about real estate related matters. At the close of the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner offered into evidence Exhibits "A" - "E", all of which have been particularly described, in the course of the findings of fact, with the exception of Exhibit "A" for identification, which is the application for registration as a real estate broker which was filed with the Florida Real Estate Commission by the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray. These items of evidence were admitted as evidence after examination and legal argument as will be further described in the section of this Recommended Order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent made certain motions at the Inception of the case directed to the sufficiency of the charging document and renewed these motions at the close of the Petitioner's case. These representations by the Respondent will be considered in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Respondent offered witnesses in support of his position in the form of a witness to the facts contained in the allegations placed against the Respondent and certain character witnesses in his behalf. The Respondent further elected to take the stand in his own behalf. (All matters offered by the Respondent were premised on the eventuality that the Hearing Officer and/or the Florida Real Estate Commission did not agree with the Respondent's contention that the Petitioner had failed to meet its burden of proof, either in the statement of its pleadings or through presentation of its case in chief). The presentation of testimony on the facts related in this matter was a brief recall of Lester T. Vaughn for purposes of testifying about the facts surrounding the apprenticeship. In this recall Lester T. Vaughan indicated that he felt that the Respondent was a smart young man, by way of responding to a question on the necessity for close supervision of the work by the Respondent. As a follow up he indicated that the broker apprentice did not need day to day supervision. Finally, the witness stated that he felt that bray would have called him if he had needed help from the witness. When the Respondent took the stand, he testified that he is now employed with Ruby V. Williamson, a real estate broker, and that he has been so employed for 6 months as a realtor associate. A brief statement of his background prior to his present employment indicated that he had received formal education to include a bachelors degree and some graduate work, although It was not clear from the testimony that he received a graduate degree. Additionally, it was net established if the formal education had any significance in real estate work. Some of the positions held by the Respondent included work in educational television, teaching, sales positions, and eventually work with Jim Walter Corporation in home sales. While with Jim Walter he served as a branch manager of the offices in Lake City, Florida, Orlando, Florida, and Fredricksburg, Virginia, in the home construction division of that corporation. After leaving Walter Corporation he worked briefly at Allstate Homes and then started with Hallmark Leisure Homes in 1971. At the beginning of his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes they were a partnership and later became a corporation. The Respondent stated that he started as a salesman with Hallmark Leisure Homes and was elevated to the position of vice president in that corporation at a later date. In his employment with Hallmark Leisure Homes he said that the officials at Hallmark Leisure Homes thought that real estate expertise was an advantage aid, moreover, that to locate a real estate branch office at their business address on North 40th Street, Tampa, Florida would be advantageous. His involvement with real estate licensing started with the issuance of a real estate salesman's license from the Florida Regal Estate Commission in 1971. After that time he decided to qualify for a real estate broker's license before the Florida State Real Estate Commission, and selected Lester T. Vaughan as his apprenticing broker on the basis of a suggestion made by Lester Vaughan, his coworker. For the record, Lester Vaughan is the son of Lester T. Vaughan. Hue indicated that he spoke to other realtors about the apprenticeship, in addition to conversations with Lester T. Vaughan. Two of these persons, Pearl Elliston and Clay Cordington were asked about their interpretation of the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E", relating to the numbers of real estate sales and attendance at closings of real estate sales. The Respondent stated that Mr. Cordington felt that the Respondent's experience with selling "on your own lot homes" was sufficient experience to be counted in responding to the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness felt that the reason for this response was because of the familiarity of Mr. Cordington with the work the Respondent was doing, in that the Respondent had sold Mr. Cordington two houses. The Respondent stated that Mrs. Elliston did not give him a definite answer on his inquiry. Furthermore the witness Indicated that he called the Florida Real Estate Commission office, particularly the licensing department, about what the blanks meant on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E" and the blanks Involved with numbers of real estate sales, closings attended, and hours of instruction, and ethics and office operations etc. The witness stated that he spoke with some lady in the department that didn't seem to know what to do about that particular form. Upon the undersigned's examination of the witness on the question of whether or not he referred this matter to the superior of the lady who answered his inquiry, the witness responded that he did not. By way of elaboration on the forms, the Respondent testified that he looked at the Land Book in order to comply with the matters set forth in the forms. The witness seemed to place emphasis on the fact that when he was provided with Petitioner's Exhibit "D", he was told that this was the only necessary form to be completed as part of the requirement for becoming a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, for that reason he seemed somewhat baffled by the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The witness went into some detail to explain how he arrived at the figures on the form which is Petitioner's Exhibit "E". Put concisely, the witness testified that the basis for the figures 56 and 24 upon Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were arrived at by examining "on your lot home sales" made while employed by Hallmark Leisure Homes and closings that he attended in connection with those sales. The figure 100 hours was arrived at by estimates in discussions with Lester T. Vaughan and lecture type course attendance. Bray stated that the figures on that form, Petitioner's Exhibit "E", had been discussed with Lester T. Vaughan, Ramer and Weisiger, another official at Hallmark Leisure Homes. There are other matters which constituted Involvement with real estate sales, but none of these listings were ever consummated through a real estate sale. Moreover, these figures involving listings for Hallmark Leisure Homes and Listings by the Respondent privately were not reflected in figures on Petitioner's Exhibit "E". The Respondent seemed to, under questioning of whether the sales reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit "E" were real estate sales, be convinced at the time of hearing that the sales were not real estate sales per se, although at the time he was making the representations on Petitioner's Exhibit "E" he did not seem as convinced of that fact. Nevertheless, because of the real estate related nature of the work done for Hallmark Leisure Homes, and because in many respects the witness felt that his function was more comprehensive than that of a real estate broker, he felt that the experience with Hallmark Leisure Homes was work which was a fulfillment of the requirement for apprenticeship. Finally, the witness indicated that at the time he filled out the various forms for the Real Estate Commission that he had no intent to defraud or mislead by offering the statistics that he had set forth. Testimony was offered by one Clifford Opp, Jr., Esquire, who has known the Respondent since he was 14 years old, to the extent of being in business with the Respondent, in a restaurant venture which was unsuccessful. He further stated that he, did not feel that the Respondent would provide false information to the Real Estate Commission. Although the witness had been in a confidential relationship with Hallmark Leisure Homes, as their attorney, and therefore unable to divulge any confidences; nevertheless, stated that he didn't recall any report of the company about the Respondent's conduct. In summary, the witness felt that the Respondent was trustworthy. Wilbur J. Wells was called on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Wells had been a coworker at Hallmark Leisure Homes, in addition to being in the same fraternity in college with the Respondent and in the restaurant business with the Respondent. Mr. Wells is now a realtor associate and has a real estate salesman's license issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission. He says that the Respondent's character in terms of truth and veracity is outstanding and that the witness did not believe that the Respondent would lie to the Real Estate Commission. Ruby Williamson, the present employer of the Respondent was called. Ruby Williamson is a real estate broker, and she has known the Respondent for 6 or 7 years, and feels that the Respondent has an excellant reputation and would not lie to the Real Estate Commission. Assuming the application of the cited statutes in the complaint, from the testimony set forth in the hearing it would appear that the Respondent did not intend to defraud, misrepresent, conceal, act under false pretenses, deal dishonestly or trick, unlawfully scheme or device, in violation of Section 425.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, nor did the applicant intend to defraud, misrepresent, or conceal in violation of ss.425.25(2), Florida Statutes. Moreover, there has been insufficient showing that the Respondent lacks the necessary qualifications of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness and good character as required by ss.425.17, Florida Statutes. The facts show that the Respondent sought advise from practicing real estate brokers in Florida and the Florida Real Estate Commission before filling out Petitioner's Exhibit "E", and these facts are unrefuted. He acted upon that information about the exhibit in good faith. Considering the testimony of the relationship of the Respondent to Lester Tony Vaughan, his apprenticing broker, the Respondent was legitimately receiving counsel and acting in the employ of Lester Tony Vaughan, notwithstanding, the fact that the pursuit failed to consummate any real estate sales. The facts also Indicate that the Respondent received adequate supervision from Lester Tony Vaughan, because Florida Statutes, Chapter 475 and its rules and regulations do not require full time supervision or employment in qualifying for a real estate broker's license in Florida. The six or seven visits and conferences between Lester Tony Vaughan and the Respondent were sufficient compliance for a man in the Respondent's position considering the relationship of the sales activity he was performing for Hallmark Leisure Homes to the sale of real estate proper. Finally, certain evidential items were offered in behalf of the Respondent. The first item was the letter dated January 3, 1974, written by R. J. Ramer, President of Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc., addressed to the Florida Real Estate Commission. This letter has been received as a Joint Exhibit of the parties upon joint stipulation of the parties and has been marked as Joint Exhibit "1". A second document was offered by the Respondent in the form of a letter addressed to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Beard on the subject of Lester Vaughn's application for license. This letter was written by R. J. Ramer, President, Hallmark Leisure Homes, Inc. This particular correspondence was not admitted far reasons set forth in the section entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent, Claude Talmadge Bray, be released from the charges brought under Progress Docket #2658, Hillsborough County, and that the Respondent go forth without penalty against his registration as a real estate broker in the State of Florida and that his certificate as broker-salesman remain in full force and effect. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Jr., Esquire (For the Commission) Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 David Luther Woodward, Esquire Rose and Woodward, Chartered 1211 The Madison Building Tampa, Florida 33602
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
The Issue The issue presented by the Motion and supplemental Motion to Dismiss is whether the Golden Gate Area Taxpayers Association (Association) has standing to maintain this challenge to the applications for consumptive use permits sought by Collier County (County) and the City of Naples (City) from the South Florida Water Management District (District).
Findings Of Fact The County filed its application number 08158A with the District for modification of consumptive use permit number 11-00249-W, on or about August 15, 1988. The City filed its application number 08137-H with the District for modification of consumptive use permit numbers 11-00017-W & 11-00018-W, on or about August 15, 1988. After review, the District staff issued its recommendation to grant the County and City's consumptive use permit applications, with limiting conditions, on or about January 24 and 25, 1989. The Association filed its Petition and Amended Petition herein on February 8, 1989, and March 6, 1989, respectively, challenging the issuance of these consumptive use permits. The Association did not allege any basis upon which standing could be established in its Petition or Amended Petition. There is no allegation in either document which describes the Association, alleges its purpose, scope or interest, the number of members in the Association and the number of its members adversely affected by the issuance of these permits, or the reason why the relief sought is appropriate for it to receive. Discovery was allowed to proceed in order to determine if there was a basis, notwithstanding these deficiencies in the Petition and Amended Petition, upon which the Association could establish its standing at final hearing. The District preserved its right to renew its objection to the Association's standing throughout this proceeding, and timely sought a determination thereon, after discovery had been concluded, but before the commencement of final hearing. This action is specifically maintained by the Association, and not by individual members thereof, or non-member property owners. However, the Association has not asserted that its substantial interests will be adversely affected by issuance of these permits. The Association is not an existing legal user of water in Collier County. The Association does not own, lease or otherwise control lands impacted by the permits sought by the County and City. The membership of the Association varies throughout the year as members pay their annual dues. The current membership of the Association totals 59, according to its Amended Second Response to First Interrogatories from Respondent Collier County filed on October 30, 1989, but it had reached a total membership of approximately 200 at times, according to the President of the Association, as dues are paid each year. The Association alleged in the motion hearing held on October 30, 1989, that 13 of its current members are adversely affected by the proposed issuance of these permits. However, in response to Interrogatories served by Hearing Officer Donnelly, the Association indicated that only 5 members were affected, and in response the District's Interrogatories the Association indicated that 6 of its members were affected. Thus, the Association's estimate of the number of its members who would be affected by issuance of these permits is uncertain, inconsistent, unreliable and lacks credibility. The nature of that adverse effect is stated to be damage to domestic wells, degradation of water quality, and a decline in water quantity, according to affidavits filed by the Association on October 13, 1989, in response to Interrogatories from Hearing Officer Donnelly. The only provision in the Association's by-laws upon which it relies in this proceeding to support its standing is found at Article V, Section 4, which states, "The corporation reserves the right to seek judicial relief in the furtherance of its aims and purpose." The only provision in its articles of incorporation which have been relied upon by the Association in this regard were cited during the motion hearing on October 30, 1989, and provide generally that the Association's purpose is to inform its members about the ongoing activities of government, particularly local government. It is clear that the Association is a taxpayer's association which has taken action in the past regarding tax assessments, and represented the views of its members in matters relating thereto. There is no other allegation or explanation of record regarding the purpose, scope, or interest of the Association, or factors which would support a finding that the relief sought herein is appropriate for the Association to receive on behalf of its members. The Association's exhibit list and amended exhibit list filed herein do not contain any exhibits which would clarify or explain its purpose, scope or interest in these matters, its total membership and number of adversely affected members, or how the relief which it seeks in this proceeding is appropriate for it to receive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition, as amended, which has been filed herein by the Association, based upon the Association's lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd of November, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd of November, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 89-2100) Ruling on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 6 2-4. Adopted in Finding 9. 5. Adopted in Finding 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Grimm, Director Golden Gate Area Taxpayers Association 3093 52nd Street, S.W. Naples, FL 33999 Mark G. Lawson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Collier County Courthouse 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building F Naples, FL 33962-4976 Elizabeth D. Ross, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 David W. Rynders, Esquire City of Naples 735 Eighth Street South Naples, FL 33940 John Wodraska Executive Director P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
The Issue Whether Petitioners' claim for monies from the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund is subject to adjudication pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, how much should Petitioners be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On or about October 1, 1997, Petitioners entered into a contract in which they agreed to pay Respondent Norman Levinsky's company, Broward Roofing, Inc., $3,700.00 to place a "new shingle roof" on Petitioners' residence and perform other related roofing work. The contract provided Petitioners with a ten-year "labor warranty" and a 30-year shingle warranty. After the contracted work was completed and Petitioners paid Broward Roofing, Inc., the $3,700.00 called for by the contract, the newly-installed roof started leaking. Broward Roofing, Inc., refused to make the necessary repairs. Petitioners paid other contractors to perform the repair work. On November 17, 1998, Petitioner filed an application seeking to recover from the Florida Construction Industries Recovery Fund (which has since been renamed the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund) $1,025.00 that they had paid for repairs to the "new shingle roof" Broward Roofing, Inc., had recently installed, contending that they were deserving of such an award inasmuch as "[t]he roofer [Broward Roofing, Inc.] [had] refused to fix [their] new roof that was leaking and [had] totally ignored [their] 10 year warranty." Their application was filed on a Board-produced Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form (Form), at the end of which was printed the following: In addition to your complete written statement, we are requesting documentation of your contractual relationship with the contractor and evidence supporting your claim. Certified copies of the following list of documents are required to assist us in determining your eligibility for recovery. I have attached the following: (these documents are required for proper processing of your claim. Failure to provide required documentation will delay processing and could result in your claim being denied due to incompleteness.) Court certified copy of the Civil Judgment, and/or Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board directing restitution be paid. Copy of contract between you and the contractor. Copies of applicable bonds, sureties, guarantees, warranties, letters of credit and/or policies of insurance. Court certified copies of levy and execution documents. Proof of all efforts/inability to collect restitution judgment. No claims will be processed until 45 days after the date of entry of the Civil Judgment and/or Final Restitution Order. On the completed Form that Petitioners filed, only the spaces next to "Copy of contract between you and the contractor" and "Copies of applicable bonds, sureties, guarantees, warranties, letters of credit and/or policies of insurance" were checked. On May 4, 1999, the Broward County Central Examining Board of Construction Trades filed an Administrative Complaint against "Norman Levinsky d/b/a Broward Roofing, Inc.," which read as follows: Count I At all times material hereto RESPONDENT was a roofing contractor holding Broward County Certificate of Competency #95-7726-R- R. On or about September 16, 1997, RESPONDENT entered into a contract to re- roof Complainant's home located at 10551 N.W. 21st Court, Sunrise, Florida. RESPONDENT obtained a building permit. The work was completed on March 10, 1998 and the roof began to leak on June 1, 1998. RESPONDENT failed to properly supervise to ensure that the tie in with flat roof was properly completed. His failure to ensure such a proper tie in resulted in leaks. Wherefore, it is charged that the RESPONDENT violated Subsection 9-14(b)(11) of the Broward County Code of Ordinances by failing to properly supervise a project commenced pursuant to a building permit. Count II Paragraphs 1 and 2 are included as if restated herein. Complainant paid RESPONDENT the total contract price of $3,700.00. RESPONDENT completed the work. RESPONDENT gave Complainant a 10 year labor warranty. RESPONDENT failed and refused to honor his warranty. Complainant had to pay additional amount of $1,025.00 for a new contractor to repair the work of RESPONDENT. Wherefore, it is charged that the RESPONDENT violated Subsection 9-14(b)(5)c of the Broward County Code of Ordinances by committing mismanagement which causes financial harm to a customer because the customer had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price. Count III Above paragraphs are included as if restated herein. RESPONDENT failed to honor the warranty and complete the project in a workmanlike manner for a period in excess of 90 consecutive days. Wherefore, it is charged that the RESPONDENT violated Subsection 9-14(b)(8) of the Broward County Code of Ordinances by abandoning a construction project in which RESPONDENT was under contract as a contractor. It is determined that the above stated charges are grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to Chapter 9, Sections 9-14, 9-28 and 9-46, Broward County Code of Ordinances and Section 6.11, Broward County Charter. Broward County has the authority to certify and discipline local contractors pursuant to Section 489.131, Florida Statutes. Following a hearing on the Administrative Complaint held May 25, 1999, the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades, on June 16, 1999, issued an Order, which read as follows: A Disciplinary Proceeding was held on May 25, 1999, before the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades (the "Board"), in accordance with Section 9-14, Broward County Code of Ordinances (the "Code"). Service of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent was made by certified mail. The Respondent being duly advised was not present at the hearing. The Board heard the sworn testimony of William Grubb and Marlene Grubb. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED: The allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint are found to be true and adopted and incorporated herein by reference as findings of fact. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved and adopted and incorporated herein. Upon these findings, it is therefore ORDERED: That Respondent's Certificate of Competency is hereby revoked. That the Respondent make restitution to the Complainants in the amount of $3,700.00. Prior to the RESPONDENT being allowed to reinstate his certificate of competency or being allowed to sit for any exam administered by a Broward County Central Examining Board, or receiving any license from a Broward County Central Examining Board, RESPONDENT must appear before the Board and prove that the restitution amount has been paid in full. The board's order may be appealed by Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of the order of the board as provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. FURTHER, the Broward County Central Examining Board of Construction Trades makes RECOMMENDATION to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to impose on the state registration, the following penalty: 1. Revoke state registration and require the RESPONDENT to make restitution to the Complainants in the amount of $3,700.00. In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 489.131(7)(c) and (d), the disciplined contractor, the complainant, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation may challenge the local jurisdiction enforcement body's recommended penalty for Board action to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. A challenge shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the recommended penalty to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board in Jacksonville, Florida. If challenged, there is a presumptive finding of probable cause and the case may proceed before the State Board without the need for a probable cause hearing. Failure of the disciplined contractor, the complainant, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to challenge the local jurisdiction's recommended penalty within the time period set forth in this subsection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing before the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. A waiver of the right to a hearing before the State Board shall be deemed an admission of the violation, and the penalty recommended shall become a final order according to procedures developed by State Board rule without further State Board action. Pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, the Parties are hereby notified that they may appeal the Final Order of the State Board by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792, and by filing the filing fee and one copy of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the effective date of said Order. On or sometime after September 1, 1999, Petitioners filed an affidavit prepared by Petitioner Marlene Grubb, which read as follows: I, Marlene A. Grubb, hereby certify that I have completed a reasonable search and inquiry in accordance with the instructions provided by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and have not found property or assets to satisfy my Board Order[1] in whole or part. Legal Names The Department of State revealed that the company Broward Roofing Inc. was administratively dissolved on 9/10/98. The C[IL]B verified the contractor[']s name and license number as: Norman Levinsky d/b/a Broward Roofing Inc. RC0047656. Real Property My search included property in the names: Norman Levinsky and Broward Roofing Inc. in Broward County, Florida. Norman Levinsky had no real property and Broward Roofing Inc. is delinquent on property taxes for over two years. Boats and Motor Vehicles There were no vehicles or boats in the motor vehicle data bank registered to Norman Levinsky or Broward Roofing Inc. Aircraft The FAA in Oklahoma City, Ms. Jeannie Vannest stated that there is no registration listed for Norman Levinsky or Broward Roofing Inc. On March 25, 2004, the Board rendered a Final Order Approving Recommended Order of Disciplinary Action by Local Enforcement Body, which approved the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades' June 16, 1999, Order and read as follows: THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") pursuant to Section 489.131(7), Florida Statutes, for a determination of whether to accept the proposed recommended penalty by the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades (a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference). Neither the Petitioner, the Respondent nor the Complainant filed a challenge to the local enforcement body's recommended penalty to the Board. Upon consideration of the local enforcement body's Administrative Complaint, the minutes from the meetings on January 21, 1999, and May 25, 1999, and the Final Order of Disciplinary Action and its proposed recommended penalty to the Board in this matter and being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The proposed recommended penalty is hereby approved and adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference. In accordance with the recommended penalty, Respondent's state registration (RC 0047656) is hereby REVOKED. Respondent shall pay restitution in the amount of $3,700 to William and Marlene Grubb. Respondent will adhere to and abide by all of the terms and conditions of the recommended penalty. Failure to abide by the terms of this Order may result in further action by the Board. This Order shall be placed in and become a part of Respondent's official records. A change in the Respondent's licensure status, including the suspension, revocation, voluntary relinquishment, or delinquency of license, does not relieve the Respondent of his obligation to pay any fines, costs, interest or restitution imposed in this and previous orders. Pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, the Parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0792, and by filing the filing fee and one copy of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order. This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of Department of Business and Professional Regulation. This was the "Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board directing restitution be paid," that, according to the Form Petitioners used to submit their claim for monies from the Florida Construction Industries Recovery Fund, was "required for proper processing of [their] claim." On June 10, 2004, more than five and a half years after Petitioners had filed their claim application, the Board met to determine the merits of their claim pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. Although given due notice of the Board meeting, neither Petitioners, nor Mr. Levinsky, made an appearance, either in person or through a representative, at the meeting. "[U]pon consideration of the documentation and testimony submitted," the Board determined that Petitioners' claim for $1,025.00 should be "approved." On July 29, 2004, the Board rendered (that is, filed with the agency clerk) a written order to this effect, which read as follows: THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industries Recovery Fund Committee and Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") pursuant to sections 120.57(2) and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003) as well as rule 61G4-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, on June 10, 2004, in Coral Gables, Florida, for consideration of a claim for restitution from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund (the "Recovery Fund"). William [a]nd Marlene Grubb ("Claimants") and Norman Levinsky ("Licensee") were duly notified of the proceedings. At the proceedings before the committee and the Board, Claimants were not present, and were not represented by counsel. Licensee was not present, and was not represented by counsel. Upon consideration of the documentation and testimony submitted, it is ORDERED: Claimants satisfied all requirements for payment from the Recovery Fund. The Recovery Fund Claim was filed on November 17, 1998. The application was timely filed. The contractor was paid $3,700.00. Claimants were awarded restitution from the Construction Industry Licensing Board on March 24, 2004, in the amount of $3,700.00, pursuant to a Final Order Approving Recommended Order of Disciplinary Action by Local Enforcement Body. The Board adopted and approved the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades recommendation, which found: Contractor held a current and active license at all times material to the transaction; The construction contract is dated September 18, 1997; The work was completed on March 10, 1998, and the roof began leaking June 1, 1998; Contractor failed to honor the warranty on the roof; As a result, Claimants paid an additional $1,025.00 for repair work; Contractor violated subsection 9- 14(b)(5)c of the Broward County Ordinances by committing mismanagement, which caused financial harm to a consumer because the consumer had to pay more for the contractual job than the original contract price. The contractor engaged in activity that appears [to] violate section 489.129(1)(g)2, Florida Statutes (2003). There is an asset search in the file that shows no assets are available from which claimant can satisfy the judgment. Pursuant to section 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), the maximum amount that the Recovery Fund can pay on a single claim is $25,000.00. Thus, the claim for restitution from the Recovery Fund is APPROVED in the amount of $1,025.00. In accordance with rule 61G4-21.005, Florida Administrative Code, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation is directed to pay the claim from the Recovery Fund after forty-five days from the date upon which the Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. Pursuant to section 489.143(6), Florida Statutes (2003), upon payment of the claim from the Recovery Fund, Licensee's licensure to practice contracting is AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED without any further administrative action. Pursuant to section 489.143(2), Florida Statutes (2003), upon receipt by Claimant under section 489.143(1), Florida Statutes (2003) of payment from the Recovery Fund, Claimant shall assign his or her additional right, title, and interest in the judgment or restitution order, to the extent of such payment, to the Board, and thereupon the Board shall be subrogated to the right, title, and interest of the Claimant; and any amount subsequently recovered on the award, judgment or restitution order by the Board, to the extent of the right, title, and interest of the Board therein, shall be for the purpose of reimbursing the Recovery Fund. This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2004. Appended to the order was the following Notice of Right of Appeal: You are hereby notified that mediation is not available in this matter. Pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, you may seek review of the above by filing a request for hearing with the Executive Director of the Board at 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of this Order. Upon request, you will receive an informal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In the alternative, you may request a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if there are material facts in dispute; if you request a formal hearing, the petition must contain the information required by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, including specification of the facts which are in dispute. If you request a hearing, you have the right to be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative to take testimony. On August 12, 2004, Petitioners filed a Request for Hearing, complaining that they "should be awarded at least $3,475.00" to be adequately compensated for all of the repairs they had to make to their roof as a result of Broward Roofing, Inc.'s failure to meet its responsibilities. On August 30, 2004, the Board referred the matter to DOAH "for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a formal hearing" pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue an order dismissing Petitioners' Request for Hearing challenging the Board's order, rendered July 29, 2004, disposing of their claim for monies from the Fund, but allowing them, if they so desire, to request that that order be vacated and re-rendered so that they will have the opportunity to file a timely appeal in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of December, 2004.
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
