Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Hamilton held registered residential contractors license number RR0015037. Hamilton agreed to construct a house in Clearmont, Florida, with a completion date no later than May 1, 1977, for Robert J. and Margaret M. Phlepsen. The construction price was $75,000.00. After construction of the house it was discovered that there existed two violations of the Southern Building Code. First, the "step-down" from the kitchen to the garage was an eleven inch riser contrary to the code requirement that the height of a riser shall not exceed seven and three quarters inches. The second violation occurred through the use of 2 X 8 joists where the code would require 2 X 10 joists. The extra high riser between the kitchen and the garage was apparently caused by an oversight. Hamilton merely failed to install an intermediate step at that location. The second violation occurred because the owner and Hamilton agreed to use the smaller joists in order to save money on the contract price. In neither case is there sufficient evidence to establish that Hamilton's violations were willful or deliberate as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On June 6, 1978, the Lake County Board of Examiners suspended Hamilton's Lake County Certificate of Competency because of violations of building code requirements in the construction of Phlepsen's house.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jean P. Pittenger is a licensed general contractor holding license number CGC010323 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and is a licensed real estate broker-salesman, holding license number 0341210. Respondent Lan Thi Tran also known as Marie J Pittenger; is a licensed real estate salesman, holding license number SLO216661. Respondent LeRoy G. Bailey is a real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number BKO184114. On or about December 11, 1981, the Respondents Pittenger and Tran solicited and obtained Louis and Lamquet DeWinter and J. M. Demeulemeister as purchasers and joint venturers for the purchase of a certain piece of real property in Collier County, and for the construction of a house thereon. The Respondent Pittenger was the President and qualifying agent for his construction company known as "The Pittenger Company," d/b/a Real Estate Technology Group. Jean Pittenger entered into the joint venture agreement with Louie Philippe DeWinter and the others, as president of that entity. Pursuant to this agreement, DeWinter agreed to purchase a lot at Site 51, Block A, The Pelican Bay, Unit 1, a recorded subdivision in Collier County, Florida, and Respondent Jean Pittenger agreed to construct a first-class residence" on the property for purposes of investment and resale. Respondent Jean Pittenger never qualified his company or the joint venture entity under which he intended to undertake to construct the house with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In connection with the joint venture, the DeWinters gave to Marilyn Evanish of Coral Ridge-Collier Properties, Inc., a $17,000 earnest money deposit in accordance with the sales contract calling for DeWinter to purchase the property at a total of $170,000. The DeWinters' also paid $15,000 for architectural services and $13,151 for advance construction costs, attorney's fees and the like to Respondents' Pittenger and Tran. The DeWinters' made these disbursements from their own funds in trust and reliance upon the statements, actions and representations of Respondents' Pittenger and Tran to the effect that an architect would be retained to design the residence to be built, and that construction permits would be obtained and construction would `begin at a time certain. Thereafter, on or about April 14, 1982, Pittenger and Tran, unilaterally terminated the professional services of the architect and abandoned the joint venture agreement and the construction of the residence without explanation to their fellow joint venturers, the DeWinters, who were the owners of the lot upon which the residence was to be constructed. Respondent Pittenger never returned to complete construction. This unilateral action by the Respondents resulted in the DeWinters losing the use and benefit of approximately $28,151 which they had paid to those Respondents for architectural services and construction costs, which services were never performed. Louis DeWinter made demand on the Pittengers for return of the funds. Respondents' Pittenger and Tran, however, failed to justify the abandonment of construction of the dwelling, and failed and refused to account for the funds or what services, if any, had been purchased with the funds provided them by DeWinter for development of the property. Respondents' Pittenger and Tran utilized the $13,151 for their own use and benefits or in any event, for a use and benefit not intended by their joint venture partners and clients, the DeWinters. An indefinite portion of the $15,000 attributable to architectural services was apparently paid to the architect engaged to design the house; but in any event, Pittenger and Tran terminated the professional services of the architect before he completed his design and failed to account for or deliver the $13,151 entrusted to them by the DeWinters and intended for initiation of construction. The evidence does not clearly establish what became of the $15,000 advance for architectural services, but the DeWinters never received the benefit of any architectural services purchased. On or about March 24, 1982, Respondents' Jean P. Pittenger and Lan Thi Tran solicited and obtained $5,000 from the DeWinters supposedly for the purpose of purchasing real property in Bonita Springs, Florida, for investment and resale. The DeWinters' gave $5,000 to Respondents' Jean P. Pittenger and Lan Thi Tran in trust and reliance upon the acts, representations and statements of those Respondents which were made in order to induce the DeWinters' to deliver the $5,000 to them. Thereafter, those Respondents refused and neglected to account for or deliver to the Dewinters the $5,000 after demand and they never used that sum to purchase any property on behalf of the DeWinters, their clients. On or about April 22, 1982, Respondents' Pittenger and Tran solicited and obtained a sales contract on a restaurant known as "The Elephant Walk." The property was owned by Hospitality-Condo Inn, Inc. (seller) and was listed by the real estate brokerage known as Tri-Dynamics Realty of Florida, Inc., which was the brokerage of Respondent LeRoy Bailey, who is also the President of Hospitality-Condo Inn, Inc. The property was sold to Gerlanelie, Inc. by Lee Nichols Realty, Inc., the "selling broker," pursuant to that contract. Gerlanelie, Inc., was owned by the DeWinters and Respondent Tran who in effect were the purchasers of the property. Respondent Tran was the real estate salesperson who secured and negotiated the purchase from Mr. Bailey's corporation, at which time she was a salesman for Lee Nichols Realty, Inc., the selling broker. In executing the contract, the DeWinters acted upon the advice and representations of the Pittengers, who represented that the purchase price of $850,000 was a reasonable price and- knowing that the DeWinters were foreign nationals and uninitiated in the legal aspects of real estate transactions in Florida, represented to them that it was illegal under Florida law to counter- offer for less than that purchase price, which representation the DeWinters apparently believed. At the closing, the DeWinters executed documents assigning their beneficial interests back to the sellers Bailey and Hospitality Condo-Inns Inc., as collateral and security for the mortgage and promissory note obligations by which they were to pay the purchase price, to which obligations they both corporately and personally obligated themselves. Additionally, the Respondents' Pittenger and Tran agreed to share and participate in the mortgage payments, by which $728,000 of the purchase price was to be paid, as an inducement to get the Dewinters to enter into the sales contract and close the transaction. In connection with the purchase and renovation of the restaurant, the Respondents, Pittenger and Tran solicited and obtained $104,795 from the DeWinters between May 17, 1982 and July 10, 1982. Respondent Jean Pittenger, who was to do the construction work for the renovation, originally represented that the construction work would cost no more than $75,000. In any event, very little renovation work was completed by the Respondent Pittenger, and he and Respondent Tran abandoned the project, leaving $70,000 in unpaid, recorded mechanics' and materialmens' liens and approximately $30,000 in unpaid bills for food, liquor and other expenses, which were in large part incurred by Respondents' Pittenger, Tran and their invited guests and business associates. This $30,000 amount had to be paid by the DeWinters through a loan and they had to pay the $70,000 liens as well. As a result of this unforeseen, massive expense, the DeWinters were unable to meet their August, 1982, mortgage payment, although in the first full month of operation they had grossed approximately $60,000 with the restaurant operation and it appeared to be a very viable business. Additionally, Respondents' Pittenger and Tran failed to pay their share of the mortgage payments, notwithstanding their promise to the DeWinters that they would participate in making the mortgage payments as inducement to the DeWinters entering into the purchase transaction in the first place. In any event, Respondents' Pittenger and Tran abandoned the project and left the state and were last known to be in the Atlanta, Georgia area. They thus deprived the DeWinters of the vast majority of the $104,795 to have been used to pay for renovation on their restaurant, the $70,000 in addition to that required to discharge the liens and the $30,000 expended to pay various expenses incurred by those Respondents. The former owner and mortgagee, Respondent LeRoy G. Bailey advised the DeWinters during the initial month of operation of the restaurant after the sale, that Pittenger and Tran were not to be trusted, and that they should remove them from management of the restaurant and seek legal counsel, which the DeWinters did. Respondent Bailey additionally cooperated with the DeWinters, attempting to help them make the business a successful operation, but in the ends due to the perfidy of Pittenger and Tran, and the severe financial hardship it caused the DeWinters, the DeWinters were forced to assign all of their right, title and interest in the restaurant back to Respondent Bailey, at the point of the restaurant's mortgage becoming in default, as they had earlier agreed to do. Mr. Bailey employed the DeWinters in a management capacity for a short time after the assignment, but then discharged them and operated the restaurant himself for a time until he ultimately sold it. In any event, it was not established that Bailey entered into any conspiracy or scheme with Pittenger and Tran to attempt to defraud the DeWinters, or otherwise engage in any dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, device or otherwise at the expense of the DeWinters. The financial and legal problems which befell the DeWinters were due to their naive reliance on the representations, promises and statements made by Jean Pittenger and Lan Thi Tran, his wife. All their agreements with Bailey were entered into with counsel present and upon advice of counsel. The DeWinters knew at the closing of the transaction that they had executed an assignment, in the nature of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, back to Bailey, which would be exercised should the mortgage become in default.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of records the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the charges against the Respondent LeRoy G. Bailey be DISMISSED and it is further, RECOMMENDED that all licenses issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to Jean P. Pittenger be REVOKED and that he be fined the amount of $5,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that the licenses of Jean P. Pittenger and Lan Thi Tran, also known as Marie J. Pittenger, issued by the Florida Real Estate Commission be REVOKED, and that they each be fined in the amount of $6,000. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOs. 84-0311 AND 84-1112 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. 4. Accepted. Accepted. 5. Accepted. Accepted. 6. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. 5. Accepted. Accepted. 6. Accepted. Accepted. 7. Accepted. Accepted. 8. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Wesley A. Lauer, Esquire ACKERMAN, BAKST, GUNDLACH, LAUER & ZWICKEL, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive Orlando, Florida 32802 Jean P. PITTENGER and Lan Thi Tran 235 Tallwood Terrace Roswell, Georgia 30075 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a residential contractor should be suspended, revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Subsections 468.112(2) (h) and 489.129(1)(k), F.S. as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 7, 1981. This case was consolidated for purposes of hearing with DOAH Case No. 81- 2491 involving an administrative complaint by the Board of Real Estate against the same Respondent arising out of the same transaction. The complaint herein alleges that Respondent, a licensed residential contractor and qualifying registrant for CAT Development Inc., contracted to build a dwelling for Jenny Soto, received full payment under the contract, but abandoned construction prior to completion, and has not corrected continuing deterioration of the property. It is therefore alleged that Respondent violated Subsection 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1978) and its successor statute Subsection 489.129(1)(k) F.S. (1979).
Findings Of Fact Respondent Catherine W. Grabhorn is a licensed real estate broker, doing business as CAT Realty Company at East Palatka, Florida. She was so licensed at all material times alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Testimony of Respondent) Respondent is also a certified residential contractor operating as CAT Development, Inc. at East Palatka, Florida, and was so licensed at all material times alleged in the Administrative Complaint. (Testimony of Respondent) In October, 1978, Jenny Soto, Bronx, N. Y., accompanied other prospective land purchasers to Palatka, Florida, where she was shown and purchased a lot for $10,000 at a development known as P & B Ranchettes. The group had traveled to Florida in a van. After the land purchase, the driver of the van took Soto and the others to Respondent's combination real estate and construction firm office where Respondent showed the group a catalog of various homes for possible construction on the lots which had been purchased. Soto saw a split level design that she liked, and Respondent told her that she could build it for $43,000, with the garage and the below ground level part of the split level to be unfinished, and without appliances. A contract was entered into between Respondent as President of CAT Development, Inc. and Soto on October 22, 1978. The contract provided for payments of $13,000 on October 24th, $25,700 on November 12th and the balance of $4,300 due on completion of the house. However, no completion date was stated in the contract. (Testimony of Respondent, Soto, Petitioner's Exhibits 16-19) On October 24, 1978, Respondent flew to New York City to obtain the initial payment under the contract. Soto met her at the airport and paid $13,000. At that time, Soto asked Respondent when house construction would commence, and Respondent indicated that she needed additional money for materials. On November 30, 1978, the parties entered into a new contract to add additional features to the house, including a finished downstairs and garage, and appliances. The new contract price was $47,600, which reflected that $13,000 had been paid, $20,000 was due on December 1, 1978, $10,000 due on January 15, 1979, and the balance of $4,600 due on completion of the house. Again, no time for completion was stated in the contract. Pursuant to the agreement, Soto paid Respondent $20,000 on December 1, 1978 in New York City where the contract was signed. At some undisclosed date thereafter, Soto decided she wanted to upgrade the carpeting and appliance allowances, and the parties entered into an oral agreement for a total contract price of $53,000. (Testimony of Respondent, Soto, Petitioner's Exhibits 19-22) On January 4, 1979, Respondent obtained a Putnam County building permit for the Soto project, and plumbing and electrical permits were obtained by subcontractors later that month. Construction commenced on the house and it was discovered that the ground water table was close to the surface of the land and there would be drainage problems. However, Respondent told Soto that she would be able to cure the problem by pumping out the standing water in the area. On January 26, Respondent again went to New York and obtained a $10,000 payment from Soto. In February, Soto visited the construction site and observed that standing water near the house was "like a lake". Soto visited the house again in March and gave Respondent the final $10,000 payment on the contract price. At that time, the house was substantially completed and there was no apparent water damage. Respondent told Soto that it would take a couple of months to finish construction. It appeared to Soto then that the only remaining work to be done was to install carpeting, light fixtures, and appliances. Several county inspections were made as the work progressed during January and February, 1979, and it was determined, after certain minor corrective measures, that the work was being performed satisfactorily. (Testimony of Durbin, Michaels, Soto, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3, 23-24) During ensuing months, Soto periodically telephoned Respondent to ascertain when the home would be completed, and on these occasions Respondent promised that the house would be completed within thirty days. However, no further work has been done by Respondent, except to obtain approval of a temporary electrical pole in June, 1981. At that time, the county building inspector observed that there was a considerable amount of standing water around the house, and that the outside of the building had deteriorated. Siding was warped and pulled away, the front door was open, and some wrought iron was located in a nearby ditch. (Testimony of Soto, Respondent, Durbin, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) In response to a request by Soto in 1980 concerning the market value of the house, Respondent wrote her on July 1, 1980 that the home was 90 to 95 percent complete and that completion was anticipated "as soon as possible". On May 28, 1981, the building permit was extended by the county to August 31, 1981. In July of that year, Soto visited the property and observed that a lock was missing from the door, mud was present in the lower level, sheetrock on the walls had rotted out, and the kitchen cabinets were missing, apparently due to vandalism. Soto saw the Respondent and asked her why the property was in that condition, and Respondent told her that she had no money because workmen on the project whom she had paid had "run off" with the money. During this visit, Respondent provided Soto with a written statement that the said house would be completed within sixty days, which would be September 20, 1981, unless prevented by "some act of God". (Testimony of Respondent, Soto, Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibits 14, 15, 25) On September 1, 1981, the county building official wrote to Respondent and advised her that the permit extension had expired the previous day and that new permits would be required to complete the work. The letter also stated that if substantial work was not evident within ten days from her receipt of the letter, he would be forced to conclude that she had effectively abandoned the project and he would bring the matter to the attention of the county contracting board, and to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Complaints by Soto to the building official of Putnam County resulted in a letter written to him on January 14, 1982 by Respondent wherein she stated that she had not been able to do anything about the Soto house due to her financial situation, but that she hoped to be able to finish the project within the next thirty to sixty days. (Testimony of Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibits 10, 11) On February 18, 1982, the county building officials went to the project site and found further evidence of deterioration, but no indication that any corrective or preservative work had been accomplished. Doors and windows were missing from the house, siding and fascia board were warped and pulled away, and several panels had fallen from the side of the house. A ditch had been dug around the house and there was standing water in it. Inside, it was observed that gypsum board had been removed from the walls, and in the lower level water stains were evident sixteen to eighteen inches above the flooring. Roof trusses had been broken and structural integrity had deteriorated with rotted 2 x 4 lumber forming bearing walls. It was further noted that kitchen cabinets had been removed from the property. (Testimony of Durbin, Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-9) Although construction of the house was substantially completed at the time Respondent ceased work, the remaining cost of installing heating and air conditioner units, kitchen appliances, washer/dryer, bathroom and lighting fixtures, pump for septic tank, and carpeting is estimated at approximately $13,000. Additionally, to correct the present deficiencies and procure new windows, kitchen cabinets, and other vandalized property, would require a substantial, but unknown additional cost. Respondent estimates that it would take about $10,000 to $15,000 to complete the house. (Testimony of Michaels, Respondent) Since commencing construction on the Soto house in January, 1979, Respondent has obtained permits and completed construction on nine single family homes, the last permit being issued as recently as January 20, 1982. No complaints have been received by the Putnam County building department on these projects. (Testimony of Michaels, Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Respondent testified at the hearing and conceded that she had not completed the Soto house, but attributed her failure to "cash flow" problems which had resulted in financial inability to complete the work. Respondent had deposited all of the money paid to her by Soto in her general banking account. This account was used for expenditures on the Soto house, as well as other concurrent projects. Respondent produced a statement of expenditures on the Soto house in the amount of $47,000. However, this statement reflected that Respondent had included airplane fare for two trips in the total amount of $434. These trips were made to pick up checks from Soto in New York. Respondent stated that other costs for fill, construction of a ditch, and rock would not have been necessary if she had followed later advice as to the water problem on the property, and installed a sump pump and "french" drains. She further stated that on various occasions she would lock the house, but each time when she went back the locks would have been stolen, and that although she reported vandalism to the police, the problem continued. Respondent admitted that she had made promises to Soto to complete the house which she had not kept, but that she had never intended to take her money and not perform the work under the contract. She underestimated the cost of building the house due in part to her unfamiliarity with the particular design of the Soto house. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 13, 29)
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a residential contractor be suspended for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 25 day May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 25th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James Quincey, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 William N. Gambert, Esquire 630 North Wild Olive Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1974, Pelle J. Lindquist contracted with Patrick G. Yeager to build a house on Concord Road in Ormond Beach, Florida. This contract was admitted in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The contract called for work to begin on March 1, 1974, and to be completed within 90 days. Work did not begin on March 1, 1974, but did begin in the latter half of March, 1974. Frequent rain in March, 1974, caused the roof to warp, so that it had to be replaced. After considerable delay in undertaking the repair, actually replacing the roof took only about a week. Replacing the roof added significantly to respondent's costs in performing under the contract. Eleven months after construction began, Mr. Yeager moved in. Because the kitchen and both bathrooms lacked wallpaper, and because the gravel yard was partly unfinished, respondent Lindquist paid Mr. Yeager $300.00, in exchange for which Mr. Yeager released Mr. Lindquist from all liability in connection with the house. The release was admitted in evidence as respondent's Exhibit No. 1. In the course of construction, Haven Vaughn, a sub- contracting carpenter, filed a notice of intent to lien on behalf of himself and his partner, Cal Fisher. As long as Mr. Lindquist was allowed draws on the construction loan, Messrs. Vaughn and Fisher were paid regularly. For reasons which were not developed in the evidence, the lender withheld part of the loan proceeds from respondent. When the draws stopped, the carpenters were not paid, and they stopped work on the Yeager house. The lender ultimately paid the carpenters in full. At the time Mr. Yeager contracted with Mr. Lindquist for the house, Mr. Lindquist entered into a separate agreement with Mr. Cameron, a real estate broker who introduced Mr. Lindquist to Mr. Yeager. Under the latter agreement, Mr. Lindquist was to pay Cameron Realty Company a brokerage fee upon "obtaining last draw from lending firm." The brokerage fee has not been paid and is currently the subject of civil litigation. On February 15, 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Horace N. Smith, Jr., contracted with respondent for the construction of a house on another lot on Concord Road in Ormond Beach, Florida. This contract was admitted in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The contract called for completion of the Smith house on or about June 15, 1974. After the contract was signed, the Smiths returned to New Jersey, entrusting oversight of the project to Mr. Cameron, a real estate broker who introduced Mr. Lindquist to the Smiths. As construction progressed, Mr. Cameron kept Mrs. Smith advised, and she mailed installment payments on the strength of Mr. Cameron's representations. In this fashion, Mr. Lindquist was paid 75 percent of the total contract price of $27,600.00. For reasons which were not developed in the evidence, the Smiths stopped payments under the contract, presumably at Mr. Cameron's suggestion. When the payments stopped, work on the house also stopped, and, during the ensuing hiatus in construction, vandals broke a glass door, scrawled obscenities on the walls, scraped the walls, damaged the outside doors, and ruined the wooden trim. Work had fallen far behind schedule when, in April of 1975, a lawyer retained by Mr. and Mrs. Smith wrote Mr. Lindquist to the effect that the Smiths would take over the project unless it was finished within a week. When the week had passed, the Smiths began dealing directly with the sub-contractors, the house was eventually completed at a total cost to the Smiths of $29,100.00, or $1,500.00 more than the Smiths had agreed to pay Mr. Lindquist for the job. As completed, the house lacked an electric garage door opener and a sprinkler system which Mrs. Smith guessed would cost $1,000.00, but no competent evidence as to the cost or value of either the door opener or the sprinkler system was adduced. Vandalism added significantly to the cost of the Smith house. Mr. Lindquist replaced a glass door broken by vandals. On account of the vandalism, the Smiths paid the carpenters an additional $300.00 for their labor. The front doors, the trim, and all bays had to be replaced; the cost of replacement materials was not established. At the time Mr. and Mrs. Smith contracted with Mr. Lindquist for the house, Mr. Lindquist entered into a separate agreement with Mr. Cameron. Under the latter agreement, Mr. Lindquist was to pay Cameron Realty Company a brokerage fee. The brokerage fee has not been paid and is currently the subject of civil litigation. Certified general contractors' licenses are renewable annually in June, pursuant to Section 468.108, Florida Statutes (1975). Mr. Lindquist had such a license for 1974-75. In June of 1975, he desired to renew his license, but in a fashion which would authorize him to contract on behalf of a corporation, rather than as an individual. He telephoned the Jacksonville office of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and explained his situation. That office mailed him forms which he filled out and mailed back in June of 1975. In March of 1976, some nine months later, the completed forms were mailed back to respondent, but no license was issued. On March 22, 1976, Mr. Clyde Pirtle, an investigator employed in the Jacksonville office of the Florida construction Industry Licensing Board, filled out and mailed to respondent a Notice of Violation," notifying respondent that he had failed to renew his certificate during June of 1975. The same "Notice of Violation" advised respondent of his putative failure to notify the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board of his new address, although his application papers for the 1975-76 license had been returned to the new address. On the Monday after the Friday on which respondent received the "Notice of Violation," he telephoned Mr. Pirtle's office and was told that Mr. Pirtle would contact him. On or about June 3, 1976, Mr. Pirtle did contact respondent and meet with him. At this meeting, respondent showed Mr. Pirtle the papers he had mailed to the Board in June of 1975, and which were returned to him unprocessed in March of 1976. Mr. Pirtle told respondent that the papers had been returned because the application forms were for a registered, and not for a certified, contractor's license, and furnished respondent another set of forms. Respondent filled out the new set of forms and mailed them to the Board in June of 1976. A month and a half before the hearing in this cause, respondent received 1976-1977 certified general contractor's license No. CGC007702, which is currently in force. No contractor's license for 1975-76 was ever issued to respondent. On May 3, 1976, respondent applied for and was issued a building permit to erect a new residence at 1623 Anniston Avenue in the City of Holly Hill. At that time, respondent had no current contractor's license and presented to the authorities a license which had expired.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that disciplinary action against Respondent, if any, be limited to a reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Thomas L. West, Esquire Post Office Box 1857 1030 Volusia Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
