Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hulett Environmental Services, Inc. (Hulett), is engaged in the business of general structural pest control, including the application of termiticide to the soil of pre-construction sites for the prevention of subterranean termites. Hulett is licensed by Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as a pest control business and maintains its primary place of business at 1959 West 9 Street, Riviera Beach, Florida. Respondent Edward West (West) is employed by Hulett as a pesticide applicator technician. On May 20, 1993, West performed termiticide treatments to two pre- construction sites located at Lot 4 of Block 13, Willow Bend, Coconut Creek, Florida (site one); and Lot 3 of Block 13, Willow Bend, Coconut Creek, Florida (site two) where he applied the chemical pesticide "Prevail Termiticide" to the soil for the prevention of subterranean termites. The labels of "Prevail Termiticide" provide for a specific amount and concentration of the pesticide to be applied to soil for the prevention of subterranean termites. From May 17-21, 1993, the Department was conducting a surveillance investigation of pre-construction termiticide applications to determine if there were violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. This investigation was known as Operation Spray Right. Frederick Hassut (Hassut), Frank Valdes (Valdes), and Michael McDaniel were Department employees working on Operation Spray Right. On the morning of May 20, 1993, Hassut and Valdes went to the construction site of Willow Bend Development. They parked their van about one block from sites one and two where West was working. West tamped the soil on the first site to compact the soil. After tamping the soil, he sprayed the site for five minutes and thirty-two seconds as timed by Hassut and Valdes, resulting in 29 percent of the pesticide required by the termiticide label being applied during that application. West went to site two, which was adjacent to site one, and tamped the soil. After tamping, he sprayed the soil for six minutes and forty seconds, resulting in 24 percent of the pesticide required by the termiticide label being applied during that application. After he sprayed site two, West returned to his truck. Using the radio in his truck, he called the Hulett office and told Timothy Mark Hulett, the president of Hulett, that he thought that inspectors were in the area but he had not completed the job. Mr. Hulett advised West that he was coming out to the site. Mr. Hulett asked his operations manager, Scott Armand, to accompany him to the site. The Hulett office is located approximately 45 minutes from the site. West began to roll up his hose, when Valdes approached him and introduced himself to West. Hassut parked the van near West's truck, came to West, introduced himself, gave him his business card, and served him with a Notice of Inspection. West advised both Hassut and Valdes that he had not completed spraying the two sites. Hassut and Valdes performed a calibration test to measure the flow rate of the chemicals. No tests were performed to determine the amount of the pressure used in the spraying. Hassut showed West affidavit forms and filled in the blanks. West wrote on the affidavit forms, "Job not done at time of inspc," and signed the affidavits in the presence of Hassut and Valdes. West would not sign the affidavits unless he could be provided copies of the affidavits; thus, Hassut and Vales left the site in search of a copying machine. When they returned West was spraying another lot nearby. When Mr. Hulett and Mr. Armand reached the site, they found West spraying and Hassut standing near the Hulett truck. Mr. Hulett went to West, who told Mr. Hulett that the site was not ready. The bathroom areas were not dug out properly and some form boards were down. West told Mr. Hulett he had told the construction workers to come back and dig out the site in the bathroom areas. Mr. Hulett advised him to tell the construction company personnel again. There were construction workers who were sitting and watching at a nearby lot. Mr. Hulett went to talk with Hassut, whom he had known for several years. Hassut advised Mr. Hulett that West had sprayed improperly to which Hulett responded that West had not finished the job. There was a general discussion between them concerning problems in the pest control industry, particularly since the use of Chlordane had been banned. Construction workers came and worked on sites one and two. Mr. Hulett requested Hassut to come look at sites one and two and to watch West finish the spraying. Hassut declined to do so, and he and Valdes left the site. A notice is required to be placed on the site after a termite treatment is completed. It is Hulett's policy that the applicator post a termite sticker on the permit board at the site once the application is complete. The termite sticker indicates the company and technician who performed the treatment, the location where the treatment was performed, the chemical used and the date of treatment. After Valdes and Hassut left the sites, West finished spraying sites one and two and posted a termite sticker at each site, indicating the site had been treated. When Valdes and Hassut inspected the sites, West had not posted termite stickers nor had he made any attempt to post termite stickers at sites one and two. Valdes and Hassut did observe that there were Hulett termite stickers posted at other sites in the West Bend Development where Hulett had applied termiticide. When Hassut and Valdes inspected sites one and two, West had not completed spraying the sites. West applied the "Prevail Termiticide" to sites one and two in accordance with the label requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing all counts in the Administrative Complaint against Hulett Environmental Services, Inc., and Edward West. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of April 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6525 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. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 6: The first sentence is rejected as recitation of testimony. The second, third and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 7: The first, second, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 8: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. All of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are not numbered. The following rulings are numbered to correspond to the order in which the paragraphs appear in Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7-12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Worley, Esquire Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 George P. Ord Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A. 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, So. Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Philip G. Nicholson, does business as Allstate Termite Control. The Respondent holds a pest control identification card issued by the Office of Entomology of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about September 23, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Roland E. Cooley and Alma P. Cooley with respect to the Cooleys' residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The chemical specified for use on the contract was chlordane. On or about that same date, the Respondent entered into a contract with Roland E. Cooley and Alma P. Cooley to perform a dry wood termite attic prevention treatment on the Cooley's residence. The chemical specified in the dry wood contract was "dri die". Only hearsay testimony was offered to establish what, if any, representations the Respondent made to the Cooleys to induce them to enter into the contracts. The work performed by the Respondent on the Cooleys' residence was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contracts, and in the case of the dry wood treatment, was unnecessary. The Cooleys' residence is constructed on a concrete slab. With such structures, the chlordane label, which governs use of the chemical, requires that all voids in hollow masonry units of the foundation be treated at the rate of at least one gallon per five linear feet of wall. It is thus necessary to drill each masonry block so that the chemical can be injected into it. Hollow masonry blocks were used in constructing the foundation of the Cooley house. Only one drill hole was made on the north side of the house into the masonry blocks, and none were made on the south side. If each of the masonry units had been treated as required, drill holes would have been placed at every eighteen inches along the foundation. This was not done, and the treatment for subterranean termite control was thus not in accordance with the label on the chemical, and was substandard. The treatment was inadequate to provide the Cooleys with the protection provided in the subterranean termite control contract. As to the dri die treatment at the Cooley house, the sort of treatment specified would not give the Cooleys any significant termite protection, since it would only protect them from dry wood termites in their attic. It is not a sort of treatment that is ordinarily performed. In order to be performed effectively, however, the dri die must be applied in accordance with the label which gives directions for its use. It is required that all wood surfaces be covered with the chemical at a recommended rate of one pound per one thousand square feet of area. At the Cooley residence, dri die was placed in the area, however, it was placed in a small pile in one part of the attic. It was not evenly spread, all wood surfaces were not covered, and insufficient chemical was utilized. The treatment specified would have provided the Cooleys only with dry wood termite prevention in the one part of the attic where the chemical was piled. The treatment was not in accordance with the label instructions, and was substandard. On or about September 27, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Walter J. Delaney, for their residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The type of chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. The contract sets out the street address and zip code of the Delaneys' residence, but does not state the city. The address set out on the contract is sufficient to establish the location of the Delaneys' residence. Only hearsay evidence was offered at the final hearing to indicate what, if any, representations the Respondent made to the Delaneys in order to induce them to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Delaney home was insufficient to comport with the label instructions for application of chlordane, was substandard, and did not provide the Delaneys with the protection specified in the contract. The Delaneys' home is of concrete slab on-ground construction. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in the hollow masonry units were not each treated as required on the chlordane label. Only one drill hole was made on the south side of the house and none were made on the north side. Several drill holes were made on the other sides of the house, however, four of them were fake, in other words they did not go all the way through the slab. On or about September 28, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Ann Sahlem, for her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. Only hearsay evidence was offered to establish what representations, if any, were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Sahlem to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Sahlem residence did not comport with the label instructions for us of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide Mrs. Sahlem with the protection specified in the contract. The Sahlem residence is constructed on an on-ground concrete slab. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in each of the hollow masonry units were not filled as required by the chlordane label. No drill holes were made on the west side of the home, and only one was made on the east side. On the north side of the home the holes were too far apart to treat all of the voids. The address set out on the Sahlem contract does not give the city of Mrs. Sahlem's residence although it does give the street address and zip code. The address as given is sufficient to identify the residence. On or about September 30, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement, and a dry wood termite attic prevention treatment agreement with Mrs. Elizabeth A. Hughes. The chemical specified for use in the subterranean termite control contract was chlordane. The chemical specified in the dry wood termite prevention treatment was "dri die". The contracts were for Mrs. Hughes' residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The contracts do not specify the city of Mrs. Hughes' residence, although the street address and zip code are set out. The address as set out is sufficient to adequately identify the location of Mrs. Hughes' residence. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any misrepresentations to Mrs. Hughes to induce her to enter into the contracts. The work performed under the contracts was, however, not in accordance with the label instructions for chlordane and dri die treatments, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the treatment specified in the contracts. Mrs. Hughes' home is constructed on a concrete slab. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in the masonry units were not each treated as required on the chlordane directions. Furthermore, the drill holes were made three feet above the ground along one wall, and five feet above the ground along another wall, which would be insufficient to allow introduction of the chemicals below the concrete slab. The dri die was not distributed evenly over the attic wood surfaces as required on the dri die label. An insufficient amount of the chemical was utilized, and it was placed at one spot in the attic. The dri die treatment was unnecessary, and even if it had been advisable, it was not accomplished in a manner which would provide any useful protection to Mrs. Hughes. On or about October 27, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs.. Fred J. Schultz. The contract was for Mrs. Schultz's residence in Lake Worth, Florida. No direct evidence was offered to establish what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Schultz to enter into the contract. It appears that the contract was solicited and performed by employees of the Respondent, and not by him directly, although he signed the contract and was responsible for the work. The chemical specified for use in the contract is Gold Crest, 72%, which is a trade name for chlordane. The work performed by the Respondent did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. The Sdchultz's home is constructed on piers with a crawl space. The instructions for application of chlordane contained in the label provide that in treating such structures it is necessary to either rod or dig a narrow trench to the top of the footing along the inside of the foundation walls, around all piers, sewers, pipes, and conduits; and to rod or dig a narrow trench to the top of the footing along the outside of the foundation wall. The Respondent, or his employees who performed the work at the Schultz residence did not make any trenches whatever, and did not even enter the crawl space below the Schultz's home in order to treat the piers. No evidence was presented from which it could be determined that the Respondent performed any dry wood termite treatment on the Schultz's residence. No evidence was presented from which it could be determined that any such work that may have been performed was done improperly, or that it was accomplished with or without a contract. On or about October 21, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Hulda Radke. The contract related to Mrs. Radke's residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. The Respondent also entered into contracts to perform home repairs for Mrs. Radke. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any misrepresentations in order to induce Mrs. Radke to enter into the contract for termite control. The termite control work performed by the Respondent on Mrs. Radke's residence did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. Mrs. Radke's home was of pier constructions with a crawl space. No trenches were made, and the chemical was not trenched or rodded around each pier, and around each foundation wall. The chemical was broadcast along the top of the soil, but was not placed below the surface. The label instructions specify that a chemical should not be broadcast sprayed. On or about October 26, 1977 the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Charles Thompson, for her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. No direct evidence was offered to establish what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Thompson to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Thompson residence did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was insufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. The Thompson residence is of pier and crawl space construction. No trenches or rodding was done as specified on the chlordane label, and each pier was not treated. The address set out on the Thompson contract is insufficient. It gives only a street address, and no city or zip code. The Respondent testified that he used a process known as "long rodding" to treat under concrete slabs. Long rodding is a method whereby the end of a spray assembly is extended, and chemicals introduced under a slab. It is used typically where hollow masonry is not used in constructing the foundation. The process does not work well because the end of the rod cannot be adequately controlled. Even if this process were utilized, the chlordane label would required that all voids in hollow masonry units be treated. Failure to treat each of the voids would render the treatment substandard. It appears that since these incidents occurred, the Respondent has performed numerous termite control contracts in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties without complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been the certified operator in charge of the pest control activities at American Pest Control, Inc. On September 11, 1989, Respondent conducted an inspection for wood- destroying organisms incidental to the purchase of a residence located at 2 Wisteria Drive, Ormond Beach, by Mr. Orren Nye. The residential lot contains two structures: the primary residence and a detached garage. Respondent detected no problems in the house. However, in the garage, Respondent discovered that work had recently been done on the roof. He observed sawdust on the floor in the northwest corner of the garage. On closer examination, Respondent found that a portion of some of the roof rafters had been cut off and new rafters scabbed together with the old. Respondent noticed that some dry rot remained in the old wood at the joint with the new wood. Because the area was not moist and he did not see how further repairs could be undertaken, Respondent decided not to mention the dry rot in his inspection report. Dry rot is a condition caused by the work of fungi, which are wood- decaying organisms. The fungi are active when the wood is wet. After the fungi are no longer active, they typically leave the wood in a dry, weakened condition. It is from this condition that the term, dry rot, is derived. There was no evidence of active fungi in the visible and accessible portions of the garage, which were dry at the time of Respondent's inspection. There was no evidence of any active termite infestation visible and accessible in the garage. The presence of sawdust was did not conclusively indicate the presence of termites in view of such other factors as the absence of any termite pellets. Following his inspection, Respondent prepared a standard wood- destroying organisms inspection report on a form prepared by Petitioner. The report identifies Mr. Nye's residence. The report lists only the "residence" as the "specific structure inspected." However, under "structures on property NOT inspected," the report states, "none." The inspection report describes the scope of the inspection for wood- destroying organisms as including termitesand wood-decaying fungi. The report is expressly limited to "what was visible and accessible at the time of the inspection." The material findings of the report indicate no visible evidence of wood-destroying organisms observed, no live wood-destroying organisms observed, no "visible damage observed," and no "visible evidence of previous treatment . . . observed." On September 20, 1990, Petitioner's entomological investigator visited the Nye residence in response to a complaint received from Mr. Nye. The investigator found active wood-decaying fungi in the areas of the garaged previously inspected by Respondent, including those areas where Respondent had seen dry rot where new and old wood had been joined. The investigator also found considerable evidence of an active termite infestation. The primary problem noted by Petitioner's investigator was the wood- decaying fungi. The evidence was not clear and convincing that any evidence of termite infestation was visible and accessible when Respondent conducted his inspection about one year earlier. The evidence is stronger that any evidence of wood-decaying fungi was visible and accessible at the time of Respondent's inspection. However, in the intervening year, the garage roof had been leaking for at least five months. On balance, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent overlooked visible and accessible evidence of active wood-decaying fungi. However, by Respondent's own admission, he saw visible damage that he failed to report. The dry rot remaining after the roof repairs clearly constituted damage from the work of wood-destroying organisms, which Respondent was required to report regardless of the absence of evidence of the presence of any active fungi or Respondent's estimation of the lack of need of further repairs. It is impossible to dismiss this omission as immaterial in view of the later problems that arose in the same area of the garage roof. This failure constitutes negligence in the performance of pest control and a deviation from good industry practice and standards in connection with inspections. Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine of $500 for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500. ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1: adopted except for second-to-last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. 2: adopted. 3: rejected as hearsay, subordinate, and recitation of evidence. 4: adopted. 5: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence except that last sentence is adopted. 6: adopted only as to damage from wood-decaying fungi, not as to the presence of active wood-decaying fungi. 7-8: rejected as recitation of evidence. 9: rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent testified to the presence of dry rot. The fungi are active when the area is wet. Because the area was dry, the condition that Respondent observed and failed to report was damage, not active infestation of fungi. 10: rejected as evidence excluded at the hearing. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1: adopted except that the inspection report deviated from his observations and the requirements of law as to the indication that Respondent observed no visible damage from wood-destroying organisms. 2: adopted. 3: rejected as subordinate. 4: first sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence except for last sentence. The last sentence is rejected because Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence--namely the testimony of Respondent--that he detected dry rot during his inspection and did not report it. Dry rot is damage from a wood-destroying organism. The damage was visible and accessible because Respondent admitted that he saw it. 5-6: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 7-8: rejected because Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the damage from fungi was seen by Respondent during his investigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Ana Sonia Nieves Environmental Health Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 W. Robinson St., Suite S-827 Orlando, FL 32801 Donald A. Myers, Jr. Lowndes, Drosdick, et al. P.O. Box 2809 Orlando, FL 32802-2809 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Notice of Violation (NOV) and Orders for Corrective Action (OCA) filed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) against Respondents, Thomas Kerper (Kerper) and All Salvaged Auto Parts, Inc. (ASAP) , in DEP OGC File No. 02-0447 should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact 1. The real property located at 3141 Sharpe Road, Apopka, Florida, is owned by the heirs of Donald Joynt, who owned it for the 30 years prior to his death in 2002. The property consists of approximately 40 acres in the shape of a right triangle with the west side bordered by Sharpe Road, the south side by a potting soil business, and the northeast side (the hypotenuse of the right triangle) bordered by a railroad track. Prior to his death, Joynt used the property primarily for the purpose of operating a junkyard and recycling business ultimately entitled Don's Auto Recycling. 2. At some time before 2000, Joynt became desirous of selling his property. He offered it to a neighbor named José Luis Benitez for $600,000. Benitez counter-offered for between $350,000 and $400,000 because he thought it would cost $200,000 to $250,000 to clean the property up. Joynt rejected the counter-offer, and asked Benitez to help him find a buyer who would pay more than Benitez. At some point, Joynt listed the property with a real estate broker for $600,000. 3. In 1999, Kerper was operating an automobile parts salvage business at a location near Joynt's property. Kerper needed a new location to move his business and inventory. A real estate broker showed him Joynt's property. The broker told Kerper that the seller's broker said the property was clean and had no environmental problems. The broker also told Kerper that Orange County had recently purchased an easement for $300,000 to run a drainage ditch through the property to a local lake, which was true. While this gave Kerper some level of assurance, the broker advised Kerper to have an environmental assessment done before going forward with the sale. 4. After being shown the property by the broker, Kerper spoke with Joynt directly. It was agreed that they could save the real estate commission and split the savings by waiting until the listing expired. Joynt personally assured Kerper that there were no environmental issues, as evidenced by Orange County's purchase of the easement for a drainage ditch. In late March of 2000, after expiration of the real estate commission, Kerper and Joynt entered into an informal agreement allegedly written on a scrap of paper, which was not placed in evidence. Kerper testified that the agreement was for him to buy the property for $500,000, with $100,000 down, and the balance payable over time at seven percent interest. He also testified that the required $100,000 down payment would be payable in installments, with $25,000 payable whenever Joynt cleaned 25 percent of the site to make it usable by Kerper for his business operations. 5. When it came time for Kerper to move onto Joynt's property, Kerper discovered that Joynt had not done any clean-up or removed any of his property from the site. Used cars, car parts, and tires that belonged to Joynt remained throughout the site. According to Kerper, it was agreed that Kerper would help Joynt clean off the western half of the property, which was split approximately in half by a stream, while Joynt worked on cleaning off the eastern half of the property.” 6. Starting from the gate at Sharpe Road, Kerper began removing junk from the western side to the eastern side of the site for Joynt to remove from the property. Pieces of equipment and used car parts that had been left there by Joynt were removed from this section of the property. When enough space was cleared off, Kerper began setting up his auto salvage operations on the western side. He used a bulldozer to level the driveways and spread powdered concrete where the ground was soft. He also used the bulldozer to level an area near the scale house, which was on the western side of the property, but continued to be used by Joynt for Don's Auto Recycling business. In doing this work, his workers encountered steel reinforcement bars, which Kerper had them cut with a torch. Some tires and battery casings also were visible in the ground. Kerper had several truckloads of fill dumped in the area and installed a concrete pad for storing and dismantling automobiles. 7. In September or October of 2000, Kerper was evicted from his prior business location, and he had to move to Joynt's property regardless of its condition. As he increased business operations on the cleared spaces, Kerper continued to clear more space on the western side of the property. Another concrete pad was installed farther to the north. Eventually, Kerper was operating ASAP on approximately ten acres on the western side of the 40-acre site. 8. As Kerper continued to move north, his heavy equipment began encountering assorted kinds of buried material. When a buried propane tank exploded, Kerper stopped working his heavy equipment in the area and confronted Joynt. Joynt denied any knowledge of buried tanks and stated they must have been placed there by someone else. Joynt told Kerper he would let Kerper move his operations to the east side of the property when Joynt finished cleaning it up, and then Joynt would finish clearing the western side for Kerper. Kerper agreed, and continued making payments on the required down payment. According to Kerper, he eventually paid $90,000 of the down payment. 9. By August of 2001, Kerper began to have serious misgivings about Joynt's promises and the condition of the site, and he decided to seek advice. Kerper hired David Beerbower, vice-president of Universal Engineering, to perform an assessment of the northern portion of his side of the site (in the vicinity where the exploding tanks were encountered). During his assessment on August 20, 2001, Beerbower observed various automotive parts including numerous crushed fuel tanks, antifreeze containers, and motor oil containers being excavated from the upper three feet of soil. It was determined by Beerbower, and stated in his written report to Kerper, dated September 21, 2001, that these parts appeared to have been buried there several years ago. This determination, which DEP does not dispute, was based on the high level of compaction of the soil found around these items that could be attributed to either the passing of a significant amount of time or a bulldozer passing over the items. Since the excavations Beerbower observed were in a separate location from where Kerper had already bulldozed, the soil compaction around these items could not be attributed to Kerper's bulldozing. It was stated in Beerbower's letter that the “amount of buried automotive debris qualifies this area essentially as an illicit landfill." ad 10. Mark Naughton from the Risk Management Division of the Orange County Environmental Protection Division (OCEPD), which runs the petroleum storage tank and cleanup program for Orange County under contract with DEP, was also present during the time Beerbower conducted his assessment. Naughton agreed with Beerbower's assessment that Kerper is not liable for the assessment or remediation of this area. Naughton also advised Kerper to move ASAP off Naughton's property and to seek legal advice from attorney Anna Long, who used to be the Manager of OCEPD. 11. Meanwhile, according to Kerper, Joynt changed his position and began to maintain that it was Kerper's responsibility to clean up the western side of the property. Given the newly-discovered environmental condition of the property, Kerper did not feel it was in his best interest to purchase the property "as is," and contacted Long to help him negotiate to extricate himself from his arrangement with Joynt. While negotiations proceeded, Kerper began to scale down ASAP's operations in anticipation of relocating. Kerper began fixing up more whole automobiles for resale, and had a car crusher used in connection with ASAP's business begin crushing more cars for removal from the site for recycling. 12. Eventually, Long had Beerbower conduct another assessment of portions of Joynt's property to try to establish responsibility for contamination as between Kerper and Joynt. On 10 February 13, 2001, Beerbower took a surface water sample froma "drain pipe under the north driveway," a soil sample "where the car crusher was," and another soil sample from "the sandblasting area." The evidence was not clear as to the exact location of these samples, particularly the soil samples, as described in Beerbower's written report to Long dated March 11, 2002. But it appears that the "car crusher" refers to the location of Respondents' car crusher operation in the northern part of the site, just across the northern driveway; it appears that the sandblasting area refers to a location used by Joynt on the eastern side of the property, but located just east of the trailers used by Kerper for his offices. These samples were analyzed and found not to contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) or total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) in excess of Florida's cleanup target levels. 13. Kerper continued to operate his junkyard until the beginning of March of 2002. On March 5, 2002, Long filed a citizen's complaint with OCEPD on Kerper's behalf. While acknowledging that Kerper was operating on the site at the same time as Joynt in recent years, the complaint alleged Kerper's discovery that Joynt had been burying waste batteries, tires, and gasoline tanks on the property and covering the burial sites with broken concrete pieces. The complaint alleged that Kerper had been moving his personal property off of the site since August of 2001, when he backed out of his "lease to purchase" agreement 11 with Joynt, and would be "completely off the property by 3/10/02." 414. It is not clear exactly when Kerper and ASAP were completely off the property. The testimony and evidence on the point is inconsistent. Kerper, after some confusion, placed the date at March 9, 2002. His wife said it was March 2, 2002. An attorney representing Kerper and ASAP in an eviction proceeding filed by Joynt and his wife, filed a notice "that as of the evening of March 15, 2002, [ASAP had] vacated the property." In any event, the evidence seemed clear that Kerper and ASAP did not go on Joynt's property on or after March 15, 2002. 15. On March 15, 2002, DEP representatives inspected Joynt's property in response to Long's complaint. Kerper remained outside the front gate of the property and did not participate in the inspection. This inspection covered the entire property including the section that had been occupied by Kerper and ASAP. 16. doynt told the DEP inspectors that Respondents were responsible for a 55-gallon drum found tipped over on its side on the western half of the site and leaking a substance that appeared to be used oil from a hole in the side of the drum. DEP's inspectors righted the drum, which still was partly full of its contents. There also were several other unlabeled 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon containers "of unknown fluids"; a burn pile containing burned oil filters, battery casings, and electrical 12 wiring; other broken battery casings; and an area of dark-stained soil which appeared to be soaked with used oil. Joynt accepted responsibility for other contamination on the site, but told DEP that Kerper and ASAP were responsible for these items. Kerper denied the allegations. 17. As to the leaking oil drum, Kerper first contended that DEP did not prove that the overturned drum contained used oil. But the evidence was clear that DEP's inspectors were ina position to determine that the liquid was oily. Respondents also contended that the drum would have been empty, not still partly full, if Kerper or ASAP had left it on its side at the site when they vacated the property several days earlier. Kerper alleged that Joynt could have put the hole in the drum and turned it over shortly before the arrival of DEP's inspectors. But, as stated, it was not clear when Kerper and ASAP vacated the site, and it was not clear from the evidence that Respondents were not responsible. 18. Similarly, the other unlabeled drums and containers were in a part of the site occupied and used by Respondents. Despite Kerper's denials, it is not clear from the evidence that they belonged to Joynt or that they were placed where DEP found them after Respondents vacated the site. Testimony that Respondents had containers properly labeled "used oil," "antifreeze," and "gasoline" inside one of the trailers on the site did not negate the existence of unlabeled drums and 13 containers on the site. However, there was no proof whatsoever as to what the closed drums and containers held. But some were open, and DEP's inspectors could see that these held an oily substance (possibly hydraulic fluid), mixed with other substances. 19. As to the dark-stained soil, none of it was tested, and Respondents contended that it was just naturally darker in color or possibly wet from water or some other liquid, DEP's witness conceded could explain the color variation. (Natural reasons such as different soil or rainwater probably do not explain the color variations in the site.) Joynt told DEP's inspectors that the discoloration seen by them on March 15, 2002, was froma hydraulic hose on a piece of heavy equipment that burst earlier. The evidence was not clear who Joynt was saying owned and operated the equipment. But Respondents also blamed Joynt's employees for repeatedly blowing hoses on aged heavy equipment all over the site. It is found that the dark-stained soil probably was the result of one or more releases of hydraulic fluid or motor oil. However, the testimony and evidence was not clear that all of the releases were Joynt's doing and that Respondents bear no responsibility at all for the releases observed on March 15, 2002, in the areas where Respondents were operating. 20. Respondents were able only to produce documentation of proper disposal of 232 gallons of oily water through IPC/Magnum, 14 dated February 13, 2002, and 29 batteries through Battery World, dated March 8 and 14, 2002. 21. The testimony of Kerper and others was that Respondents generally removed gasoline from automobiles and placed it ina marked container for reuse within a day or two by Respondents and their employees. The testimony was that used oil and antifreeze generally also were removed from automobiles and placed in marked containers until proper disposition. The testimony was that batteries were removed from automobiles and that most were given to one of the employees to sell for a dollar apiece. There was no documentation to support this testimony. 22. There was testimony that, when Respondents had cars crushed, E & H Car Crushing Co., Inc., managed the collection and proper disposition of gasoline, used oil, and batteries. But the documentation placed in evidence contained no description of the wastes removed, but only provided a weight calculation of the materials removed from Respondents’ facility. 23. There was testimony that Gabriel Lynch, who was properly licensed, removed freon from automobiles at Respondents’ facility every two to three days, or upon request. Respondents would trade the freon Lynch recovered and used in his business, Gabe's Auto Tech, for repair work on Respondents' vehicles. However, no documentation of these transactions was produced. (Lynch testified that he did not know it was required that he provide documentation to Respondents.) 15 24. Runoff from where Respondents were operating on Joynt's property entered the stream running north-south through the center of the property. Neither Joynt nor Respondents had a stormwater permit or an exemption from stormwater permitting. 25. Kerper argued that his duties were limited to managerial responsibilities for ASAP, and that he was not at any time responsible for ASAP's day-to-day operations and did not conduct any activities that may or could have resulted in hazardous waste or petroleum discharge violations so as to be liable as an "operator." But the evidence was clear that Kerper was involved in ASAP's day-to-day operations. 26. While the evidence did not totally absolve Respondents from the allegations in the NOV, several people testified on Respondents' behalf as to their practice of properly disposing of hazardous materials generated by his business. For example, Rafael Rivera, a former employee, testified that Kerper would get mad at him if any gas or oil was spilled and left on the ground or was not disposed of properly. Meanwhile, it appeared that environmental problems at Joynt's site existed for years before the arrival of Respondents. Mrs. Sandra Lovejoy, a neighboring property owner for the past 30 years, testified that she had experienced problems with her water quality, such as a foul smell or funny taste, for many years before Respondents moved onto Joynt's property. An inspection was conducted by OCEPD in September of 2000, in response to Lovejoy's complaint regarding 16 fuel odor and a drinking well which was no longer in service. In part, OCEPD's written report on the complaint found "[m]any spots of surficial petroleum contamination . . . from gasoline, motor oil and other petroleum products leaking or spilled from the junk vehicles" at Don's Auto Recycling and included a recommendation "referring this site to the FDEP task force that has been put together to inspect and deal with junk yard facilities," although "[n]o Petroleum Cleanup issues were found at [that] time." For reasons not explained by the evidence, it does not appear that Don's Recycling was referred to any task force, or that OCEPD followed up on the reported contamination. 27. Respondents contend that this entire proceeding against them was part of a vendetta against Kerper for going to the local television station to expose the condition of the site, the failure of OCEPD and DEP to follow up on the September 2000, report and recommendation, and Orange County's purchase of a north-south drainage easement through the western portion of the property in 2000. The evidence did not prove this contention. However, it is clear that Joynt was responsible for the condition of most of the 40-acre site, not Respondents, and that Joynt shared responsibility with Respondents for the conditions alleged in the NOV. 28. While this case has been pending, Joynt's heirs have cooperated with DEP in cleaning up the site, and DEP acknowledged in its PRO that several items in the OCA--specifically, those 17 relating to Counts II, III, and VII of the NOV--are moot and unnecessary in light of Respondents' eviction from the property and subsequent cleanup operations by Joynt's heirs. It also is suggested that the corrective actions requested in DEP's PRO to address Counts IV, V, and VI of the NOV--relating to failure to document proper disposal of wastes--are unnecessary. It seems clear that, to the extent such disposals occurred, any available documentation would have been placed in evidence during the final hearing. Ordering that they be produced within 30 days of the Final Order, as suggested in DEP's PRO, would be a futile act. 29. Count VIII of the NOV alleged costs "of not less than $500. In its PRO, DEP requested recovery of $1,367.31 of costs. Some of these costs--$867.31--were itemized in the PRO. The balance appears to relate to the $500 alleged in the NOV. There was no evidence introduced at the final hearing as to any of these alleged costs, and the costs itemized in the PRO seem to represent travel costs of counsel for DEP.
Conclusions David J. Tarbert, Esquire Jason Sherman, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Albert E. Ford II, Esquire Webb, Wells & Williams, P.A. 994 Lake Destiny Road Suite 102 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order providing: 1. Under Count I of the NOV, Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, for cleaning up the releases of used oil evidenced by the discolored soils photographed by DEP's inspectors on 24 March 15, 2002 (DEP Exhibit 20, photographs 5 and 7 on page 2 of the exhibit). As such, they shall be responsible, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, for implementation of DEP's Initial Site Screening Plan to assess and remove all contaminated soils resulting from those releases. If the results of the Initial Site Screening indicate that further assessment and/or remediation of the contamination is required, Respondents shall also participate, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, in completing the required work, consistent with the "Corrective Actions for Contaminated Site Cases" (DEP Exhibit 16). 2. Counts II through VIII of the NOV are dismissed. 3. Respondents' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Vane ya J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of December, 2003. 25
Findings Of Fact Alinco Associates, Inc. (Alinco) is a corporate real estate broker and was so registered with FREC at all times material herein. Alfred C. Couric, Jr., Carol L. Astin, and Reginald D. Lucas are real estate brokers and at all times material herein were so registered with FREC. Respondent Alinco was the listing broker for a home at 7110 Filmore Street, Hollywood, Florida, owned by Jones. In December, 1977, Mrs. Jones had a termite inspection by Orkin. The inspector reported active termite infestation in the attic and induced Mrs. Jones to sign a contract for tenting and fumigation. After talking to salesman Boland and his supervisor and listing broker, Respondent Lucas, Mrs. Jones commissioned a second inspection by Harry Pope, a licensed termite inspector. Pope also found active termite infestation and so advised Mrs. Jones. When told by Mrs. Jones that she had already entered into a contract with Orkin, Pope did not further pursue the matter. Respondent Lucas called Pope's office after the inspection but Pope was out and his secretary said he left no word there was active infestation. Lucas assumed from this that termites were not found. Pope never relayed his findings to anyone other than Mrs. Jones. Mrs. Jones rescinded the fumigation contract she had entered into with Orkin. After the Contract for Sale had been executed and a "solid" sign appeared on Jones' property the Orkin salesman revisited Mrs. Jones to inquire about the fumigation and was told she would call when ready. Approximately thirty days prior to closing, salesman Boland, on behalf of the purchaser, ordered an inspection by DeLeva Exterminating, Inc. Robert W. DeLeva, President of DeLeva Exterminating, Inc., inspected the residence at 7110 Filmore Street on March 8, 1977, found no evidence of active termite infestation and submitted a termite clearance report which was presented to the buyers at closing. Some three weeks after the closing and occupancy of the house, the purchaser Menendez was advised by the Orkin inspector that he had found evidence of termites. Menendez then called DeLeva who again inspected the premises and on this inspection found evidence of active termite infestation. No evidence was presented that any Respondent other than Lucas (and former Respondent Boland) as aware of the Orkin inspection and report. DeLeva Exterminating, Inc. is a licensed corporate termite inspector as is Orkin, but neither the Orkin inspector nor Robert DeLeva was a licensed inspector when their inspections were made. Robert DeLeva has conducted numerous termite inspections but, following this incident, limits his field of operations to fumigation for which he is licensed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, ROBERT MENSCHING, was a certified residential building contractor in Florida, and held license number CR C020166. Mr. Mensching was the owner and qualifying agent for Robert Mensching Homes. On or about July 10, 1986, a written proposal was submitted by the Respondent to Mr. and Mrs. Mangiardi for the construction of a single family dwelling in Cape Coral, Florida. The construction price was $60,000.00, with an additional $500.00 for the purchase of the house plans. Mr. and Mrs. Mangiardi paid for the plans on the date of the proposal. Revisions to the proposal were submitted to the Mangiardis in September, 1986. The purchase price and the payment schedule remained the same. The proposal was accepted by the Mangiardis, and the down payment of $5,000.00 required by the contract to start construction, was given to the Respondent. Construction commenced in November 1986. By March 26, 1987, the Respondent had been paid $53,750.00 of the total construction contract price. This included the fourth draw on a five draw payment schedule. Only $6,250.00 remained to be paid by the purchasers for the last phase of construction. In April 1987, the Respondent informed Mr. Mangiardi that he would not complete the final phase of construction. The Respondent informed Mr. Mangiardi that he would pay him $5,000.00. An accounting was not given to the purchasers of the monies disbursed by the Respondent pursuant to the construction schedule. After the Respondent left the project, the Mangiardis were given notice of an outstanding lien in the amount of $963.80, which was owed to Kirkland Electric, Inc. Another Notice to Owner was filed by Wallcrafters, another subcontractor, for $5,272.50. The work completed by both subcontractors was performed during the Respondent's term as the prime contractor on the project. These two subcontractors were never paid by the Respondent out of the draws received by him for that purpose. The Respondent did not pay the $5,000.00 he told Mr. Mangiardi he would pay in April of 1987. The evidence is unclear as to whether this amount of money was a payment of liquidated damages for the breach, the balance of funds entrusted to the contractor which had not been disbursed in the preceding construction phases, or the amount of unpaid liens known to the contractor at the time of breach. The Respondent filed for bankruptcy after a judgment was entered against him in a civil action by the Mangiardis for breach of contract. A Notice of Aggravation was not submitted during the formal hearing regarding the actual damage to the licensee's customers as a circumstance to be considered in aggravation of the penalty to be assessed. A copy of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board's previous letter of reprimand was not presented at hearing so that the hearing officer and the Board could use the prior violation for aggravation purposes.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a four-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violation of the following statutory provisions: Sections 489.129(1)(g), 489.129(1)(h)2, 489.129(1)(k), and 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Allen Fader, is, and has been at all times material, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007504 by the State of Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. The Respondent, by virtue of his license, advertised construction services for Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., during 1997. The Respondent presented a business card, with the name of Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., to Ruby M. Shepherd, a customer, in April of 1997. On April 14, 1997, the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., contracted with Ruby M. Shepherd to enclose a patio and to install hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence located at 12325 Northwest 19th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract was conditioned on Ms. Shepherd being able to obtain financing to pay for the construction described in the contract. The exact amount Ms. Shepherd was required to pay under the original April 14, 1997, contract cannot be determined from the evidence in this case.4 The Respondent assisted Ms. Shepherd in obtaining a loan for the financing of the construction work described in the contract. It took several months to obtain a loan. Ultimately, through the efforts of the Respondent, and of a person engaged by the Respondent to help obtain a loan, Ms. Shepherd received a loan through Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow. The check from Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow was in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The check was made payable to Ms. Shepherd and to Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. At the request of the man who helped obtain the loan, Ms. Shepherd endorsed the loan check and agreed for the check to be delivered to the Respondent. The Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., negotiated the loan check and received all of the proceeds in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The Respondent received the proceeds of the loan on or about September 12, 1997. The Respondent did not take any action on Ms. Shepherd's construction project until November 14, 1997. On that day, the Respondent placed an order for the material for the hurricane shutters on Ms. Shepherd's project. Nothing more was done on Ms. Shepherd's project for quite some time. Towards the end of February of 1998, the Respondent had some health problems, which caused him to be unable to work for several weeks. Eventually, the Respondent attempted to pick up the shutter materials he had ordered for Ms. Shepherd's project. As a result of the delay, those materials had been returned to stock and had been sold to someone else. The Respondent ordered the materials again. Eventually, in June of 1998, the Respondent had the shutter materials delivered to Ms. Shepherd's residence, and began the process of installing the hurricane shutters. In the meantime, from September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not contact Ms. Shepherd. During this period of time, Ms. Shepherd called the Respondent's office numerous times and left numerous messages asking the Respondent to return her calls. From September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not return any of Ms. Shepherd's calls. In January of 1998, Ms. Shepherd was finally able to speak with the Respondent. From January of 1998 until the installation work began in June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd spoke to the Respondent on numerous occasions in an effort to find out when the Respondent was going to begin work or return the money he had been paid. During this period of time, the Respondent repeatedly made false assurances to Ms. Shepherd that the work would be performed within two weeks. On or about June 12, 1998, the Respondent obtained a building permit for Ms. Shepherd's project from the Miami-Dade Department of Planning, Development, and Regulation. Installation of the hurricane shutters began that same week. The installation process was delayed because some of the materials did not fit and had to be returned to the manufacturer for modifications. Following the modifications, the installation process resumed. After a few more days, the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd the hurricane shutter work was finished and that he was not going to do the patio construction work, because the loan Ms. Shepherd had received was not enough money to pay for both projects. After the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd that the installation of the hurricane shutters was complete, the Respondent never did any further work on Ms. Shepherd's construction project. The hurricane shutters installed at Ms. Shepherd's property by the Respondent were not installed correctly. Several of the hurricane shutters will not open and close properly. Several of the hurricane shutters are insufficiently fastened. A necessary shutter over the storage room door was never installed. The problems with the subject hurricane shutters can be corrected. The cost of the corrections necessary to make the shutters operate properly and to fasten them securely is approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Respondent never called for an inspection of the installation of the hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence. In their present condition, those hurricane shutters will not pass inspection, because they were installed improperly. If corrections are made, those hurricane shutters will pass inspection. By reason of the facts stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, the Respondent failed to properly and fully complete the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. The Respondent never did any work on the patio portion of the contracted work. At some point in time between September of 1997 and June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd and the Respondent agreed to a modification of their original contract due to the fact that the proceeds of the loan obtained by Ms. Shepherd were insufficient to pay for both the hurricane shutters and the enclosure of the patio. The essence of their modified agreement (which was never reduced to writing) was that the Respondent would not do the patio enclosure portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would do the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would be paid for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; and any remaining balance of the loan proceeds that had been paid to the Respondent would be paid back to Ms. Shepherd. Implicit, but apparently unstated, in this modified agreement, was the notion that the Respondent would charge a fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. A fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work at Ms. Shepherd's residence, including all materials, labor, overhead, and profit, would be approximately four thousand dollars ($4,000).5 The price of four thousand dollars presupposes properly installed hurricane shutters that will pass inspection. As previously mentioned, it will cost approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000) to make the corrections to the subject hurricane shutters which are necessary for the shutters to function properly and pass inspection. Accordingly, the fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is three thousand dollars ($3,000). Ms. Shepherd has paid $12,979.15 to the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. The fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is $3,000. Therefore, the Respondent has been paid $9,979.15 more than he is entitled to keep. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent has not paid back any money to Ms. Shepherd.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in each of the four counts of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following penalties: For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00, and placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order require the Respondent to pay restitution to Ms. Shepherd in the amount of $9,979.15, and to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $266.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of September, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the three administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a general contractor by the Petitioner. Respondent was issued license number CG C010162 in 1975 and has held that licensure ever since. The first complaint against Respondent’s licensure, like the three complaints at issue in this proceeding, arose from a post-Hurricane Andrew contract. That complaint was resolved by stipulation of the parties. Respondent did not admit to wrongdoing in his stipulation. Respondent was financially unable to comply with the terms of the settlement. Consequently, his license was suspended at the time of the formal hearing. There was no explanation as to why this complaint, which occurred at approximately the same time as the three contracts at issue in this proceeding, was prosecuted separately. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for Allstate Construction Management, Inc. (Allstate), a Florida corporation. THE RODRIGUEZ CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4580) On March 17, 1993, Allstate entered into a contract with Anthony Rodriguez to build a garage at 15525 SW 209th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $16,250.00, which included “plans, permit and cleanup.” Allstate was paid the sum of $4,062.50 on March 17, 1993. Allstate obtained the Dade County building permit for the project on March 26, 1993. Allstate was paid the sum of $5,593.75 on April 5, 1993, after the concrete blocks were installed. On April 8, 1993, Allstate requested a tie beam/reinforcing inspection from the Dade County building department. In response to that request, Antonio Varona inspected the project on April 12, 1993. The inspector noted that the project was not ready for inspection because no truss plans were available. Respondent testified, credibly, that he had to construct the roof conventionally because of the difficulty in obtaining pre-fabricated trusses; however, that testimony does not explain why there were no truss plans available for inspection. Appropriately engineered truss plans are required for a roof to pass inspection. Despite the failure of the project to pass inspection, Mr. Rodriguez accepted the roof and paid Allstate $4,968.75 on May 21, 1993. As of May 21, 1993, there remained a final payment of $1,625 on the contract. After May 21, 1993, Respondent and Allstate left the Rodriguez job. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether Mr. Rodriguez fired Allstate or whether Allstate abandoned the project. This dispute is resolved by finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Allstate abandoned the Rodriguez project. When Allstate left the Rodriguez job, there were sufficient funds remaining unpaid to complete the project. Because he had obtained the initial building permit, it was incumbent upon Respondent to either obtain a final inspection of the project or notify the building department that his company had been terminated by the owner. Respondent did neither. THE ELLIS CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4581) At the times pertinent to this proceeding, William R. Ellis owned the Arleen House, which is an apartment building located at 2191 N.E. 168th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. This building suffered damages from Hurricane Andrew. On September 11, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Ellis inspected the building and Respondent prepared an estimate as to the items that had been damaged by the hurricane and other non-hurricane related repairs that should be made. The mansard roof for this building had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew to the extent that it contained gaping holes. Shortly after that inspection, Mr. Ellis met with his insurance adjuster who gave him a check in the amount of $13,000 to repair the roof. It was necessary to dry in the roof and repair the mansard as soon as possible to avoid additional damage to the building from rains. While there was a dispute as to the extent of the services Allstate was to provide Mr. Ellis, the record is clear that Respondent, on behalf of Allstate, agreed to undertake the roof repair for the sum of $13,000. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that his company had a roofing crew ready to begin work on the roof repairs as soon as Mr. Ellis paid the sum of $13,000. Between September 11 and September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Allstate a check in the amount of $13,000 with the understanding that the check he had received from the insurance company had to clear before his bank would honor the check he was giving to Allstate. Immediately thereafter1 Allstate sent a roofing crew to the project for the purpose of temporarily covering exposed areas. Despite having been told by Mr. Ellis that the check he was giving Allstate would not be good until after the check for the insurance proceeds had cleared, Allstate did not wait to deposit Mr. Ellis’ check. Respondent was promptly notified that the check Mr. Ellis had given him would not be honored by Mr. Ellis’ bank. Respondent immediately thereafter withdrew the roofing crew from the project. The roofing crew had made only minor repairs at the time they were withdrawn from the project. Respondent knew, or should have known, that the building was vulnerable to further damage from rain. On September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Respondent a second check in the amount of $13,000. This check cleared the banking process on September 18, 1992. Mr. Ellis made repeated efforts to have Allstate send a crew to repair the roof. After it withdrew the crew that had been sent to the property when Allstate received the first check, Allstate did not take action to protect the property by repairing the exposed areas of the roof. Towards the end of September 1992, a heavy rainstorm caused additional damages to Mr. Ellis’ building. Allstate did not send a crew to the project again until October 6, 1992. Mr. Ellis hired this crew away from Allstate. He testified he did so because the crew complained about Allstate not paying for the materials they were using to repair the roof and because the workmen were threatening to file liens against the property. Mr. Ellis paid this crew the sum of $3,400 to temporarily repair the roof. He then entered into a contract with another contractor to complete the roofing repairs for the sum of $17,500. Mr. Ellis demanded the return of the $13,000 he paid to Allstate, but, as of the time of the formal hearing, he had not been repaid. THE KUCHENBACKER CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4582) On November 6, 1992, Allstate entered into a contract with Carl F. Kuchenbacker to repair his residence at 18500 SW 88th Road, Miami, Florida. Mr. Kuchenbacker’s residence had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The initial contract price was $33,375.00. Respondent secured the building permit and Allstate began work on the project. During the course of the work, additional work was added to the contract, which raised the total contract price to $38,015.00. In late February or early March, 1993, Allstate abandoned the project without just cause and without notice to the owner. At the time it abandoned the project, Allstate had been paid the sum of $26,620.00. Allstate failed to pay all of the subcontractors and materialmen who had performed work or provided material for the Kuchenbacker job. As a result of that failure, valid liens were recorded against Mr. Kuchenbacker’s property. The following liens were recorded: Rite-Way Plumbing and Plastery, Inc. in the amount of $3,520.00; Commercial Lighting and Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $1,835.00; and Scott Bornstein Plumbing, Inc., in the amount of $798.00. Allstate had received sufficient funds from the owner to pay these liens, but neither Respondent nor Allstate paid these liens. Mr. Kuchenbacker and Petitioner’s expert witness testified that the value of the work performed by Allstate before it abandoned the job was $21,000.00. Mr. Kuchenbacker also testified as to the items that remained undone and as to the percentage of the work that had been completed. From that testimony and from the testimony as to the estimated costs of completing the job, it is found that the sum of $11,395.00, which was the difference between the total contract price and the total amount that was paid to Allstate, was sufficient to complete the project and pay off the liens on the property. Respondent did not call for a final inspection of the property and he did not advise the Dade County Building Department that he was abandoning the project. Allstate abandoned the Kuchenbacker project because it went out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner impose fines totaling $5,000 against Respondent’s licensure as follows: For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count IV of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $250. For the violation established by DOAH Case 96-4581, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $750. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. For the violation established by Count III of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found in DOAH Case 96-4581, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found DOAH Case 96-4582, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years, to run concurrently with the suspension recommended for DOAH Case 96- 4581. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1997
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $350.00 on the basis of allegations that the Respondent, failed to report visible and accessible evidence of dry wood termite fecal pellets.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, James M. Dodds has been licensed to conduct residential termite inspections. On June 12, 1990, he conducted a termite inspection at the residence of a Mrs. Mitchell, located at 7420 W. 15 Court, Hialeah, Florida. During the course of that inspection, Dodds did not inspect the attic of the residence. The reason he did not inspect the attic was because the access to the attic (which was through a crawlspace in the ceiling of a small bedroom closet) was blocked by a large number of boxes stacked in the closet. During the course of the inspection Dodds told the owner of the house that unless she arranged to move all the boxes out of the way, he would have to indicate on his report that the attic was not inspected. The owner did not arrange to get the boxes moved and Dodds did not inspect the attic. At the conclusion of his inspection of the property described above, Dodds filled out an inspection report form and left a copy of the inspection report with the property owner. Dodds placed some check marks in some preprinted boxes on the back of the inspection report form. Those check marks included one that indicated "attic not available for inspection." Shortly thereafter, the house was sold to a new owner who, shortly after moving in, discovered what appeared to him to be evidence of possible termite infestation. Subsequent inspections of the premises by another pest control company and by an inspector of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revealed the presence of fecal pellets left behind by dry wood termites. The termite fecal pellets were discovered in the attic near the crawl space opening. There was no other evidence of the presence of termites. No live termites were seen on either of the follow-up inspections.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent, James M. Dodds. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha F. Barrera, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Mr. James M. Dodds Creative Construction Services, Inc. P. O. Box 38-1996, Miami, Florida 33138 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Henry J. Alberico, was licensed as a real estate salesman in Florida, and the Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate professionals in this state. During the Summer of 1988, Shirley Jean Hicks, was interested in purchasing a new house in the Sarasota area. Based on the recommendation of a friend, she went to the Respondent who showed her a house listed by the Murphys located at 2311 Waldemere Street in Sarasota. After Ms. Hicks saw the property twice, she made an offer to buy it. She wanted owner financing, if possible, because she did not have a good credit rating, but she did not discuss this with the Murphys until after the contract was signed. Because some defects had been noted in the house, the contract for sale called for inspections to be done for termite infestation and of the general condition of the building as well, and Respondent indicated these would be done. The building inspection was done by Guengerich Home Inspections, whose report indicated that roof repairs were needed. Ms. Hicks told Respondent that unless the damage was repaired at no cost to her prior to closing, she would not go through with the purchase. The Guengrich report, as to the roof, stated, inter alia,: Several water stains are noted inside the house but probably from a previous leak. The flat roof over the right end of the house is also of the same type gravel roof. It appears that several small areas were repaired previously. Also several small bubbles are noted near the A/C unit, one at the front and several at the right of the A/C. Should be checked by a roofer. Gutters appear to be in good condition. Some gravel and leaves in the gutter. There were three different termite inspections done. The first, by Royal Exterminator on September 30, 1988, was accomplished for the real estate company. It showed evidence of dry rot and termites with visible damage on the left side, on window trim, on the right rear external panel, on a door frame and on interior trim. No live organisms were noted. The report was sent to the real estate company but reflected Ms. Hicks as the buyer. The second inspection was done by Truly Nolen on October 7, 1988, also for the realtor because Mr. Murphy was not happy with the first one. It, too, reflected evidence of termites and dry wood decay in the same areas as previously described, and again, there was no indication that live organisms were found. A copy of this report was provided to Ms. Hicks at the time of closing by the Barnett Bank, not by Respondent. Though her acknowledgment appears on the form, she does not recall having seen it. The third inspection, by Hughes Exterminating Company, was done on January 31, 1989 at the request of Ms. Hicks. The substance of this report was the same as the two prior reports. Damage was noted even though Mr. Murphy paid a carpenter, Todd McCammack, to repair this damage on October 18, 1988, shortly after the second termite inspection. Respondent indicated to Ms. Hicks that the roof repairs, identified as needed by Guengerich, had been satisfactorily completed, and the testimony by deposition of Mr. Scarbrough indicates that is true. In September, 1988, Scarbrough repaired the leaks on the back portion of the roof and regraveled the bare spots which were noted but which were not leaking. Considering the evidence as it relates to the issue of the termite damage, dry rot damage, and roofing damage in its totality, it would appear, and it is so found, that Mr. Alberico arranged for the necessary repairs to be made and they were made. It is unclear as to whether he advised Ms. Hicks that the necessary repairs were made. While doing so may have avoided some of her displeasure and dissatisfaction with his performance, and might have obviated her complaint against him, it does not appear that his failure to provide her with copies of the repair orders, in light of the fact he advised her the repairs had been made, constitutes misconduct. He told her the repairs had been made and it appears they had been made. It is clear that the relationship between Ms. Hicks and the Murphys was neither smooth nor harmonious. She claims, for example, she was not offered a walk-through inspection of the house prior to closing, but there is indication she was taken there several times, at least once with consultants, before she made her offer. Ms. Hicks financed her purchase through the local Barnett Bank. Prior to applying there, she had applied with another lender, Reliant, which offered to finance her purchase but at an unacceptably high interest rate. After her initial attempts at financing were unsuccessful, she noted to Respondent that she was getting tired of the extended financing process and was considering pulling out of the transaction. Thereafter, Respondent loaned her $6,000.00 for a part of the down payment. She also was to get $7,000.00 from an aunt, $6,000.00 from her father, and a small amount from her mother. She told Respondent she was concerned that Barnett would not approve her loan if they knew she was borrowing a part of the down payment which had to be paid back. According to her, he suggested she have her aunt give her $13,000.00 for the down payment rather than $7,000.00 and then use his $6,000.00 to pay back her aunt after the loan went through. She did this and did not tell the bank about it even though she knew it was not "on the up and up." She did it, however, because she was afraid she would lose her deposit if she backed out of the transaction, and would not get her loan if the bank knew that some of the down payment was a loan which had to be paid back. In that regard, however, she has not paid Respondent any of the money she borrowed from him, claiming she holds him responsible for the house's defects which include the roof, the air conditioning, and the termite damage. Mr. Alberico indicates, with regard to the financing, that after Ms. Hicks received Reliant's lending proposal with the high interest rate, he took her to two other mortgage companies, neither of which would take her. Several days later, she allegedly called him and indicated that Barnett Bank, which had held her prior mortgage, might agree to finance her. As a result, he worked with Barnett, but did very little, aside from providing the information they requested. When Ms. Hicks indicated to him that she needed more money for the down payment, Mr. Alberico offered to lend her the $6,000.00 she said she needed. The loan was to be for a short term only, and he gave her the money without a note or mortgage as evidence of the debt. However, just before closing, she told him she had lied on the income verification form. As a result, he felt he had best get some security for his loan and, after closing, asked that she give him a promissory note for the $6,000.00 he had loaned her. Mr. Alberico denies he in any way urged Ms. Hicks to lie to the bank nor did he make any representations to the bank regarding the source of her funds. As a result of this transaction, Ms. Hicks filed a complaint against the Respondent with the Sarasota Board of Realtors, and a hearing was held before that Board on July 24, 1989 concerning the conduct of the Respondent and his broker, Mr. Maloof. According to Mr. Bruce B. Winter, Chairman of the Board's Professional Standards Committee, Mr. Alberico, though fully advised in advance of his right to be represented by counsel and to call witnesses and present evidence in his own behalf, nonetheless spoke for himself and presented neither witnesses nor documentation. Having heard all the evidence presented, the panel, on August 1, 1989, filed its decision on Ms. Hicks' complaint against Mr. Alberico and his broker. The Board found that with regard to the termite inspection, Mr. Alberico did not give copies to the complainant; did not inform her that two inspections were made; misrepresented the results of the inspection to the complainant; and later told her that work had been completed when it had not. The Board's findings do not appear to be supported by the evidence presented at the instant hearing, and are not considered binding on the undersigned. With regard to the home inspection report, the Board found that Mr. Alberico told Ms. Hicks the roof work had been completed when it had not, yet evidence presented at the instant hearing shows that the work was, in fact, completed. The Board also found that Mr. Alberico loaned Ms. Hicks the money for the down payment but did not record it nor inform the lender, "because they would not have made the loan", and that he may have induced the buyer to purchase a property beyond her financial capacity. It further found that he improperly gave legal advice to Ms. Hicks by advising her not to disclose his loan for the down payment to the lender. The evidence presented at the instant hearing clearly supports the conclusion that Respondent was a party to a dishonest action on the part of Ms. Hicks regarding her application for a loan. Her dishonesty, which she denied at hearing but is, nonetheless, found to have existed, appears to have been in the falsification of her earnings statement to be submitted to the lender and her failure to disclose the true source of her down payment. The local Board made several other findings of inappropriate activity on the part of Mr. Alberico with regard to his dealing with Ms. Hicks in this case. However, they are found to be not pertinent to the allegations under consideration here, and are not considered for any purpose in the resolution of the issues currently at hand.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent, Henry J. Alberico's license as a real estate salesman for six months and assessing an administrative fine of $500.00 against him. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3229 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the fact that Ms. Hicks' viewing of the roof is not determinative of whether the required repair work was completed. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated except that the evidence reveals she was given a copy of a termite inspection report at closing and signed for it. Accepted. - 14. Accepted as to the fact that three termite inspections were conducted, all of which showed termite damage. All three, however, failed to indicate live termites, and the evidence also shows that the damage done by the prior infestation was repaired prior to sale. Accepted as to the fact that Respondent ordered the inspection but rejected as to his concealment. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. First three sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance merely a comment on the evidence. Accepted. & 22. Not Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact, but the substance of his inspection and service report is accepted. Accepted. - 30. Not Findings of Fact in form but the substance is accepted. Not a finding of Fact but argument based on the evidence. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of evidence. Accepted as to a lack of Respondent's contact with the Bank rejected as to misrepresentation conclusions. Not a Finding of Fact. & 39. Accepted and incorporated herein. 40. & 41. Accepted. 42. & 43. Accepted. 44. & 45. Accepted. 46. - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR, Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Thomas K. Marshall, Esquire 1800 - 2nd Street, #775 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
