Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified roofing contractor having been issued license number RC0021181. His address as stated at the June 30, 1982, hearing is 11360 SW 47th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33165. On or about August 2, 1976, Mildred Buckaloo contracted with Respondent, who was then doing business as Roddy Roofing Company, to re-roof her residence in Miami. Respondent completed the job with some agreed changes in the contract. The customer was not satisfied with the job and Respondent returned in September to reinstall lead flashing and replace a facia board. Ms. Buckaloo subsequently complained that the roof leaked, and accused Respondent of improper sexual advances. Respondent agreed to return to the job site, but sought to be accompanied by a third person. This was never arranged and Ms. Buckaloo's death apparently resulted in the dispute remaining unresolved. Respondent admitted that he failed to obtain a building permit for the Buckaloo job as required by Section 301.1(k), Metropolitan Dade County Code. Respondent claims that although he has no documents, he did obtain the project inspection required by Section 201.1(3)(b) of this Code. In this regard, Respondent stated that he ran into Dade County building inspector Gene Kirby in a restaurant and got Kirby to come to the job site and make the inspection. Building inspector Kirby testified at the second hearing and denies making the inspection. He did not know Respondent in 1976 but believes he first met him around 1980. Due to the long period of time which has elapsed since the alleged inspection, it cannot be found that either witness lied. However, the absence of any record to document the inspection indicated that it was not performed.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its Final Order suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 1st day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert Landers was employed by Broward County from February 10, 1987, until August 4, 1987, as a probationary employee in the County's Utilities Division. His job classification was Engineering Inspector II. Prior to his employment, he submitted a resume to Broward County. That resume represented that his health was "excellent". On the Broward County employment application form he represented that he had "fully recovered" from an automobile accident in 1963. He successfully passed Broward County's standard pre- employment physical examination. Petitioner is proud of the fact that he possesses a Broward County Master Plumber Certificate. The position of Engineering Inspector II in the Broward County Utilities Division does not require such a certificate. Petitioner served his six-month probationary period under the successive supervision of three field supervisors -- Robert Harper, John Graham, and Patrick Sweet. At the end of his probationary period each of these three supervisors individually evaluated Petitioner's job performance as unsatisfactory. At the midpoint of his probationary period, Petitioner was counseled regarding his performance and was advised that he needed to get along with people better, that he needed to get out of his vehicle in order to make inspections at the job sites, and that he needed to use the required Broward County Specifications Manual rather than relying on his past knowledge of various plumbing codes. Petitioner's job required use of engineering code concepts, and Petitioner did not gain sufficient familiarity with the Broward County Specifications Manual to properly perform his job. During the six-month probationary period, Petitioner failed to follow proper procedures and failed to properly perform his job duties on several occasions. He went home without permission; he allowed a contractor to lay defective piping; he verbalized his reluctance to utilize the Broward County Specifications Manual and took the position that his way of doing things was better; he obtained permission to go to a medical appointment in advance and then changed the appointment time without notifying anyone that he would be going at a time other than a time for which he had permission so that no other employee covered his duties while he was absent; he complained about specific assignments and questioned the necessity of doing tasks assigned to him; he kept his paper work in the wrong location; and his claims for overtime overstated the actual amount of overtime worked on two occasions. Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Broward County at the end of his probationary period for his failure to meet minimum requirements for his job classification. Petitioner has not applied for any other employment positions with Broward County following his termination. During his probationary period, Petitioner was diagnosed as having diabetes. Petitioner does not walk with an observable limp.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent Broward County has not committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 22nd day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN DOA NO. 88-4908 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-3, 5, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony or conclusions of law. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 6, 8, and 9 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact numbered 9 has been rejected as not constituting a finding a fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: James Thomas, Esquire Governmental Center Suite 423 115 South Andrews Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Robin L. Kozin, Esquire 8101 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 500 Miami, FL 33138 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In General: Respondent is, and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, a certified general contractor, having been issued license no. CG C016774 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the Administrative Complaint was Stephen Karlan licensed, registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. As to Counts I--III: There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to tie any participation by Stephen Karlan to any event at the Reyes' home (Administrative Complaint Counts I--III). Mrs. Carolyn Reyes is the wife of Augustin Reyes, both of whom have resided at 9355 Southwest 180th Street, Miami, Florida, for approximately 12 years. They first met with Respondent Gomez sometime in July of 1983, and after a series of discussions concerning the work which the Reyes' desired, their budget restrictions, and charges proposed by Respondent, a contract was prepared by Respondent on Respondent's stationery. (P-3) The contracted work included: completely remodeling the kitchen and living room; the installation of central air conditioning and heating; the construction of a swimming pool; and the construction of a covered patio. The Reyes provided Respondent with a check in the amount of $4,227.40, representing a twenty percent down payment on the contract price of $24,237.00. Although signed by Mr. Reyes, who did not testify, Mr. Reyes' signature was identified by Mrs. Reyes on the contract and on the September 20, 1983 check. She was present at the execution of the contract and tendering of the check on the Reyes' joint bank account to Respondent Reyes on September 20, 1983. Existence of this contract and its terms is not disputed by Respondent. Subsequently, approximately $3,100.00 was deducted from the total contract price by way of a change order. This amount represented the cost of installing a roof over the patio and brought the new contract price to $21,137.00. (P-3 and P-6) A change order, prepared by Respondent, and signed by Mrs. Reyes, was agreed to approximately October 18, 1983, for installation of more expensive bronze-tone sliding glass doors in the family room and $250.00 was paid additionally by the Reyes. From September through November, 1983, Respondent performed construction work at the Reyes' residence. Under the terms of the contract, the Reyes provided Respondent with the following amounts, mostly by checks drawn on their joint account and issued over Mrs. Reyes' signature. DATES AMOUNTS September 20, 1983 $ 4,227.40 (20 percent down payment) October 5, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (installation of kitchen cabinets) October 13, 1983 $ 3,170.55 (pool framing inspection) October 24, 1983 $ 250.00 (change order--glass doors) October 25, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (air conditioning equipment) October 28, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool gunnited) November 3, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (kitchen remodeling) November 4, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (plumbing payment) November 21, 1983 $ 2,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 23, 1983 $ 1,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 28, 1983 $ 982.00 December 6, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool decking) $21,211.50 TOTAL (P-6) All of these checks were cashed by Respondent. During October and November, 1983, work was localized in the kitchen. Mrs. Reyes recalled not being able to use her kitchen for Thanksgiving, 1983. Except for recurring problems of improperly installed tiles, cabinets and appliances, related infra., Respondent completed the bulk of the kitchen remodeling in early December, 1983. Also in early December, 1983, the swimming pool was dug and gunnite was sprayed for the pool. Gunnite is a base of a spray used for installing the concrete bottom of a swimming pool prior to installing further marble-type finishing material, tile, and accouterments. In this same time period, the overhang above the anticipated patio was torn off the existing house by Respondent with the apparent goal of tying the existing roof beams into the new roof. After December 6, 1983, Respondent failed to perform any actual construction at the Reyes' residence until May, 1984. 2/ His crew only worked there one day in December of 1983. Approximately December 20, renegotiation of pool costs and kitchen tile costs were indulged-in by the the participants. The final result was that the Reyes would pay $80.00 more for kitchen tiles and $106.00 more for pool tiles and would be permitted by Respondent to deduct $246.00 from the total owed on the contract to him. Mrs. Reyes purchased the pool materials and paid cash for them rather than turning over any monies to Respondent but she stored them on her property so that the work could go forward. Respondent testified that shortly before that point in time, he realized that he had underestimated the cost of doing the Reyes' job by $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 and attempted to explain to them that having received approximately 90 percent of the contract price, but having not completed that much of the work contracted-for, he would have to do the work as he was able between other jobs in order to stay afloat financially. Respondent's proposal was not initially acceptable to the Reyes and they hired a lawyer who thereafter prohibited Respondent making direct contact with the Reyes. At that time, the following items remained to be completed at the Reyes' residence. The pool tile had not been installed; the pool equipment had not been purchased or installed; the living room windows had not been installed; and the patio roof had not been completed. There were also numerous problems with the quality of the workmanship of the completed items. The kitchen cabinets and the dishwasher were both initially improperly installed. As a result of the Reyes complaining to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, one of that agency's code enforcement officers, John Delaney, inspected the Reyes' home on April 20, 1984. At that time, Mr. Delaney noted all of the items listed in Paragraph 8 as needing completion and also noted that the patio roof overhang was still exposed to the elements and that the air conditioning unit was only balanced on a concrete slab. Mr. Delaney estimated that at that time the contract work was approximately 55 percent to 60 percent complete. Upon investigation and a record search, Mr. Delaney determined that Respondent had obtained an approved building permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the open beamed porch. (P-13) The building permit did not specify installation of the pool's piping. Likewise the building permit did not specify that Respondent might perform the interior remodeling work. This permit which Respondent did obtain lists, and Respondent's signature acknowledges, that Respondent knew that "unless specifically covered by this permit" separate permits must also be obtained for electrical, plumbing, roofing, and paving and pool, among other items. Upon concluding his investigation, Mr. Delaney felt sufficient evidence existed to charge Respondent with violation of Section 10-22 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code and forwarded his investigative report to the official for the appropriate unincorporated municipality. This report indicates that Respondent also pulled permits for mechanical air conditioning and heating and an electrical permit for the swimming pool. To Mr. Delaney's knowledge, no charges were ever filed by that official against Respondent. 3/ Mr. Delaney conceded that a state certified general contractor such as Respondent can legitimately do pool piping and that the only failure of Respondent was in not pulling the county permit. He indicated that the kitchen work in the Reyes' home would require a special permit because there is electrical and plumbing work in replacing old appliances with new. However, as to the kitchen cabinets he felt it would be permissible for either the general contractor to pull a general permit or for a subcontractor to pull a specialty cabinet permit. By questions on cross-examination of Mr. Delaney, Respondent asserted that no electrical work was done, no switches were moved and his only work was replacement of kitchen cabinets, floor, and acoustical tile but this is in the form of his questions and not sworn testimony. Respondent eventually came back to the Reyes job. He finished the pool in July, 1984. He finished the open beamed roof in October 1984. Respondent's carpenters or subcontracting cabinetmakers Carlos and Hector eventually fixed a kitchen door drawer Mrs. Reyes had complained about. (It was never established what these workers' status was/is.) Despite her general dissatisfaction with the tiles in her kitchen, despite a chipped sink, and despite personally having to explain to the plumber (again the tile setter and plumber's contract or employment relationship with Respondent is unclear) how to install the dishwasher, Mrs. Reyes currently feels 95 percent of the contract work has been completed by Respondent. 4/ She acknowledged that Respondent has provided additional bronze fixtures in her family room by way of mitigation. As to Counts IV--VII: In March, 1982, June Mildred Cooper contracted with one Steve Karlan for the construction of a bathroom addition on a residence located at 4835 Westwood Lakes Drive, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $6,700.00. Steve Karlan is not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. See supra. All oral representations made by Karlan to Mrs. Cooper are total hearsay and excludable, but it is clear that Respondent was never mentioned or otherwise identified during the contract negotiation of Cooper and Karlan. Cooper submitted contract payments directly to Karlan and never paid anything to Respondent. Cooper found Respondent on the job one day and thinks he said something to her like, "I'm the boss," but her memory of the exact language, if any, is vague. Cooper was admittedly not on the premises most of the time the construction was in progress because she repeatedly visited her other residence in Indianapolis for several months at a time. Respondent admits he was approached by Steve Karlan to give an estimate for the bathroom job and they thereafter agreed that Respondent should do the work. Respondent admits Karlan later gave him a piece of paper, probably a tax assessment, showing June Cooper's name as the owner, which Respondent used as the basis for filling out the building permit application which he applied for and received covering the portion of the construction work he did at her Florida residence. At the conclusion of his job, Respondent also executed a waiver-of- mechanic-lien affidavit which did not specify any owner and gave it to Karlan. Gomez never inquired into the relationship between Karlan and Cooper and just assumed Karlan was a relative, probably a son, living at the same address, and initially assumed Karlan had authority to authorize the work because Karlan opened the door to him the first time Respondent came to do the requested estimate. At the time Karlan opened the door to Respondent, some construction was already in progress in the house. Respondent represents that this scenario of obtaining a construction job is so customary in the trade that he never questioned Karlan's statement until Mrs. Cooper ultimately complained about the construction after completion. He recalls meeting her at the house twice during construction, but does not think he told her he was the boss. In mitigation, he represents that he made good on Mrs. Cooper's complaints. Respondent admits he later entered a contract with Steve Karlan as a "salesman" after satisfying Mrs. Cooper but that contract had nothing to do with the Cooper job.
Recommendation Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay a penalty of $1,000.00 and monitoring his license for one year in a probationary status. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1985.
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondent's registered roofers contractors' license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on allegations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint filed herein signed February 21, 1983 alleging that Respondent unlawfully abandoned a construction project; diverted funds or property received for the completion of a construction project; made misleading, deceptive, fraudulent or untrue representation in the practice of contracting; was the subject of disciplinary action by a local licensing board and was guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, all within the moaning of Sections 489.129(1)(i),(h),(k),(m) and sections 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number PC 0034672 in the name of John M. Sneed, Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation, 7650 SG 135 Street, Miami, Florida 33156. At all times material, Respondent was qualifier for Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation under his registered roofing contractor's license. (Petitioner's exhibit 1) On April 22, 1982, Respondent entered a contract with Marcel and Goldy Wiesner to reroof the Wiesner home at 9225 Bay Drive, Surfside, Florida for a contract price of $4,915 less five percent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Wiesners contacted the Respondent and Beall and Associates because of a coupon which Wiesner noticed in the Greater Miami Yellow Pages. The coupon provided for a 5 percent roofing discount on roofing work performed by Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6 and Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner) Under the terms of the contract entered into by the parties, Respondent was to complete the installation of roofing tiles on the Wiesner residence on or before May 30, 1992. The Wiesners had informed the Respondent that they would be leaving on vacation during June of 1982, and therefore wanted the roof- repairs completed prior to their departure for vacation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5 and Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner) On approximately May 3, 1982, Respondent applied for a building permit from the town of Surfside, Florida, for the repairs to the Wiesner roof. A permit, number 18697, was issued by the town of Surfside for the reroofing job on that same date. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Respondent immediately commenced construction on the Wiesner project on May 3, 1982. At that time, Respondent was given $2,457.50, which represented 50 percent of the contract price. On May 6, 1982, the Wiesners paid Respondent $1,253.75 making the total percentage of the contract price paid to date 79 percent inclusive of the 5 percent deduction referred to above. During May of 1982, Respondent abandoned the Wiesners reroofing project and, at that time, the tin capping inspection had been performed and the project was approximately 60 percent completed. (Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner and John Hahn, Town Clerk and Manager, Town of Surfside) Respondent provided the Wiesners no prior notice of his in tent to abandon the reroofing of their residence and did not offer them any reasons for his failure to return to complete the project. (Testimony of Marcel Wiesner) The Wiesners individually, and through their attorney, made numerous attempts to contact Respondent to return to complete the reroofing work to their residence without any success. The Wiesners therefore hired a second roofing contractor to complete the project. During the interim, the Wiesners had to repair the interior of their home which was water-damaged as a result of the Respondent's failure to complete the roofing project the started. On approximately May 23, 1982, Respondent, as qualifier for Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation, contracted with John C. Leisinger to reroof the Leisinger home at 851 Heron Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida. Respondent agreed to install monterey tile on their "villa mission" style home. The contract price was $5,600. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 9 and Testimony of John C. Leisinger) On July 14, 1982, Respondent received $2,800 representing one-half of the contract price to perform the reroofing to the Leisingers' home. On or about July 16, 1982, Respondent received an additional $1,719 from the Leisingers or a total of approximately 81 percent of the contract price. (Testimony of John Leisinger) On or about July 16, 1982, Respondent applied for and received a roofing permit from the City of Miami Springs, Florida, for the reroofing work on the Leisingers' home. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Between July 14 through 16, 1982, Respondent partially performed the roofing work on the Leisingers' residence. After July 16, 1982, Respondent failed to return to the Leisingers' residence to complete the reroofing work despite numerous attempts by the Leisingers to get the Respondent to return. At the time that he left the Leisinger residence, Respondent had not installed the roofing tiles as required but left the roof in an exposed state. (Testimony of John C. Leisinger) Respondent left the Leisinger reroofing project without notice to the Leisingers nor did he later provide them any reason for his failure to return to that project. At that time, Respondent had completed approximately seventy (70%) percent of the work required under the contract. Respondent, however, did advise Mr. Leisinger that he was unable to complete the project at the original contract price because the price of the monterey tiles specified in the contract had increased. In this regard, Mr. Leisinger contacted the tile company that supplied the monterey tiles and was in formed that the price was unchanged during the period that Respondent would have purchased those tiles for the project. Further, Mr. Leisinger later purchased the same tiles specified in the contract at the same price contemplated by the parties. Mr. Leisinger was left with the alternative and was forced to purchase the tiles and complete the roofing project himself when Respondent failed to return. (Testimony of John C. Leisinger) During the course of time when the petitioner investigated a complaint filed by Mr. Leisinger with the Petitioner against the Respondent, Petitioner's Investigator, Bill McDonald, received a memorandum sent to all Building Officials in Metropolitan Dade County informing them that Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency, issued by Metropolitan Dade County, had been suspended by the Metro-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board until such time as Respondent paid fines totalling one-thousand five-hundred dollars. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12 and Testimony of Bill McDonald) Based on information contained in the above memorandum, McDonald initiated a complaint against Respondent with regard to the disciplinary action by the Metro-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. In this regard, on February 11, 1982, the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, Division "A," considered a complaint filed by Peter Di Filippi against the Respondent. The Board found that there was at least a prima facie showing of violations of Chapter 10, Metropolitan Dade County Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) On or about May 17, 1982, the Building and Zoning Department for Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board would hold a hearing to determine whether the Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency as a roofing contractor, issued by Metropolitan Dade County, should be disciplined for various charges. On July 8, 1982, the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board considered several charges against Respondent and found that Respondent was guilty of several charges specified in a Complaint and the Board fined Respondent a total of one-thousand dollars to be paid within thirty days following the close of that hearing. The Board also issued a reprimand to Respondent based on those charges. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) On September 9, 1902, the local Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board considered other charges filed against the Respondent and as a result thereof found Respondent guilty of several charges and imposed a fine of $500 payable within 60 days following the close of the September 9, 1982 hearing. Also, the Board directed that Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency as a roofing contractor he suspended for a period of thirty days. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 21 and 22) On or about February 7, 1903, John Leisinger obtained a Judgment in the amount of $3,665 plus costs and attorneys fees .. against Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation. The Judgment stemmed from the transaction referred to hereinabove between Leisinger and the Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 28 and Testimony of John Leisinger) On or about -May 23, 1983, Marcel Weisner obtained a Judgment in the amount of $10,440 against Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation end Respondent, jointly and severally. That Judgment was obtained based on the transaction referred to hereinabove between the Weisners and Respondent. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 27 and Testimony of Marcel J. Weisner) Respondent's Defense As stated herein, the Respondent did not appear to offer testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be suspended for a period of five years and he be assessed a civil fine of $2000.00 payable to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 August, 1984.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor, having been issued license number RG 0012013. On October 3, 1980, the Respondent, d/b/a Five Ray Enterprises, Inc., entered into a contract with David and Laytha Danley to construct a residence near Brooksville, Florida, for the sum of $61,621.00. This contract was a construction management type of agreement in which the Respondent was to be paid a fee for his services. The Respondent commenced construction, and completed between 85 percent and 95 percent of the project before discontinuing an active role in the work during June of 1981. The Respondent's base of operations was in Winter Park, nearly 100 miles from the construction site, and he was having some personal problems. Therefore, the Respondent agreed with Al Nickola to have Nickola supervise the completion of construction, which involved some painting, grading, finish electrical work and the installation of appliances. The Respondent knew that Al Nickola was unlicensed as a contractor when he entered into the agreement with Nickola to complete the construction. Before he discontinued his work on the project, the Respondent received all the inspections except for the Certificate of Occupancy. His agreement with Nickola was to complete the work which was left and to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy. The Respondent did not properly qualify Five Ray Enterprises, Inc., under which name he contracted to build the residence for the Danleys. On September 9, 1981, the Citrus County Hoard of Examiners revoked the Respondent's license for abandonment of the Danley construction project. However, the minutes of the Board meeting at which this action took place, do not reflect whether or not a full examination was made of all the facts. They simply indicate that the Respondent did not appear at the meeting as requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Roland C. Ray, be found guilty of one violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and one violation of Section 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $250 on each charge for a total fine of $500. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and that his license be suspended until such time as the Respondent has obtained reinstatement of his Citrus County license. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 11th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roland C. Ray 305 North Pennsylvania Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, DPR Case No. 0018288 DOAH Case No. 82-2395 ROLAND C. RAY RG 0012013 Post Office Box 5877 Orlando, Florida 32855 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1985, Respondent Bernardo Duran as qualifying agent for Duran Roofing, Inc., d/b/a A-1 Duran Roofing was issued a Certificate of Competency as a roofing contractor by the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. By letter dated July 22, 1986, Respondent was notified of five charges brought against him by the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. On August 14, 1986, Respondent attended a formal hearing before the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board to answer the charges brought against him by the Board. At the conclusion of the hearing Respondent was advised by that Board that the Board had found him guilty of two of those charges and that the Board was taking disciplinary action against him as follows: a reprimand and a fine of $1,000 on one of those charges, and revocation of Respondent's personal and business Certificates of Competency plus a fine of $2,500 on the other charge. The fines totaling $3,500 were to be paid within 60 days. By letter dated August 15, 1986, Respondent was again advised that he was being given a reprimand, that his personal and business Certificates of Competency were revoked, and that he was being fined a total of $3,500 which was required to be paid within 60 days of the date of the formal hearing. On September 11, 1986, Respondent appealed the Order of the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County. On February 4, 1987, Respondent filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, his application for registration as a roofing contractor. Respondent attached to that application a copy of his revoked Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board Certificate of Competency, thereby indicating that he had met the prerequisites for state registration. Respondent specifically failed to advise that the certificate which he was attaching had been previously revoked. The application which Respondent filed with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board specifically asks on the applicant whether the applicant or a corporation for which the applicant is an authorized representative has ever had disciplinary action taken against a contracting license by any state, county or municipality. Respondent answered that question in the negative although he was fully aware that a negative answer was false. Unaware of Respondent's false representations contained within his application for state registration, on February 19, 1987, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issued to Respondent as the qualifying agent for A-1 Duran Roofing a temporary license as a roofing contractor, registration number RC 0052908. Thereafter, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board became aware that Respondent's personal and business Certificates of Competency had been previously revoked by his local Board. Accordingly, no permanent license was issued to Respondent. On September 9, 1987, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, issued its Mandate in Respondent's appeal from the Order of the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. Contrary to Respondent's assertion at the final hearing in this cause, the Circuit Court did not reverse the revocation of his certificates but rather reversed the final order of the Board and remanded the case for a new hearing to be conducted by that Board. Respondent admitted during the final hearing in this cause that no one had ever advised him that filing an appeal from an order of the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board could stay any disciplinary action taken by that Board. Rather, Respondent admitted that he was specifically advised by that Board that he could only work again as a roofer if any appeal filed by him were successful. When Respondent submitted his application for registration to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, he knew that the Certificate of Competency he attached to it had been revoked and that his denial of previous disciplinary actions was false.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein and revoking Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1- 11, 13, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 15 have been rejected as being secondary to the ultimate issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 14 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 17 and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of facts but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1- 3 and 5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard D. Katz, Esquire 300 Aragon Avenue Suite 330 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate the Dade County building code, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint? Did the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board discipline Respondent? 3) Do Respondent's alleged acts violate Chapter 489, Florida Statutes? Petitioner submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, McArthur Carter, is a registered residential contractor holding license number RR 0009875, which he held at all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent contracted to construct an addition to the residence of Milton and Imogene Harvell. A copy of this contract was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The contract provided as follows: Front of House Forming of 2 arches Pouring 4" slab between arches Forming planting area Existing Carport Area - Remove existing Roof Enclose form arches Placing of new laundry area Room for tools All electric as shown on plans One window to utility Garage Section Floor trowel finish Ceiling 1/2 sheet plaster finish Work bench out 3/4 plywood One (1) double two light window Two (2) garage doors allowance (150.00) each Roof standard asphalt shingle 2x6 rafters Plugs and lights according to plans Den Extention [sic] Remove existing windowns [sic] & walls Replace window into new wall Match existing ceiling Match existing wall Two new lights - 3 new plugs Existing Utility [sic] Remove all fixtures and replace to new area Painting between owner & builder. (Owner to pay half of painting) exterior WE PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($13,500.00). Payment to be made as follows: 1/3 after signing of contract, 1/3 after exterior walls are complete, balance upon comple- tion of job. Authorized Signature: M. Carter (signed) In addition, plans of the building were prepared by Respondent, and these were approved by the local building official. The job began two weeks after the contract was signed, and an initial sum of $5,000 was paid by the Harvells to Respondent. After approximately three months, after the exterior walls were up, Respondent ceased work because the Harvells had not paid him. He came back to work when he was paid another $5,000. Respondent continued to work on the project for several more months, then again halted work on the project. By this time, there was a conflict between Respondent and the Harvells over the project, money and the Harvells' relationships with subcontractors. After approximately six weeks, Mrs. Harvell called the local building officials. An inspection was made and an order to show cause issued. After a hearing in September of 1980 before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, the local board acted to discipline the Respondent. However, at the same time the local board agreed to reinstate Respondent when the work was performed correctly and completely. This action of the local board was based upon Respondent's "abandonment" and changes to the plans for the garage ceiling. The record indirectly indicates that the local board's action on the change to the plans was tied to a fire code violation, because when the ceiling was redone with fire-resistant dry wall it was approved. The initial installation of dry wall that was not fire-resistant was not intentional but a simple mistake. The substitution of dry wall for plaster and lath is not per se a critical alteration, and it was not shown to be critical to the construction. Respondent returned to the job in November of 1950 and finished the work in November, 1951. Final inspection was called for in June of 1982, and all the defects were corrected, the job was completed in accordance with the contract, and all code violations were corrected. The local board has reinstated Respondent's license based upon his adherence to their agreement when action was originally taken against Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, McArthur Carter, receive a letter of reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 19th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 SW 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. McArthur Carter 17325 NW 18th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor having been issued License No. RC 0041149. Respondent's address of record is Miami, Florida. The Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board is authorized to discipline tradesmen and contractors in Dade County, Florida. By letter dated September 17, 1986, the Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Building & Zoning Department advised Respondent that a formal hearing would be held before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board on 35 charges arising out of Respondent's roofing and painting activities. A formal hearing was conducted on November 13, 1986, at which time 24 of the 35 charges were dismissed, and the formal hearing was continued. By letter dated January 21, 1987, the Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Building & Zoning Department advised Respondent that the continuation of his formal hearing would be held on February 12, 1987, at which time 4 additional charges, enumerated in that letter, would also be heard. At the conclusion of the formal hearing on February 12, 1987, 12 more of the charges were dismissed. Out of the total of 39 charges filed against Respondent, Respondent was found guilty of 3 charges. The Construction Trades Qualifying Board ordered that the business and personal certificates of Respondent be revoked and that Respondent be fined a total of $5,000. Respondent was present and had the opportunity to be heard at the formal hearing conducted on November 13, 1986, and on February 12, 1987. After Respondent was advised of the disciplinary action imposed by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, he paid the fine imposed upon him. He also made restitution to the two homeowners involved. One of the homeowners was complaining about a leak in the roof that Respondent had installed. Respondent gave the homeowner another new roof at no cost. The other homeowner had refused to pay for the installation of the roof, and Respondent had placed a lien against the property. Respondent cancelled the lien on the property so that that homeowner received the new roof for free. Respondent's licenses were reinstated by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent remains in good standing with that local agency. Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a result of an informal proceeding held on January 9, 1986. The final order from that proceeding assessed a $250 fine against Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein and imposing against him an administrative fine in the amount of $500 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3892 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. The remainder of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are contained in a letter which, essentially, is simply an attempt to reargue the facts underlying the local disciplinary action and to establish the fact that he is an excellent roofer. Only those sentences which relate to the restitution made to the two customers by giving them free roofs have been adopted in this Recommended Order, and the remainder of the sentences have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issue involved in this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Jonathan Ring, Esquire Peter Fleitman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Louis Gordon 14870 Southwest 205th Avenue Miami, Florida 33187 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed February 21, 1980, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (herein sometimes referred to as the Board), seeks to indefinitely suspend the Certified General Contractor License No. CGC007304 held by Robert L. Huffman (herein sometimes referred to as the Licensee or Respondent) and requests that his license not be reissued until Respondent provides to Petitioner proof of compliance with the Collier County Industry Licensing Board. Additionally, Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) against Respondent. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that Respondent abandoned a construction project without legal excuse in violation of Collier County Ordinance 78-2, 4.1.3 and thereby violated Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, Petitioner alleges that Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the local applicable building codes and laws in violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Robert L. Huffman, entered into a contract with Mack and Lois Trent of Columbus, Ohio, for the construction of a residence in Collier County on February 10, 1978, for a cost of $41,950.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into between the parties, Respondent agreed to use his best efforts to deliver the completed residence within one hundred fifty days (150) from the start of construction. The evidence reveals that construction commenced on June 1, 1978. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) The Trents became dissatisfied at the pace that the Respondent constructed their residence and filed a claim with the local Collier County Construction Board. The Trents did not release the final 10 percent of the contract price to Respondent since, according to the Trents, the house was not completed as scheduled. As a result of the complaint filed by the Trents with the local building officials, Raymond Dulaney, Jr., Building Administrator for the Collier County Building Administration, visited the Trent property on July 23, 1979, and issued a check list of incomplete items to Respondent which was memorialized by letter dated July 23, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) That list contained approximately nineteen (19) items which remained incomplete at the time of Mr. Dulaney's visit to the Trents' residence. When the Trents withheld the construction monies, there was approximately seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) remaining in the construction loan to be used by Respondent to complete construction of tie Trents' residence. During May of 1979, Respondent and the Trents had a discussion with regard to the rate of progress on their residence. The Trents then advised Respondent that they had planned to utilize the home for rental purposes to offset the mortgage payments. According to the Trents, they sustained a loss of approximately five thousand eight hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-eight cents ($5,824.98) which amount reflects a rental loss beginning approximately March 1, 1979, until the home was completed during November of 1979, plus travel and other incidental expenses. The Trents rented the home during December of 1979. On October 10, 1979, Respondent and the Trents entered into an agreement respecting the problems connected with the Respondent's construction of the Trents' residence. Based on the agreement, Respondent was released from the building contract and likewise, the Trents were also released from any and all further obligations that they had under the building contract dated February 10, 1978. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) Additionally, Respondent installed a sprinkler system for the Trents at no additional cost. Raymond Dulaney, Jr., related the circumstances surrounding Collier County's investigation and determination of a complaint filed by the Trents against Respondent. Mr. Dulaney confirmed that he forwarded to Respondent a letter dated July 23, 1979, advising of the incomplete items remaining for the final inspection for the Trent residence. The results of the charges filed by the Trents against Respondent resulted in an action by the Collier County Board preventing Respondents from "pulling" building permits. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11.) A certificate of occupancy was issued for the Trent residence on October 29, 1979. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent denied that there was any abandonment of the Trent residence. Instead, Respondent maintains that when the construction funds were withheld by the Trents, there was a delay in construction which Respondent argues cannot be regarded as an abandonment. Respondent acknowledged that there were some problems in getting the subcontractors to complete their phase of the construction which was aggravated by the Trents withholding of construction monies. Finally, Respondent points out that the parties entered into an agreement which resulted in a release of obligations and claims by both parties (Trents and Respondent). That release gave the Trents the right to retain the remaining monies, which amount was more than sufficient to complete their house. Respondent noted that the parties entered into the agreement for the construction of their residence on February 10, 1978, and that a notice of commencement could not be issued until June because the Trents had not completed their arrangements for financing. Respondent acknowledged that when the owners withheld construction monies that were due, he was unable to complete the construction of their residence with his own money, resulting in the usual problems with subcontractors in situations where monies were unavailable. Respondent also points out that the house was approximately 90 percent complete when the funds were withheld and that even given the nature of the problems respecting the withholding of construction monies, construction progressed at a normal rate. In support of that statement, Respondent pointed out that in Collier County during the period in question, two hundred twenty to two hundred thirty (220 to 230) days was the average period required for completion of a residence. Respondent met with the Trents' attorney, a Mr. McMahon, on October 9, 1978, at which time he (Respondent) provided attorney McMahon a list of all contractors who were owed monies and a release was signed the following day at Naples Federal Savings and Loan Association. To satisfy the Respondent's agreement to reimburse the Trents at the rate of four hundred dollars ($400.00) per month for every month that their residence was not completed, Respondent gave the Trents a sprinkler system plus a final release of all claims for monies due him as part of the settlement. Respondent has not applied for any permits in Collier County since approximately February of 1979. When Respondent and the Trents entered into their settlement, the terms of the release agreement encompassed a discussion and made provision for rents and all other items due the Trents. Richard McDole, Administrative Director of Code Enforcement for Lee County, Florida, is in charge of taking action on citizens' and other complaints filed against builders in Lee County, Florida. Director McDole was familiar with Respondent's work and had encountered no problems relative thereto in Lee County, Florida.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be disciplined because he aided or abetted an uncertified or unregistered person, knowingly combined or conspired with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing his certificate or registration to be used by an uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade Chapter 489; acted in the capacity of a contractor under an unregistered or uncertified name; engaged in fraud, deceit, or gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting as alleged, in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e),(f),(g) and (m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to investigate construction activities in Florida and, where indicated, to file Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material, Respondent, Richard L. Melvin, was licensed as a general contractor, having been issued license number CG C022926. During times material, Respondent did not qualify Jeffrey Gaston or Tropical Exteriors & Services, Inc. (TESI), nor did said entity or contractor's name appear on Respondent's license. During times material, Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI, was never licensed nor qualified to do business as a contractor in Florida. During times material, Respondent was not a licensed roofing contractor. On or about March 31, 1987, Jeffrey Gaston contracted with Deborah and Clinton Weber to repair a roof and renovate a bathroom at their residence for the sum of $5,000.00. Respondent's name, license number, address and telephone number was listed on the Gaston/Weber contract. Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI entered into a contract with Wilfred Butler on January 12, 1987, to replace a back porch at his residence. Respondent's general contractor's license number was listed at the top of the agreement between Gaston-TESI/Butler. Checks drawn by Butler were made payable to Respondent/TESI. Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the Butler project. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Respondent admitted to authorizing Gaston or TESI to use his name and certificate number on contracts. Respondent was aware of approximately 20 contracts and several other permits wherein Gaston/TESI obtained the contracts or permits by using Respondent's name and license number. Respondent admitted receiving approximately $2,000.00 for supervising TESI. Respondent never disassociated himself from Jeffrey Gaston until May 31, 1987. Petitioner introduced ten contracts for work in Pinellas County from December 1986 to May 1987, with Respondent's name and state certification number with Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI listed as the contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitches' home situated at 111 Aurora Avenue North, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent did not supervise the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitch's residence. Respondent, as a general contractor, is responsible for all phases of work for which he contracted for and/or obtained permits. Respondent was aware that Jeffrey Gaston was not a licensed contractor in Florida. Jimmy Jimenez has never been a licensed contractor in Florida. J & J Construction Company was qualified in February 1988, under Respondent's license number, CG C022926. Thereafter, during February 1989, J & J Construction was qualified under Respondent's license number RC 0058448. Respondent did not attempt to qualify J & J Construction until he was cautioned by Petitioner's investigators Steven Pence and Dennis Force, that his construction activities amounted to "aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor." On or about December 11, 1987, Wiley Parks, Jr., entered into a contract with J & J Construction to perform construction work and remodel a home for Parks located at 1722 West Arch Street, Tampa, Florida. In conjunction with that contract, a second contract was submitted by J & J Construction for Mr. Parks, although unbeknownst to him, which utilized Respondent's name and contractor's license number at the top of the agreement. Wiley Parks spent a great deal of his time observing the construction and remodeling work by J & J. Respondent was only seen by Wiley Parks when they met at a local bank to cash a check which represented a draw submitted by Respondent for construction work done at the Arch Street construction project. Respondent obtained a permit for the Parks job on January 6, 1988, which was prior to the time he qualified J & J Construction as the entity through which he would conduct construction business. Respondent, although required to do so, never called for a final inspection on the Parks job. The floor joists at the Parks job were disapproved by the Hillsborough County Building Department and were never repaired by Respondent. Employees of J & J were observed working at the Parks job site on January 4 and 8, 1988. Respondent was, on two occasions, the subject of prior disciplinary action by Petitioner during 1987. On one occasion, probable cause was found on August 12, 1987 and the case was closed by issuing a letter of guidance to Respondent. On the second occasion, probable cause was found on October 7, 1987. Final action was taken on February 11, 1988, whereby an administrative fine of $1,000.00 was imposed against Respondent or, alternatively, a 30-day suspension of his license. Respondent paid the administrative fine within the allotted time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent's general contractor's license number CG C022926 be REVOKED. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 26th day of March, 1990.
