The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent has engaged in conduct which warrants the Board to take disciplinary action as set forth in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, arguments of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The pertinent complaint allegations are that: Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the building codes or laws of this state or its cities, counties or municipalities. Acted as a contractor under a name different from his registered certification. Abandoned a construction project. Materially failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida statutes. 1/ Frank Daniele, Respondent, is a registered General Contractor who holds license No. RG 0009465, which is currently active. On October 24, 1977, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard Heil to construct a residence for the sum of $75,000.09 in Lee County, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) On December 27, 1977, Respondent, through the entity of D & D Construction Company, applied for and obtained a building permit to construct the Heils' residence. Respondent has qualified D & D Construction Company with the local Lee County Board. The events which are the subject of this complaint occurred in Lee County. (Testimony of John Viking, Petitioner's investigator assigned to investigate the complaint filed by the Heils.) On November 11, 1977, Mrs.. Theresa Heil paid Respondent a fee of $5,000.00 to commence construction of their residence. The Heils paid Respondent two additional payments in the amount of $10,500.00 each on January 30, and March 13, 1978. When Respondent and the Heils entered into the agreement for the construction of their residence the Heils advised Respondent that they wanted parts of two models which the Respondent had plans for, the Amhurst and the Victoria. Respondent attempted to comply with the Heils' request and, in so doing, prepared a set of drawing plans which were submitted to the Heils at their permanent residence in Dumont, New Jersey. According to the plans and specifications submitted to the Heils, the total square footage of the living area was approximately 3,172 plus an additional 520 square feet for the unheated area. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Heils visited the construction site after Respondent had completed the framing chase of the construction. The Heils inspected the Respondent's progress to that point and were pleased with the construction. However, they wanted the entrance area (foyer) enlarged. Respondent explained the difficulty he would encounter in removing various partitions and wall plates after they had been erected. Respondent reluctantly agreed to go along with the Heils' desire to enlarge their home on an "at-cost" basis. The Heils disagreed and Respondent counter-offered to do the enlargement if the Heils would defray one-half of his cost for the enlargement. According to Respondent's undisputed testimony, the Heils requested an enlargement which would bring the total square footage of the house to approximately 5,400 square feet. The parties were unable to independently resolve their differences and the Heils engaged the services of James Humphrey, a local attorney in Fort Myers. Attorney Humphrey was called upon to act as trustee for the disbursement of the remaining monies due Respondent for the completion of the Heils' residence. During approximately July of 1979, Respondent and Attorney Humphrey disagreed with the progress of construction and the disbursement of funds. All work ceased on the project by Respondent after Attorney Humphrey had disbursed approximately $17,500.00. Respondent does not dispute the amount of money paid him by the Heils and their trustee, Attorney James Humphrey. He credibly testified that he endeavored to construct the residence for the Heils within the limits of the funds disbursed him; however, Attorney Humphrey was "very slow in disbursing funds as construction was completed". He (Respondent) also emphasized the fact that he was operating with limited funds and further weakened his financial wherewithal by attempting to enlarge the Heils' residence over and above that which he originally agreed to in an effort to satisfy the Heils. After reviewing the entire testimony and the documents compiled herein relating to the Heils' complaint, the undersigned is of the opinion that the Respondent's version of the events surrounding the Heils' complaint is more credible than the version attested to by Mrs. Heil. For example, Mrs. Heil testified on direct examination that there were no change orders in the project; however, Respondent's undisputed testimony is that the Heils requested and he reluctantly agreed to enlarge the foyer of their residence after the framing phase of the construction was complete. Respondent also testified that the total square footage of the Heils' residence as agreed upon in the contract was approximately 3,483 square feet, 2/ whereas subsequent to the modifications and changes requested by the Heils, the total square footage of the residence was increased to approximately 5,400 square feet. (Testimony of Heil and Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) Finally, Mrs. Heil made much of the fact that she had to pay an additional $1,500.00 for the purchase of a central vacuum system, whereas a review of the contract entered into between the parties revealed that that was one of the items to be purchased "by owners at contractor's cost, if desired". (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, paragraph 23.) Respondent made known to the Heils his inability to complete their residence, as enlarged, without an adjustment in the contract price. When the Heils refused, Respondent had just cause for refusing to complete their residence with the modifications without an adjustment in his contract price. For all these reasons, it is concluded that the Respondent is not guilty of abandonment of a construction project as set forth and defined in Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes. 3/ I shall so recommend. Maxine Allred, an employee of the Lee County Code Enforcement Licensing Complaint section, appeared and testified at the hearing. Based on Ms. Allred's review of the pertinent inspection documents respecting the Heils' residence, Respondent's work was satisfactory and at each inspection stage the work passed inspection. During 1977 through December 30, 1978, Respondent held a local Lee County registration with D & D Construction Company listed as the qualifying entity. There is no record that the Respondent was suspended by the Lee County Board of Construction as alleged. To the contrary, the Lee County Board advised the Heils by letter dated May 20, 1978, that Respondent's work was satisfactory and in compliance with Code specifications. (Testimony of Ms. Maxine Allred.) Although Ms. Allred testified that in order for Respondent to renew his license, in view of the hiatus between the date that his license expired, i.e., December 30, 1979, and the present time, it would be necessary for Respondent to take a "block exam" and prove his proficiency before the Board, there was nothing in that testimony which would tend to indicate that this requirement was occasioned by anything other than the mere lapse of time since the expiration date of his license. In this regard, Respondent testified that he had in fact passed the required block exam; however, he had not applied for licensure inasmuch as he was merely completing on-going Projects which were commenced during a period in which he was licensed by the local Lee County Board. Finally, Respondent closed by asserting that he would have completed the Heils' house even with the enlargements had payments been timely made as construction progressed. The soaring costs of construction both in terms of labor and materials forced Respondent to halt activity on this project for nonpayment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: The Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1980, 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 30th day of April, 1980.
The Issue Whether respondent on several occasions aided an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting by obtaining permits on respondent's license for contracting jobs performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether respondent committed the statutory violations alleged; and If so, whether respondent's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether some other penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida holding License No. CG C000572. Johnnie T. Thomas is the president of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Mr. Thomas is not a licensed contractor in the State of Florida. Although respondent has used his license to qualify several corporations, the last being Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., respondent never qualified J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Indeed, J. T. Thomas Construction has never been qualified by any licensee. During the time period relevant to this action, J. T. Thomas Construction Company was the name used by Mr. Thomas to engage in the contracting business. On July 25, 1983, J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Hazel N. Jones for the construction of a residence at 11729 Rock Hill Road, Thonotosassa, Florida, in Hillsborough County. Johnnie Thomas signed the contract on behalf of J. T. Thomas Construction Company as "President and Builder." Ms. Jones did not know that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. James Montjoy drew the plans for the house and recommended Thomas as the builder. The total price for the house was $75,500. The house was started in September of 1983, and on January 30, 1984 final payment was made. After moving into the house, Ms. Jones discovered several problems. In June of 1984 an energy check found that the home was not properly insulated; however, this was apparently corrected in May of 1985. Ms. Jones had several other problems with the home and sent a "punch-list" to Mr. Thomas setting forth the items that needed to be corrected. Although Mr. Thomas admitted at the hearing that there were items that should have been corrected on the punch-list, he also admitted that he did not correct them because he disputed other claims of Ms. Jones. The building permit application for Ms. Jones' home was signed by the respondent. On the building permit application, the contractor was listed as Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. The building permit was issued on August 15, 1983. It listed Julius H. Isaac and Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. as the contractor. The building permit was signed by Julius H. Isaac as agent. Ms. Jones never met Mr. Isaac, never saw him and never knew that he was involved in any way in the construction of her home. In late 1984, Ms. Catherine Farragut, the owner of a building located at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida, contracted with J. T. Thomas to have her building remodeled. Ms. Jones recommended Mr. Thomas to Ms. Farragut before Ms. Jones began to experience problems with Mr. Thomas. Ms. Farragut was not aware that Mr. Thomas was not a licensed contractor. The remodeling of the building was completed in early 1985. The permit for the interior remodeling of the offices at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue was issued on July 23, 1984 to Julius Isaac & Association. Ms. Farragut did see Isaac at the job site in the central parking area; however, Mr. Thomas never advised Ms. Farragut that respondent was involved with the project. On August 20, 1985 J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Evelyn S. Williams to construct a residence at 3620 East North Bay Street, Tampa, Florida. The contract price for the home was 66,000 and payments by check were made to Johnnie Thomas in intervals. Construction on the home began in November 1985. Ms. Williams moved into the home in August of 1986. She discovered some problems with the house, and gave Mr. Thomas a list of the items that needed to be corrected. Mr. Thomas corrected all the items but one. Ms. Williams still has a problem with the roof getting moldy due to water retention. A permit was issued by the City of Tampa Building Department on November 20, 1985, for construction at 3620 East North Bay Street. The permit was issued to Julius Isaac and the contractor of record is stated as Julius Isaac d/b/a Julius Isaac & Associates. Ms. Williams never met Mr. Isaac or saw him; however, Ms. Williams did not go to the job site during construction since the mortgage company was supposed to periodically inspect the house during construction. Ms. Williams was not aware that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. On August 28, 1986, J. T. Thomas Construction Company entered into a written contract with Ms. Verlie Nelson to construct a residence at 8105 Jad Drive for a price of $102,560. Ms. Nelson thought that Mr. Thomas was a licensed contractor. She never saw Mr. Isaac at the job site, however, she was rarely there because Sun Coast Federal Credit Union was paid to do the inspections. On October 16, 1986, respondent applied for a building permit for 8105 Jad Drive. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners and Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., was listed as the general contractor for the project. On November 7, 1986, the permit was issued by the Hillsborough County Building Department. Julius H. Isaac was listed as the applicant and contractor. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners of the property at 8105 Jad Drive. Mr. Thomas admitted that J. T. Thomas Construction Company built the homes for Ms. Jones, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Williams, and did the renovation on the building owned by Ms. Farragut. Mr. Thomas received the payments for the projects, hired and paid the subcontractors and supervised construction. He also managed the daily affairs of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. J. T. Thomas Construction Company was formed in 1971 under the name Thomas (J. T.) Construction Company. However, the company, as a corporate entity, was dissolved by proclamation in 1973. J. T. Thomas' brother Leslie was the secretary of the corporation and a licensed contractor. He obtained the building permits for the company until be became ill. Thereafter, respondent obtained the building permits for J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Respondent knew that Mr. Thomas was not licensed and could not get the permits himself. Respondent is not a salaried employee of J. T. Thomas Construction Company, and he received no compensation for his services although he was reimbursed for the actual cost of obtaining the permits. Other than obtaining the permits, respondent's only connection with Mr. Thomas' construction projects was to visit job sites before inspections or go to a site if Mr. Thomas asked for his help with a construction problem. However, there was no competent evidence establishing that respondent ever went to the particular job sites involved in this case. Respondent had no responsibilities in connection with the projects and had no authority to take any actions. In essence, respondent was simply "helping" a long time friend. Respondent has been licensed since 1968, and there was no evidence presented of any prior violations or any prior complaints.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of the act set forth in Section 489.129(e), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5586 Rulings on petitioner's proposed findings of fact by paragraph: 1-8 Accepted generally. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Julius H. Isaac 421 Ella Mae Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil Stephen F. Hanlon, Esquire General Counsel BARNETT, BOLT & KIRKWOOD Department of Professional Post Office Box 3287 Regulation 100 Twiggs Street 130 North Monroe Street Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent John G. Gordon, Jr. was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor by License No. RC-0032501, first issued to Respondent, qualifying as an individual in 1978 and continually renewed as such since then. On June 4, 1981, Respondent was called by Ms. Allene S. Gilbert to give her an estimate on re-roofing the two flat portions of her house roof. When he went to the house, he went up on the roof by himself to look and, when he came down, he gave her an estimate of $1,400 to re-roof the two flat sections on either side of the gabled center section. He did not then, or any time thereafter, prior to doing the work, indicate there was anything wrong with the siding which connected down from the gabled roof to the flat roof. After making his inspection and giving the estimate which Ms. Gilbert accepted, he entered into an oral contract with her which, when reduced to unsigned memo form, provided that he would tear off the old roof down to the deck and replace it with a 15-year built up roof consisting of a total of five layers. He also agreed to replace the rock and all metal around the edges of the house. He specifically stated that the work he did, both materials and his workmanship, was guaranteed for 15 years against leaks. Respondent indicates he found that the metal flashing along the side of the house where the flat roof joins the siding was rusted out and he replaced it. He contends that this rust was due to the deteriorated (rotten) condition of the lap siding above the flat roof which allowed water to get in behind the flashing. In any case, during the first rain after the completion of the work, the preexisting leaks in the bedroom which prompted the roof replacement were worse and additional leaks developed inside the house. The leakage was so severe, the bathroom ceiling caved in. Ms. Gilbert called Respondent many times to get him to come out and repair the leaks, but never was able to speak with him personally. Each time she called, she would leave a message with whomever answered the phone, requesting that he come out or call, and was assured that these messages were getting relayed to Respondent, but he never returned any call and, to the best of her knowledge, he never came to her house again. However, she works during the day and would not know if he was there or not. No neighbor told her they saw someone there, and she received no note or other indication that the Respondent had come. Respondent admits that having once responded to her earlier call and seeing that the leaking was caused by the condition of the siding for which he was not responsible and about which he had previously done nothing, he was satisfied that his work was done properly and he did not call back or ever respond to any of Ms. Gilbert's other calls. He contends that the problem was not caused by him or a part of the work he had done. Therefore, he was not responsible for it. Ms. Gilbert contends, after trying to get Respondent to honor his guarantee for six months, she gave up and had someone else to do the job. The leaks are now repaired and the siding which Respondent stated was rotten, though painted once since then, has not been replaced or repaired. Respondent having entered into the contract with Ms. Gilbert, began and completed the entire project without either (1) having an occupational license as required by Section 14-39, Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach; or, (2) securing a permit for the repair as required by Section 106.1, Standard Building Code, incorporated into the Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $250 and that he be placed on probation for six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 9th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John G. Gordon Post Office Box 498 Destine, Florida 32541 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Gary Antonissen holds residential contractor's license No. RR 0029550 and at all times here relevant was the qualifying contractor for Rogart Development Corp. (Rogart). He received this license in 1976. Rogart is owned by Arthur Antonissen, the father of Respondent. Arthur Antonissen constructed residences in Long Island, New York from 1962 until he moved to Florida in 1976, shortly before Gary was licensed. In New York he constructed an average of 80 homes per year. Rogart commenced doing business in 1976 with Gary Antonissen as the qualifying contractor. Rogart generally developed tract homes and used subcontractors for the work. Upon arrival in Florida in 1976, Rogart found subcontractors readily available in Collier County and work progressed satisfactorily. However, in late 1977 and 1978 as the construction industry expanded Rogart found subcontractors more difficult to get to do the work they had previously done. This resulted in Rogart delaying the completion of homes from the four months promised the buyer to as much as 18 months and in inferior workmanship and complaints from buyers. Although Gary Antonissen was the qualifying contractor for Rogart, it clearly appears that Arthur Antonissen directed the operations of the company and actually supervised the construction of many of the homes. Between August 1977 and August 1978, Rogart built 80 homes. It was during this period that Rogart began having trouble with subcontractors and buyers started complaining to the Collier County Building Department and to the Collier County Contractors Licensing Board. The Collier County building inspectors found numerous instances of poor workmanship in the construction of residences and some of these were corrected by the contractor. Three buyers of homes from Rogart testified to defects in the construction of their homes and of their efforts to get Rogart to correct these defects. These workmanship deficiencies were corroborated by the Collier County Building Inspector and were not rebutted by Respondent. Differences arose between buyers and developer resulting from the former seeing cabinets or equipment in a model house and expecting the same in the house they bought, whether the plans actually called for it or not. The one contract entered into evidence did not have attached thereto the plans and specifications the contract stated would be attached, and the testimony was silent whether or not the buyers actually received a copy of the plans and specifications for the home each purchased. No evidence was submitted that code violations existed in the construction of these homes. All were issued certificates of occupancy and the Collier County Building Inspector testified that a certificate of occupancy would not be issued if code violations existed. Gary Antonissen was not a qualified carpenter, electrician or plumber, nor did he have the mechanical skills needed to himself correct defective workmanship left by the subcontractors. Supervising the construction of some 50 homes under construction at one time taxed his abilities to the utmost. Following several meetings by the Collier County Contractors Licensing Board at which complaints were received from buyers of Rogart's homes, the Board on August 15, 1978 voted to revoke the Certificate of Competency of Gary Antonissen (Exhibit 3) Although the Collier County Contractors Licensing Board revoked Respondent's license for, inter alia, departing in material respect from plans or specifications without the consent of the owner, no evidence of such departure was here presented. No plans or specifications were submitted into evidence from which a departure there from could be ascertained.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
The Issue The issues presented in this case concern certain allegations made by the Petitioner against the Respondent through an Administrative Complaint. In particular, it is alleged that on or about April 23, 1980, the Respondent's contractor's license issued by the Petitioner was suspended and subsequent to that time, the Respondent continued to perform contracting services through a company, David H. Hamilton, Inc., a corporation which was not properly qualified by the Petitioner to provide contracting services. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent obtained building permits Nos. S2740-80B 1/ and 3214-80B from the Osceola County Building Department with the use of another contractor's license, namely: Louie S. Winchester, license #RR003839. For the reason of these facts, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he attempted to use a suspended registration. It is further alleged, based upon the facts as reported in this Issues statement, that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in a capacity as a contractor under a certificate of registration not in his name. Finally, it is alleged, based upon the facts as reported hereinabove, that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes, by not properly qualifying a corporation under which he performed contracting services.
Findings Of Fact The case presented concerns license disciplinary action by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, against the Respondent, David H. Hamilton, who holds a residential contractor's license issued by the Petitioner, #RR0014037. The prosecution of this action is through the offices of the Department of Professional Regulation and the outcome of the matter could lead to the revocation, suspension or other disciplinary action against the Respondent, in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. This case was presented before the Division of Administrative Hearings following a decision on the part of the Respondent to request a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The facts reveal that a Final Order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was issued on April 23, 1980, and this order established disciplinary action against the current license of David H. Hamilton. (A copy of this Final Order may be found as a part of the record in this proceeding and official recognition of that Final Order is made by the Recommended Order process.) This Final Order was entered after review of a Recommended Order of a Division of Administrative Hearings' Hearing Officer. By the terms of the Final Order, Hamilton's license was suspended "until such time as his Lake County Certificate of Competency is reinstated by the Lake County Board of Examiners." This contingency referred to the fact that the Respondent had his Lake County Certificate of Competency Card removed prior to the entry of the April 23, 1980, order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 2, 1980, at a time when the Respondent's residential contractor's license was under suspension by the State of Florida, the Respondent through a corporation applied to the Osceola County Building Department for a building permit to construct a residence in Osceola County, Florida. This permit number was #2740-80B. The permit was issued on September 4, 1980, and was granted in the name of David Hamilton, Inc., a corporation in which the Respondent was a principal. To obtain the permit in the sense of an effort to meet the requirements that the permit be applied for by a licensed Florida contractor, the Respondent used the registered residential contractor's license of one Louie Stevens Winchester who held license #RR003839 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On the occasion of the issuance of the permit by Osceola County, Winchester was an officer of David Hamilton, Inc. Through the action of "pulling" this permit and the utilization of the permit in his construction of the residence, the Respondent was acting in the capacity of contractor under Winchester's license and the offices of the corporation, as opposed to the Respondent's suspended license. Prior to the request for permit, neither Hamilton nor Winchester had attempted to properly qualify David Hamilton, Inc., as a contracting corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In this case, to properly qualify the corporation, it would have entailed the use of Winchester as the qualifying agent, in view of the fact that Winchester still held a valid contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. No effort was made to qualify David Hamilton, Inc., in its own right, through the agency of Winchester, until some time shortly beyond December 1, 1980. On October 28, 1980, the Respondent in his individual capacity, that is to say unconnected with his business pursuits as David Hamilton, Inc., went to the Osceola Building Department and applied for the issuance of a building permit for a home remodeling project for a customer of his. The permit in question on this occasion was #3214-80B. That permit was issued on October 29, 1930, and was used by the Respondent in his building project. An official in the Osceola County Building Department had checked with an employee in the Lake County Building Department on the status of Hamilton's rights to be employed as a building contractor in Lake County, Florida, and was informed that Hamilton's status in Lake County was acceptable. Based upon these representations, the Osceola County employee issued the permit discussed in this paragraph to Hamilton. The Osceola County employee also asked that the Lake County employee formally confirm Hamilton's status. The correspondence in response to Osceola County employee, John Pate, Assistant Building Director, as issued by an official in Lake County, one Herb Dudgeon, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. This letter was received by Pate after the permit was issued. That correspondence indicates that Hamilton had been given the privilege of reinstating his Lake County Competence Card, contingent upon "providing bond, insurances, occupational license, etc.," which had not been received by Lake County as of the date of the correspondence. The correspondence goes on to mention that the State, meaning the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, was waiting for confirmation of the completion of the contingencies referred to. Subsequent to this correspondence, the Respondent having completed all the necessary steps for reinstatement of the Lake County Competency Card, had his license suspension removed and was reinstated by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, as verified by that body.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order which absolves the Respondent of any responsibility for a violation of Subsection 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1980); that finds the Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), and imposes a penalty of a 60-day suspension; and that finds the Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and imposes a suspension of 60 days to run concurrently with the other suspension in this paragraph of recommendation. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 13th day of November, 1981.
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 =================================================================
