The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (g)3., (j), (o) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Spencer holds a current, active Florida State Certified Building Contractor License, having been issued license number CBC 1252039. He is certified with the Department as doing business as KCLS Spencer, Inc. (KCLS), and is the primary qualifying agent thereof. Mr. Spencer submitted a Proposal, bearing the letterhead of KCLS and dated September, 14, 2004, to Jesse J. Ross, Sr. (Mr. Ross), which pertained to the exterior remodeling of Mr. Ross' jewelry store located at 6290 North Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Initially, the Proposal put the cost for the remodeling at $48,762.86. After some negotiating, the Proposal that ultimately formed the basis of their contract set the cost at $45,000.00 and relieved Mr. Spencer of the obligation of constructing walkways. The Proposal's explicit terms provide: As per specifications and blueprints pricing is as follows; labor and material to renovate existing exterior building. Prices to include all demolition of all exist [sic] structures, installation of siding, columns, dormers, cupolas, two (2) French doors, windows, front gutters and down spouts, electrical, and final painting. Notes: Signs by owner. Paint colors by owner. Power and water supplied by owner. Color of pre-painted metal roof determined by owner. Material storage space to be provided by owner. Quotes good for 10 days (after 10 days, please reconfirm material pricing). 20% deposit $9752.57 due to start project, invoicing to [sic] made weekly per actual costs. Essentially, much of the exterior remodeling to be performed is simply stated as being based on the specifications and blueprints, which Mr. Ross provided to Mr. Spencer. These specifications and blueprints have not been received in evidence, but there appears to be no dispute among the parties regarding the scope of the work. The terms of payment were for an initial 20 percent deposit of $9,752.57, with weekly invoices to follow based on actual, ongoing costs. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Ross' lender, Coastal Bank, drafted a loan check for $9,752.57 made payable to KCLS. Sometime shortly thereafter, KCLS began the work of remodeling the exterior of Mr. Ross' store. As work progressed, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with an invoice, dated November 11, 2004, requesting payment for costs incurred. Despite listing on the invoice an "off set balance" of $2,515.32 that applied costs to date against the initial deposit, the total amount due was nevertheless listed as $12,268.04. On November 23, 2004, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $12,268.04 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. Later, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with another invoice, dated December 23, 2004, requesting payment for further costs incurred. The total amount due was $8,475.24. By check dated that same day, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $8,475.24 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. At this time, Mr. Ross received assurance from Mr. Spencer that no further money would be due, until the work was entirely completed. Sometime between Christmas 2004 and New Year's 2005, Mr. Spencer returned again to Mr. Ross' store and requested from him an additional $3,000.00. At this point, Mr. Ross refused, because of Mr. Spencer's earlier assurance that no further ongoing payments would be demanded and because of the lack of any work performed since the last payment. Mr. Spencer insisted that he had all of the necessary materials in his warehouse and that he would be back on the Monday following the New Year's holiday to work on the store. He never returned and could not be contacted by Mr. Ross. As the storefront remained in disrepair, Mr. Ross was compelled to contract with other parties to complete the work. Sunland General Contractors, Inc. (Sunland); Baker Roofing (Baker); and D.A.B. Painting, Inc. (DAB), completed the work that Mr. Spencer had previously been contracted with to perform. According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, they based their work upon the same specifications and blueprints that Mr. Ross had previously provided to Mr. Spencer. Sunland, except for the roofing and painting, performed what work that remained. Based on a payment history dated December 16, 2005, the total cost of Sunland's work for Mr. Ross was $23,770.00. However, this cost includes $3,990.00 for walkway decking, which Mr. Ross and Mr. Spencer, in their previous negotiations, had agreed would not be part of their final agreement. As such, the relevant cost in the instant case for Sunland's work is $19,780.00. According to a Baker invoice, dated November 10, 2005, the cost to Mr. Ross for the new roof was $14,935.00. According to a letter from DAB, dated April 23, 2005, Mr. Ross paid $6,500.00 for the painting of his store. In sum, the relevant costs to Mr. Ross for this subsequent work total $41,215.00. Sometime in October of 2005, Mr. Ross provided Mr. Frank A. Wisniski (Mr. Wisniski), a general contractor and owner of Sunland, with a set of blueprints and asked him to takeover the job that Mr. Spencer had not completed. Mr. Wisniski further testified on the condition of the building, as Mr. Spencer had left it. According to his testimony, some of the siding was not nailed properly, and the columns in the front of the store were not well secured, a potentially hazardous situation. Overall, in his opinion, he felt that Mr. Spencer had completed approximately 25 percent of the total scope of the job. Mr. Robert T. Shindo (Mr. Shindo) is an investigator for the Department. He responded to Mr. Ross' complaint to the Department regarding Mr. Spencer's work on the store. He found, "basically, a building that was not in repair." Some siding work had been done on the north face of the building, as well as some column work. However, the columns appeared damaged or incomplete, and the siding appeared incomplete as well. Besides the siding and columns, Mr. Shindo testified that "[t]here did not appear to be any other work." Overall, Mr. Shindo had familiarized himself with the Proposal and estimated that between ten and 15 percent of the job appeared to be complete. Mr. Michael McCaughin (Mr. McCaughin) is employed at the Building Code Division of Brevard County and is the chief building official for the county. Mr. McCaughin concluded that based on the work specified in the Proposal of Mr. Spencer, the only item which would not have required permitting is the gutters. Mr. McCaughin personally searched the county permit database, and no permits were ever pulled by Mr. Spencer for the remodeling of Mr. Ross' store. Petitioner's Exhibit 14, a printout of the permits that have been pulled for Mr. Ross' store, confirms Mr. McCaughin's testimony. Moreover, Mr. McCaughin "performed a search of Mr. Spencer under his name, under his state license number, and also under the company name, KCLS and, could not find any record of any permits being pulled, nor was he registered with Brevard County contractor licensing." Mr. Spencer, in testifying in his own behalf, mainly confirmed the testimony of the other witnesses and the other facts in evidence. Among other things, he confirmed that he and Mr. Ross had an agreement for KCLS to remodel the exterior of the store and that the agreement was based on the Proposal he had submitted to Mr. Ross. He agreed that he received the payments that Mr. Ross testified to having paid and testified that he never pulled the permits for the job, because he "[j]ust didn't take the time to do it." Mr. Spencer's recollection of his final conversation with Mr. Ross was substantially the same as Mr. Ross' testimony, with Mr. Spencer testifying that he had told Mr. Ross he would be back to work on the job and that there was an understanding that final payment would be made at the end of the project. He goes on to testify that he did actually go back after this final conversation to finish up the siding on the south side of the store and that the siding was completed. This last testimony is not credible. In Mr. Spencer's defense, some of the work was farmed out to subcontractors, and they were paid in full. He then testified that he was planning on continuing the work but that he was waiting on a roofer. While he was waiting for the roofer, he testified that there was some dispute between himself and Mr. Ross regarding a ring he had received from Mr. Ross. He testified that the ring fell apart and that the dispute ended their working relationship. But for "$8200 - Ring" being handwritten on the Proposal alongside the other payments made by Mr. Ross, no mention of this ring was made by the Petitioner. Presumably, this ring was given as in-kind payment to Mr. Spencer, but without anything more to go on, the insufficiency of the relevant evidence precludes any recognition of the ring as payment. Therefore, the three previously described checks, furnished by Mr. Ross and made payable to Mr. Spencer or KCLS, are found to represent the entirety of the consideration furnished. To refresh, these checks are dated October 25, 2004; November 23, 2004; and December 23, 2004, and amount to $9,752.57; $12,268.04; and $8,475.24, respectively. In sum, they total $30,495.85. Mr. Spencer also testified about the installation of French doors at Mr. Ross' store. Mr. Ross earlier testified that he had refused delivery of two French doors, when a subcontractor arrived to install them, because they were not the style, size or number he desired. He further testified that Mr. Spencer was aware that he desired six doors with plastic slats (not two as listed in the Proposal), because he had directed Mr. Spencer to examine the doors of a nearby storefront, whose style he wished to replicate. Mr. Spencer was questioned about these doors by opposing counsel. Opposing counsel asked, "Were the French doors ever installed into the building?" Mr. Spencer responded, "Not that I know of, by Bill, no." Several questions later, opposing counsel asked, "Okay. My point is, the doors were never installed in the project; is that your understanding?" Mr. Spencer responded, "My understanding from Bill was that, yes, they were installed." On this issue, Mr. Spencer could only speculate, because he never returned to the job site to check whether the doors had been installed. Mr. Spencer's testimony on this topic is not credible. Despite never being installed, Mr. Ross paid a $4,700.00 deposit for the French doors that was never refunded. When asked why this money was never refunded to Mr. Ross, Mr. Spencer goes on to testify that he trusted the subcontractor delivering the doors, that he assumed they were delivered, and that that's why he never attempted to receive a refund of the doors' cost from the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; requiring Respondent to make restitution to Mr. Ross in the amount of $26,710.85; placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years; and requiring Mr. Spencer to attend a minimum of seven additional hours of continuing education classes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 16th day of November, 1981.
The Issue Petitioner, Florida construction Industry Licensing Board (hereafter FCILB) seeks to revoke the building contractors license of Respondent, John N. Lambert (hereafter Lambert), on the ground that Lambert willfully or deliberately disregarded and violated applicable building codes of Metropolitan Dade County in violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Initially, Lambert was also charged with abandonment of a construction project in violation of Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes. However, at the hearing, FCILB abandoned the charge.
Findings Of Fact Lambert is the holder of an inactive building contractors license number CBC009927 which legally qualified Lambert to act for Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., a corporation located in Miami, Florida, engaging in contracting work. Lambert was employed by the corporation but was not an officer or shareholder. On June 10, 1976, Lambert initiated a building permit application for work proposed to be done on the home of Mr. Nelson Tower. Mr. Tower had entered into a contract with Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., on June 4, 1976. The contract reflects that Mr. Neal Phillips acted as a corporate representative and not Lambert. The building permit was issued on August 11, 1976. On July 24, 1976, Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., contracted with a Mr. William Millman, and once again the contract reflects that Neal Phillips was the corporate representative and not Lambert. On September 13, 1976, and again on September 30, 1976, Lambert made application for a building permit with she City of Coral Gables, Florida, for the Millman job. Work was commenced on both projects. Work was still in progress on October 26, 1976, when Lambert wrote a letter to FCILB requesting that his qualification as contractor for Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., cease immediately. The reasoning given by Lambert, without further explanation, was that he could "in good conscience no longer comply" with Florida law regarding licensing of construction industry. Lambert further requested in the letter that he be requalified as an individual licensee. On the same date, Lambert terminated his employment with Allstate Homecrafts, Inc. The Tower project continued on until January, 1977, when it was abandoned by Allstate Homecrafts, Inc. The contract price was $30,000.00 and over $25,000.00 in draws were made. Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) was drawn on November 2, 1977 $5,000.00 wad drawn on November 24, 1976, and $5,000.00 was drawn on December 16, 1976. These occurred after Lambert terminated his relationship with Allstate Homecrafts, Inc. After the contract was abandoned in January, 1977, Tower spent another $23,000.00 to finish the project. The Millman job continued until December, 1976, at which Lire it was abandoned at about 60 percent completion. A $10,000.00 draw was made on November 4, 1976, and a $5,000.00 draw was made on December 2, 1976. Millman spent an additional $10,000.00 to finish the project. Neither Tower nor Millman ever saw Lambert. All monies paid were given to other corporate representatives. While there was some evidence that violations of applicable building codes did occur, there was a complete absence of evidence to establish that Lambert willfully or deliberately disregarded the South Florida Building Code 4501.2(d)(4); failure to correct an electrical hazard. On February 2, 1978, the Dade County Construction Trade Qualifying Board reported that it had found that there was a prima facie showing of the charges brought against Lambert.
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 11, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO13253 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. On or about November 20, 1993, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement (contract) with Kevin Watkins (Watkins) to construct a single family residence at 126 Meadow Lark Boulevard, Lot 65, Indian Lake Estates, Florida. The contract price was $333,944.00. Between December 7, 1993, and February 1, 1996, Watkins and Respondent executed 102 addenda to the contract which increased the contract price by approximately $241,874.43, for a total amount of approximately $575.818.43. On or about December 9, 1993, Respondent obtained permit number 93-120l850 from the Polk County Building Department and commenced work on the project. The contract provided that the "project shall be substantially completed on or about 195 days from the date all building permits are issued." However, due to the 100-plus addenda to the contract, it was estimated that an additional 190 days would be needed to complete the project. Additionally, construction ceased on the home for approximately 60 days so that Watkins could explore the possibility of a construction loan. However, due to the extent of completion, the lending institutions decided not to make any construction loans. On or about May 27, 1996, Watkins moved to Florida with the expectations that his home would be completed within a short period of time. (Watkins' recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of weeks. Respondent's recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of months.) In any event, Respondent did not complete the Watkins home within a couple of weeks or a couple of months. After Watkins moved to Florida, Respondent paid for Watkins to live in a Best Western motel for a few weeks. Subsequently, Respondent moved Watkins into a rental home for which Respondent paid the rent through September 1996. Beginning October 1996 through July 1999, Watkins paid $600.00 per month for a total of $20,400.00 as rent on the rental home. In early 1998, Respondent and Watkins went through the home, identified those items which had not been completed and Respondent made a handwritten list of those items. Respondent failed to complete the items identified on the list. In fact, shortly thereafter, Respondent ceased working on the project and was unresponsive to attempts to contact him. At the time Respondent ceased working on Watkins' home, the home was approximately 75 percent complete. While this estimation of completion may not be totally accurate, it is the best that could be derived based on the evidence presented, including Respondent's testimony to which I gave some credence. Watkins paid Respondent $561,617.91, which represents approximately 97.534 percent of the total contract price plus addenda to the contract. Seventy-five percent of the contract price plus addenda to the contract equals $431,863.82 for an overpayment of $129,754.09. To date, Respondent has not returned any of the money he received from Watkins above the amount completed under the contract. From early 1998, until August 1998, when Watkins had Respondent removed as general contractor on the building permit, Respondent failed to perform any work on the home for a period in excess of 90 days. Respondent contracted with Jack Eggleston to install cabinets in Watkins home. Eggleston performed under the contract but Respondent failed to pay Eggleston in full, requiring Watkins to pay Eggleston $1,200.00. After Watkins' home was partially complete, Respondent advised Watkins that he had the home insured when in fact he did not have the home covered with insurance. While Respondent was building Watkins' home, Respondent and Watkins entered into a joint venture called Contractors of Central Florida to build modular homes sometime after January 1, 1995. Respondent contends that some of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home, were in fact reimbursement to Respondent for funds he had advanced for the joint venture. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that any of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home were in fact reimbursement for funds advanced by Respondent for the joint venture. Up until the time of the final hearing, the Department had incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful review of the guidelines set forth in Rule 61G4-17.001(8) and (11), Florida Administrative Code, and the circumstances for purpose of mitigation or aggravation of penalty set forth in Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department: Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00; Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28, plus any such further costs which have or may accrue through the taking of final agency action and; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Kevin Watkins in the amount of $129,754.09 which represents the amounts accepted by Respondent for work not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Ronald J. Powell Post Office Box 7043 Indian Lake Estates, Florida 33855 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner herein) seeks to revoke Carroll L. Mozingo's (Respondent herein) license to practice as a registered general contractor based on allegations which will be set forth hereinafter in detail that he diverted funds in violation of Chapter 468.112(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor, who holds current license no. RG0015876. On September 7, 1976, Respondent entered into a contract with Robert Johnson and his wife Sandra Johnson for a room addition and patio to their house located at 197 North Roscoe Blvd., Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The full amount of the contract plus agreed upon extras amounted to $9,640.00. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit Number 2) Respondent applied for and obtained a building permit for the construction of the Johnson's addition on or about September 27, 1976, and construction commenced shortly thereafter. (Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1) Donald Jermaine, a St. Johns County field inspector, testified that he conducted inspections on the subject job and noted numerous violations of the St. Johns County Building Code. He coordinated the inspections for this project up until the time it was abandoned by Respondent during mid February, 1977. At the time of abandonment, the owner, Robert Johnson, had paid a total amount of $11,021.96 to Respondent and/or various suppliers. To complete the job as contracted by the parties (Johnson and Mozingo) Messr. Johnson had to pay Proctors Construction Company $2,800.00, an electrical contractor $369.00 and a plumbing contractor $520.00 for a total expenditure over and above the above referenced contract amount of $3,689.00. He testified that no additional work was done to his home. The Respondent testified that he expended $7,458.00 for materials on the Johnson project and was unable to complete it because his mortgage payments were delinquent and he was not receiving any additional monies from Messr. Johnson to fulfill his obligations. He testified that he was unable to work at night and therefore had to seek other employment with another contractor. The above explanation by the Respondent which led to his abandonment of the subject project does not excuse him from his contractual obligations to either fulfill the contract as agreed upon or to seek a renegotiation based on additional costs and/or unexpected circumstances. This was not done nor was any other explanation given as to where the additional monies in excess of $4,000.00 was spent. I therefore conclude that he engaged in a diversion of funds as alleged in the administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner on May 27, 1977. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Respondent's general contractor's license be suspended for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. H. Hoskinson, Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Carroll L. Mozingo 1909 Ed Johnson Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32218 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1095 CARROLL L. MOZINGO dba CARROLL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RG 0015876, 1909 Ed Johnson Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32218, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based on the Administrative Complaint of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, now referred to as State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint are as found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order and that discussion in the issue statement is incorporated into the Findings of Fact and made a part hereof. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is an agency of the State of Florida, which has the responsibility to regulate those individuals who serve the public in the capacity of contractors in the State of Florida. This regulatory function carries with it the obligation to prosecute those individual licensees whom the regulatory agency believes to have committed offenses as defined by Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The possible outcome of such a prosecution carries with it the potential revocation or suspension of the license of those persons regulated by the agency. On this occasion, by Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner has charged E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., with violations of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, as set out herein. The Respondent has replied to the Administrative Complaint by reguesting a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which de novo hearing was held on the date and at the time and place set out above. E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., is the holder of a Certified general Contractor's license, No. CG C004577, held with the Petitioner. That license was current and active in October, 1975, and continued as an active license until the year 1977 when the license became inactive and it remains inactive at this time. The facts reveal that the Respondent in 1975 entered into a discussion with Dr. Thor Brickman about assisting Dr. Brickman in obtaining a building permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, Dade County, Florida. This permit was to allow the construction of certain office alterations of Dr. Brickman's office located at 1136 N.W. 119th Street, Dade County, Florida. The plans and specifications for such alterations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. After some discussion, the Respondent and Dr. Brickman concluded an arrangement by which the Respondent would act as a contractor on the job, in the sense of having the overall responsibility for its construction. This included the responsibility to pay the workers, sub contractors and material man. The agreement between Pollock and Brickman was one in which Pollock was acting in his individual capacity as opposed to through affiliation with a contracting firm. However, at the time Pollock entered into this agreement with Dr. Brickman, his Certified general Contractor's license had been transferred to an affiliation with Miami Advertising, Inc. The Respondent had made this transfer in anticipation of a job to be performed for Miami Advertising, Inc., and in fact certain preliminary matters had been concluded with Pollock acting as manager for the project for Miami Advertising, Inc. Miami Advertising, Inc., was without knowledge of the contract between Pollock and Dr. Brickman. Notwithstanding the lack of knowledge on the part of Miami Advertising, Inc., and the representations to Brickman that the Respondent was acting in his individual capacity when he contracted to remodel Brickman's office, the Respondent applied for a building permit to be issued by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and in doing so he indicated that he was securing that permit as a qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc. This can be seen in the petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the building permit application as issued on October 31, 1975. Pollock commenced the work and Dr. Brickman paid Pollock directly for the work that was being done. The parent checks were endorsed and cashed by Pollock. The amount Pollock received totaled $6,797.22. Sometime in December, 1975, the owner, Dr. Brickman, became disenchanted with some of the workers whom Pollock had on the job in the sense that those workers had been drinking while on the job. Brickman advised Pollock of this and indicated to Pollock that he did not want those persons on the job without supervision. Nonetheless, the owner continued to advance money to Pollock to pay for the job as contracted for. In January, 1976, the Respondent left the job and Brickman was of the impression that the roof on the extension was finished and that there was no problem with the roof, but this impression was wrong because in February, 1976, one of the owner's tenants began to complaint about the roof leaking and those complaints continued until the tenant moved out due to water damage. This caused Brickman to lose moneys in rentals. When Brickman spoke with Pollock about the leaking roof, Pollock sent a roofer to the job to see about the problems but Brickman was not satisfied with that roofer and declined to have him make any corrections to the roof job. (Although the Respondent denies the responsibility for the completion of the roofing work on the Brickman project, the testimony clearly reveals that he had accepted that responsibility as a part of the contract.) The roofer spoken of, whose name is Montgomery, came to the job in March, 1976. Subsequent to Montgomery's visit, problems continued to occur with the roof and the condition of the roof in April, 1976, and the interior of the building may be seen in the Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner, which is a series of photos depicting the roof and interior. Pollock would not return and complete the job and Dr. Brickman made a complaint to cause administrative charges against the Respondent. This original complaint was dropped and in November, 1977, Pollock called about completing the job which was still unfinished. Brickman agreed to have Pollock cane and complete the job. Pollock did not return to the job as he stated he would do. In December, 1978, a representative of the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department went to the project and found that the job was closed and found that no framing inspection had been requested by Pollock and completed as required by Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code. Other matters within the job site were found to be deficient. The original building permit had expired and the required roofing permit had never been granted. The condition of the project as it existed at the time of the inspection may be found in certain photographs taken by the Building Inspector which may be found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The problem with permits was subsequently rectified; however, based upon the inspector's evaluation, notices of violations were filed in January, 1979, against the Respondent Pollock. The violations spoken to above were for violations of the building and zoning code, particularly Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code No. 305.2, failure to call for inspections between October 31, 1971, and January 4, 1979, and Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code Section No. 304.4(b), failure to construct office alterations according to plans between October 31, 1975, and January 4, 1979. (These provisions are part of the South Florida Building Code which is used by Metropolitan Dade County.) The charges were made through a two-count information in Case 79-53600 in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida. For the former violation, the Respondent was adjudged guilty and received a fine of $750.00 with $25.00 court costs, and for the latter count Pollock was sentenced, with the sentence being suspended from day to day and term to term. This Statement of Charges and Disposition may be found as petitioner' s Composite Exhibit No 3 admitted into evidence, a copy of the Charges, Judgment, Sentence and Order of the Court. The Respondent, Pollock, was also charged by Metropolitan Dade County with a violation of the Code of Metro Dade, Chapter 10, Section 10-22 (b), abandonment of the construction project without legal authority. (The disposition of that charge is unknown to the Hearing Officer, in that it was not presented as a matter of proof in the course of the hearing and the facts of the existence of such charge came in by a stipulation of fact between the parties to this action.) The Respondent returned to the job in January, 1979, and on the date of the hearing 95 to 99 percent of the job had been completed. Still remaining to be completed were certain roofing work with metal-to-metal soldering and gravel stops to be concluded and at that time the roof was still leaking. In view of the damage to Brickman' s property, a claim was made against the liability insurance required by Subsection 468.106(6), Florida Statutes. This claim was denied by the insurance carrier because their insurance covered Miami Advertising, Inc., only, and that company had no knowledge of the contract or the job. An indication of this denial may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence, which are copies of letters denying coverage. They are addressed to Dr. Brickman and are from Parliament Insurance Company, insurer of Miami Advertising, Inc.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, E. J. Pollock, who holds his license as qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc., License No. CG C004577, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. This recommendation is made with the knowledge of the letters offered in mitigation of the penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire Sinoff, Edwards & Alford 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 H. Adams Weaver, Esquire 310 Okeechobee Boulevard Post Office Box "M" West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, John Arena, was a certified residential contractor, the qualifying agent for Classic Industries, Inc. and held license number CR C021139 from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The President and sole owner of Classic was Anthony Manganelli. Mr. Manganelli was also the manager of Classic and the principal from whom Mr. Arena received his information about the contracts entered into by Classic. On or about July 30, 1988, someone contacted Ms. Solange Gaston of Hollywood, Florida, by telephone, and asked her if her roof needed repair. The solicitor represented himself as an associate of Classic and offered to come out and inspect her roof. Ms. Gaston, believing her roof was in disrepair, agreed to have the inspection completed and entered into a contract with Mr. Carlo Mangano, representing himself as an agent of Classic, to do the repair. With Ms. Gaston's agreement, the tile on her roof was replaced with shingle roofing and certain other repairs were attempted. A letter to Petitioner from the Chief Permit Processor of the City of Hollywood, Florida indicates that no roofing permit was issued for Ms. Gaston's address. The roof was leaking prior to the repair and continues to leak. Ms. Gaston paid the complete contract price of $3,500 to Classic, but has been unable to locate Mr. Mangano or to have her roof repair completed. In her attempts to achieve satisfaction, Ms. Gaston contacted Classic and asked to speak with someone in charge. She was under the impression that she was speaking with Mr. Arena; however, she never spoke to Mr. Arena. In fact, Mr. Arena was not aware of the contract with Ms. Gaston until the instant complaint was filed against him. Mr. Arena does not know Mr. Mangano. When Mr. Arena became aware of the problem, he attempted to contact Mr. Manganelli, but was told that Mr. Manganelli had moved. Ultimately, Mr. Arena located Mr. Manganelli at a new address. According to Mr. Arena, Mr. Manganelli produced a copy of what appeared to be a contract with Ms. Gaston which has the signature of Carlo Mangano on it, but it is marked indicating that Ms. Gaston's credit was turned down. Mr. Manganelli told Mr. Arena that Classic had not undertaken the job due to the refusal of credit. With that representation, Mr. Arena was under the impression that the work had not been done, as was the custom of dealing for Classic when credit was denied. The two papers purporting to be contracts, one which Ms. Gaston acknowledged as being the one which she signed and the other being the one which Mr. Arena obtained from Mr. Manganelli as the actual contract between Ms. Gaston and Classic through Mr. Mangano, appear to be altered. Although both documents contain the same information, including the date, parties, addresses, work to be completed and price quoted, the portion of the copy indicating the price is written in Arabic numerals on Mr. Arena's copy and by words on Ms. Gaston's copy. Mr. Arena's copy also has the indication that credit was turned down on it, although the cancelled checks paid to Classic by Ms. Gaston were received into evidence. It was Mr. Arena's arrangement with Mr. Manganelli that Mr. Arena was to be informed of every contract into which Classic entered. In this way, Mr. Arena knew which sites he was to supervise. Since he was not advised about the roofing job for Ms. Gaston, he made no attempt to supervise it and after he became aware that the credit for the job had been disallowed, he was under the reasonable impression that the job was not done by Classic. Further, he did not know Mr. Mangano, nor did he believe that Mr. Mangano had the authority to bind Classic. Mr. Arena believes that Mr. Mangano may have obtained a blank contract form of Classic and misrepresented himself to Ms. Gaston as an agent for Classic. Petitioner asserted, however, that Mr. Arena, nevertheless, was responsible for the job and that Classic did perform the job. Neither Mr. Manganelli nor Mr. Mangano were present or testified at the hearing. Given Mr. Arena's demeanor at the hearing and the conflicting and altered state of the alleged contract forms, Mr. Arena's testimony is deemed credible, and the proof failed to demonstrate clearly that Classic actually attempted to repair Ms. Gaston's roof or that Mr. Arena was responsible for the attempted repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this case against Respondent, John Arena. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June, 1990. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 341 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John D. Arena 5961 Southwest 13th Street Plantation, Florida 33317 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation accusing the Respondent of various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Should the Respondent be found guilty, this action contemplates the imposition of a penalty against Respondent's license as a commercial pool contractor in Florida.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent, at all times relevant to this inquiry, was a registered commercial pool contractor having been issued license number RP0041725. This is a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 2..On November 18, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract under the name Kennedy Pool and Construction Co., an entity for whom Respondent serves as a qualifying agent in the commercial pool contracting business. This contract was with one Marie Robertson; however, the contract was not for the purpose of construction of a pool. It was for construction of a 20' by 24' block garage. This structure was to be free-standing and would be located adjacent to Ms. Robertson's residence, which is also used in her business. Petitioner's exhibit number 2 is a copy of the contract and reflects the $4,800.00 contract price. Robertson has paid the full amount of the contract and the garage construction was completed in January, 1984. Respondent personally built the garage. Respondent built the garage without obtaining a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent also failed to submit plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville, which set forth the design and placement of this garage structure. Having failed to request a permit or to submit plans and specifications, Respondent made no request of the City of Jacksonville Building Department to inspect the construction related to the garage. Finally, Respondent in his licensure with the State of Florida, and license recognition with the City of Jacksonville, was not authorized to serve as a building contractor engaging in the construction of structures such as the garage in question. The project at issue entailed the pouring of a foundation; the erection of block walls the erection of a roof truss system and the installation of a roof covering of shingles. All of these items were beyond the license recognition which respondent held with the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville. When the City of Jacksonville discovered the existence of the garage, it made the owner aware that the structure was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code related to the need for obtaining a building permit, and the fact that the garage structure violated the city's set-back requirement. This later item pertained to the fact that given the commercial utilization of the property, on the part of Ms. Robertson, the garage was too close to the city street. As a consequence, Robertson was put to the inconvenience of obtaining and paying for a building permit and gaining a variance from the set-back requirements mentioned. Had the City of Jacksonville been presented with building plans and specifications, this would have alerted the city to the fact that the placement of the garage was too close to the street. When confronted with her difficulty, Ms. Robertson contacted the Respondent to gain his assistance in obtaining a building permit. The Respondent indicated that it was her problem and said that he could not get a permit because the property was business property and not private property. The Respondent was charged by the City of Jacksonville through a notice of violation of local zoning requirements related to the failure to obtain a building permit and the fact that the Respondent was not licensed by the City of Jacksonville to construct a garage at the Robertson residence. Attempts at serving the violations were not successful in that calls to the Respondent and issuance of notice of violations through certified mail, return receipt requested, were not acknowledged by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent/Licensee, Tomas Perez, d/b/a Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. (Lifetime), engaged in conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, which warrants the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) to take disciplinary action respecting his license and to impose an administrative fine based on said alleged conduct.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Tomas Perez, d/b/a Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. (Respondent), is a certified general contractor who holds license No. CGCA 04170, which is active. On September 24, 1975, Mr. Perez used his license to qualify Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., as the entity through which he would conduct his business activities (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 15, 1978, Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. , entered into an agreement with James Laughery of Fort Myers, Florida, for a franchise agreement to use Lifetime's license in the immediate area of Fort Myers, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). That agreement provides, among other things, that Respondent Lifetime authorized James Laughery to use its license in the Fort Myers area for a fee of $50.00 per job or $1,500.00. The agreement does not provide, nor was any evidence offered to establish that Respondent Perez played any supervisory or managing role in agent Laughery's contracting activities in the Fort Myers area. During October of 1978, Mr. Andrew Szarfran entered into an agreement with Respondent's agent, Laughery, to perform certain roofing repairs to his residence for the sum of $1,000.00. Mr. Szarfran paid Laughery $500.00 and Laughery abandoned the project prior to completion (Testimony of Szarfran and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4). Mr. Szarfran engaged the services of another contractor to complete the project. On May 17, 1979, the Lee County Construction Board reviewed a complaint filed against Respondent by the Szarfrans. Based on that review, the Lee County Construction Board revoked Respondent's licensing privileges in the county at its June, 1979, meeting (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4 and testimony of witnesses Richard M. McDole and Maxine Allred, Administrative Director of Court Enforcement and Permit Clerk, respectively, for Lee County). On or about October 17, 1978, Respondent's agent, Laughery, also entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Swanson for the erection of aluminum siding to the exterior walls of their residence for a full price of $5,000.00. The Swansons gave Respondent's agent, Laughery, a downpayment of $2,500.00 and agent Laughery abandoned the project prior to the commencement of any work (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8 and testimony of Mrs. Swanson). Richard Newmes, the chief inspector for building and zoning, Cafe Coral, Florida, testified that the Construction Industry Licensing Board for Cape Coral, Florida, revoked Respondent's contractor license on January 17, 1979, based on his violation of Cape Coral Code Section 5-1/2 - 21(J), to wit: "Failure to make good faulty workmanship or materials performed or installed to evade performance of the contract or specifications as agreed upon." (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) On or about January 4, 1979, Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., became aware of its agent, James Laughery's mismanagement of funds and his failure to honor contractual obligations he had entered in the Fort Myers area. Respondent and its agent Laughery therefore entered into an agreement which rendered the franchise agreement between the parties null and void. Agent Laughery, in said agreement, promised to pay, from his commissions due, monies owed to Lifetime Chemicals, Inc., which apparently was brought about due to the restitution that Lifetime Chemicals had made to customers whom agent Laughery had defaulted. As mitigating evidence, it was noted that the Respondent, Tomas Perez, was not party to or familiar with the activities and/or difficulties that the designated agent for Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., James Laughery, was encountering in the Fort Myers vicinity before early January, 1979. As soon as Respondent became aware of Laughery's problems, steps were immediately taken to halt such acts insofar as they related to Respondent (Testimony of Tomas Perez and Michael Arfaras).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the mitigating evidence which revealed that although the Petitioner is authorized and in fact holds the qualifier license of a registered entity responsible for the acts of its agents, in view of the undisputed evidence which reflects that neither Respondent Perez or Respondent Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., in any manner benefited from the acts of its agents and in fact attempted to thwart the illegal acts of its agent as soon as such became known, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: l. That the Respondent, Tomas Perez's Certified General Contractor's license, CGCA 04170, be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. 2. That the Respondents, Tomas Perez and Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. , be issued a written letter of reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 24th 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 24th day of April, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Tomas Perez 2395 West 12th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33010 Michael Harold Arfaras 820 S.W. 20th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2173 THOMAS PEREZ, CGCA 04170 Respondent. /
