Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sergio J. Alcorta (Alcorta), is licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) as a professional engineer, license number PE 0014464. Alcorta is not licensed by the Department as a contractor. Alcorta has a company called mrf building systems, inc. Alcorta d/b/a mrf building systems, inc. is not listed in the records of the Contractors Section, Dade County Building and Zoning Department as a certified contractor doing or contracting for work in the building trades in Dade County. Hurricane Andrew, which hit the Miami area in August, 1992, damaged the home of Kenneth and Elizabeth Quinn. A friend of the Quinns referred them to Alcorta for assistance. By letter dated September 15, 1992, Alcorta outlined a discussion he had with the Quinns. The letter stated: Per our discussion, I will assist you in dealing with your insurance carrier and other construction workers to ensure that all hurricane damages are accounted for and the work is properly performed. I will prepare an initial damage evaluation report of all damages for the insurance adjuster and facilitate on your behalf the transfer of funds from your mortgage holder to you and to any pertinent party. My fees will be $150 for the initial evaluation and $500 at the end of construction work where you require my assistance. By letter dated September 16, 1992, Alcorta advised the Quinns of his findings concerning the damage to their residence. The engineer's report was prepared on the letterhead of Nu-Tech Engineering Services. Alcorta contacted a general contractor to see if the contractor could perform the work required to repair the Quinn's house. The contractor advised Alcorta that only a roofing permit would be required for the job and that because of the work he was already committed to do, he did not know when he could complete the repairs. Alcorta and Mr. Quinn signed a proposal on mrf building systems, inc. letterhead dated September 29, 1992. The proposal provided: We propose to furnish all materials, labor, tools, and equipment to repair the storm damaged dwelling at the above referenced location as follows: Roof recovering with shingles and ply- wood sheathing repairs $7,500. Structural repairs to concrete columns, stucco repairs as necessary $2,500 Enclosing terrace with new exterior walls and french doors $7,500 Retiling terrace room and pool area $2,000 Securing cabinets and other interior damage $1,000 Removal, installation of solar collector $500 New terrace central air conditioner $2,000 Exterior fencing $3,000 Total repair estimate $26,000 TERMS: One third down payment upon execution of the contract. Partial payments upon completion of work segments. Estimated time for completion of job: 21 days. On mrf building systems, inc.'s letterhead dated September 30, 1992, Alcorta provided Ms. Quinn with an estimate for interior painting, taking off the roof mounted solar collector and reinstalling it on the new roof, replacing roof insulation, structural epoxy repair, and replacing torn vent screens. Alcorta was paid approximately $14,650 by the Quinns on this project. Alcorta in turn paid for some of the materials and labor used on the project. The checks from the Quinns were made payable to Alcorta, not to mrf building systems, inc. By letter dated October 2, 1992, on mfr building systems, inc., letterhead, Alcorta forwarded a copy of the contract with the Quinns to the Quinn's mortgage company advising them that the Quinns had given him a down payment of $4,000 and listing the anticipated completion dates for the various tasks to be performed. Alcorta bought supplies and had laborers come to the site to perform work. There was no licensed contractor on the job. The only building permit pulled on the project was obtained by Elizabeth Quinn, the homeowner. The building permit did not carry the disclosure statement required by Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Alcorta witnessed Ms. Quinn's signature on the application for building permit. Alcorta did not advise the Quinns that they were to act as contractors per Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. The Quinns did not supervise the construction on the project but relied on Alcorta to supervise the work. Alcorta was not an employee of the Quinns. The Quinns experienced problems with the roofing work performed pursuant to the contract with mrf building systems, inc. The roof leaked, requiring the Quinns to have the roof replaced at a cost of $10,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Sergio J. Alcorta violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), and assessing an administrative penalty of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Sergio J. Alcorta Nisky Center, Mail Box 401 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Lynda Goodgame, Genral Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this complaint, the Respondent, Joseph Marcelin, was a certified residential contractor, license number CR C028352. Respondent’s place of business and residence are in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining licensed contractors. On May 14, 1988, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered a final order approving a settlement stipulation regarding Case no. 74860 against this Respondent. This final order directed Respondent to adhere to and abide by all of the terms and conditions of the stipulation. The stipulation required the Respondent to not violate the provisions in Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, in the future; required Respondent to honor a settlement in a civil matter; required Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00; suspended Respondent’s license for thirty days; and required Respondent to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the stipulation in order to have his license reinstated. A second final order entered by the Board on May 14, 1988, approved a settlement stipulation regarding Case no. 77499. This final order also directed Respondent to comply with the stipulation applicable to that case. In Case no. 77499, the stipulation required Respondent to abide by a civil settlement; imposed a fine in the amount of $500.00; suspended Respondent’s license for thirty days; and placed the burden on Respondent to demonstrate he had met the terms of the stipulation. As to both cases referenced above, Respondent admitted the allegations of the administrative complaints which, in pertinent part, claimed Respondent had assisted an unlicensed person or entity to perform contracting services thereby aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On April 2, 1993, Respondent executed a certification change of status form which was submitted to the Department. Such form was completed for the purpose of qualifying as an individual for licensure and sought to reinstate a delinquent license or change from inactive to active. In the course of completing the change of status form Respondent was required to answer a series of questions by checking either the “yes” or “no” column. In response to the question as to whether Respondent had “been charged with or convicted of acting as a contractor without a license, or if licensed as a contractor in this state or any other state, had a disciplinary action (including probation, fine or reprimand) against such license by a state, county or municipality?,” he answered “no.” Such answer was false. Further such answer was made under with the following affirmation: I affirm that these statements are true and correct and I recognize that providing false information may result in a FINE, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION of my contractor’s license. [Emphasis in original.] Thereafter, the Department notified the Respondent that his license would not be issued as he had failed to demonstrate satisfaction of a civil judgment and had not submitted an explanation of the disciplinary action from 1988. Respondent eventually resolved issues of licensure with the Department and, on September 15, 1993, was authorized to practice contracting. Prior to his license being reinstated, Respondent performed the following: on April 7, 1993, Respondent obtained a building permit for construction work at the home of Eduardo Bovea. This permit, no. 93181501, indicated Respondent as the contractor of record for the project. On the permit application Respondent represented himself as the licensed building contractor for the Bovea project to the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department. Respondent did not have a contract with Bovea for the construction work to be performed on the Bovea home. In fact, the contract was between Bovea and Lou Greene Construction. The Boveas paid monies to Rodney Salnave, who claimed to be a representative for Lou Greene Construction. Rodney Salnave was not Respondent’s employee, and was not licensed as a contractor. The Respondent did not talk to the Boveas regarding the contract, the scope of the work to be done, or the contract price for the work. All discussions regarding the work at their home (and payments for same) were between Rodney Salnave and the Boveas. The permit for the Bovea project represented the amount of the work to be $2,000.00. In fact, the contract price for the work was $4,500.00. Respondent misrepresented the value of the work for the Bovea project. As of September 26, 1993, Respondent admitted he was involved with seventeen contracting jobs. Just eleven days after having his license reinstated, and while being employed in a full-time (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) job with Dade County, Respondent had contracting responsibility for seventeen jobs. In reality, Respondent had made a deal with an unlicensed person, Denis Joseph, to pull permits for him. The jobs were for persons who, in some instances, Respondent had never met. For example, Mr. Joseph pulled a permit for work to be performed on a home owned by Ed Davis. The contract for the work was between Mr. Davis and a Mr. Sutton, an unlicensed contractor, but with the approval of Respondent, Mr. Joseph obtained a permit for the Davis job. A second job was for Bertha Joseph. In this instance, Mr. Joseph completed the permit application which Respondent signed thereby allowing Mr. Joseph to obtain the permit for the project. By signing the permit, Respondent represented himself to be the contractor for the job. In truth, the homeowner had contracted with Denis Joseph for the work to be done, but the project was completed by Emanuel Gideon, an unlicensed contractor. Respondent admitted receiving payments from Denis Joseph. Respondent admitted he was not actively involved with the Bertha Joseph project. In September, 1993, Eric Wardle, an investigator with the Dade County building and zoning department, interviewed Respondent regarding claims that he was obtaining permits for unlicensed contractors. According to Mr. Wardle, Respondent admitted he pulled permits for unlicensed contractors after Hurricane Andrew because they were trying to make a living. At hearing Respondent disputed the accuracy of Mr. Wardle’s investigation but admitted he would have told him “anything just for him to get away from me.” Respondent’s explanation at hearing was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order revoking Respondent’s contractor license and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $8,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Pasternack, Esquire Raymond L. Robinson, P.A. 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Joseph Marcelin 16561 Southwest 144th Court Miami, Florida 33177 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1997. Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation/CILB 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Vincent A. Conrad, held a registered building contract's license, issued in August 1973 by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent qualified CNC Enterprises, Inc. under his registered building contractor's license, number RB 0014098. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) He admitted that he did not qualify Gulfport Homes, Inc., although he did business under that name. On July 9, 1981, Vincent A. Conrad, d/b/a Gulfport Homes, Inc., contracted with Joseph and Josephine Scovazzo to build a single story house on Lot 2, Unit 6 of the Westport Subdivision; 611 Seabreeze Drive, Port Richey, Florida. The contract price of $87,100.00 included the price of the lot and the construction of the single story "Windjammer" house. Construction was to begin on or about August 15, 1981. The contract required a $10,000 earnest money down payment and a subsequent $22,000 payment to start construction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) A total of $32,000 was given to Vincent A. Conrad by the Scovazzos pursuant to the July 9, 1981, contract. The Scovazzos paid Respondent $100.00 when they signed the contract on July 9, 1981, and gave Respondent three checks totaling $31,900.00. A building permit, number 13422, was granted to CNC Enterprises, Inc., on or about September 3, 1981, from the Pasco County Building Department for construction at Lot 2, Unit 6 of Westport Subdivision. The application, dated August 25, 1981, for permit number 13422, indicates that the type of residence to be built was the "Beachcomber," not the "Windjammer" (as listed in the contract). (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) Improvements were made to the lot to include construction of a seawall. A 2-page addendum titled "A" was duly executed by the buyers, Joseph and Josephine Scovazzo, and the seller, Vincent A. Conrad, and made part of the contract. The addendum provided the home was to be elevated to a level of ten feet. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Conflicting testimony was received concerning what occurred next. However the house could not be built at the ten foot elevation and the Scovazzos would not accept the house at a lower elevation. The parties mutually decided to terminate the contract on approximately October 19, 1981. On October 19, 1981, Vincent A. Conrad told the Scovazzos on the telephone that he would return their money in a week. On October 19, 1981, Respondent drafted and sent a letter to the Scovazzos referencing their recent conversation. The Respondent specifically represented to the Scovazzos that he would return the $32,000 in approximately three (3) weeks from the day he received their cancellation letter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10, Transcript page 65) The Scovazzos did not send a letter of cancellation. Respondent received a letter dated October 22, 1981, from the Scovazzo's attorney. Attached thereto was the document executed by the Scovazzos which delineated conditions for cancellation of the July 9, 1981, contract. Under the Scovazzo's terms, the contract would not be canceled unless the $32,000 was received by the Scovazzos before October 29, 1981. (Respondent's Exhibit 1, Transcript page 65) Both parties established conflicting conditions for terminating the contract. The Scovazzos did not send a letter canceling the contract and Vincent A. Conrad did not send the Scovazzos $32,000. When Mr. Scovazzo pressed for the money, Respondent advised that Respondent could not pay him because Respondent's money was tied up in land and improvements. Scovazzos wanted some security and Respondent deeded to the Scovazzos, on or about November 10, 1981, the lot designated in the July 9, 1981, contract. Respondent was building a house on this lot. The Scovazzos admitted the lot was worth at least $32,000. The registered the deed and attempted to obtain title insurance. On or about March 11, 1982, the Scovazzos received a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 11b) from Title Insurance Company of Minnesota, stating that a title insurance policy could not be issued due to "possible problems which may result from the Lis Pendens (see paragraph 15 below) as recorded in Official Record Book 1155, pages 1933 through 1952 of the Public Records of Pasco County." The Scovazzos did not know about the Lis Pendens. Ultimately, title insurance was obtained through the services of the Respondent's attorney in March of 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11c, Transcript page 77) Vincent A. Conrad obtained several building permits for lots near the Scovazzos lot prior to the effective date of Ordinance 81-16 which set minimum elevations for homes built after October 31, 1981. The Respondent avoided the extra cost of complying with the new standards established by Ordinance 81- The additional permits were obtained between October 1, 1981, and October 21, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, Transcript pages 124-125, and 132) On December 11, 1981,. Respondent was found guilty in the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida, in case number 80-00083-CR-T-K for negligently discharging pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States. Respondent's actions were in violation of Title 33, United States Code, Section 1311. The conviction arose as a result of Respondent's dredging activities in the construction of the Westport Subdivision. Respondent was fined $2,500.00 and placed on six (6) months probation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, Transcript pages 14-15, and 35-37) At the time the Respondent contracted with the Scovazzos to build their house, his company was being sued by the United States Government which filed a Lis Pendens in Lot 2, Unit 6, Westport Subdivision in October 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Respondent asserted the position that the lot in question was not properly involved in the suit. The court found the lot was not involved. Vincent A. Conrad is an officer/director of both Gulfport Homes, Inc. and CNC Enterprises, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On or about November 15, 1982, the Scovazzos were finally able to sell the lot deeded to them by Vincent A. Conrad for more than $32,000.
Recommendation Pursuant to a notice, a formal hearing was held in the above-styled case before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Stephen F. Dean, on October 15, 1985 in New Port Richey, Florida. This case was presented upon a three count administrative complaint which alleges that the Respondent failed to qualify a company before engaging in contracting; that Respondent has acted in a name other than that set forth on his license; that the Respondent was convicted and found guilty of a crime, in any jurisdiction, which directly relates to the practice of contracting; that the Respondent made misleading, fraudulent, untrue, or deceptive representations in the practice of contracting; and that the Respondent diverted funds received for the completion of a specified construction project. The following allegations were proven: that the Respondent has acted in a name other than that set forth on his license; that Respondent failed to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business; and that Respondent was found guilty of a criminal offense related to the practice of contracting. The other allegations were not proven or, if the facts were proven, it was determined that the acts did not violate the statute.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented the following facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Thomas Hebert, was a licensed contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG- C006542, by the State of Florida, and was the qualifier of Engineering & Environment Research Corp., (EER). On or about July 7, 1987, John M. Aviles entered into a contract with Manuel Rua to do a remodeling job on Mr. Aviles' home located at 3608 Gardenia, Tampa, Florida. The total cost of the remodeling under the contract was $9,926.50. The contract provided that all permits required would be obtained by Mr. Aviles. Prior to entering into the contract, Mr. Rua advised Mr. Aviles that if permits were needed, that Mr. Rua was a silent partner in a construction company and could provide any construction permits required. At all times pertinent hereto Mr. Manuel Rua, was a retired builder, was not licensed in Florida and not employed by EER or Thomas Hebert, individually. Rua proceeded with the construction pursuant to the contract. However, on or about July 20, 1987, the Tampa Building Department halted the job for lack of a building permit, lack of a plumbing permit and lack of an electrical permit. Before the job was shut down, Rua and the other workers had done plumbing and electrical work, replaced walls, done framing, glazing and sheetrock work. At all times pertinent hereto Gerald S. Bartlett was a full-time employee of EER, working at another construction project. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was the owner of and qualifier of EER. Shortly after July 20, 1987, Mr. Rua contacted Mr. Bartlett and told Bartlett that the job was red tagged because of no permit. Rua wanted Bartlett to pull the permit to allow the work to continue. At that time, Bartlett could not personally pull the permit because he was registered in Hillsborough County, but not in the City of Tampa. Bartlett then called the Respondent about the job and described the job to Respondent. Respondent advised Bartlett that EER would help Aviles out by getting the building permit if Bartlett would be responsible for the construction and if Aviles (not EER) paid Bartlett for his time and if Aviles would sign a letter agreeing that EER was responsible only to inspect and consult and further agreeing to hold EER harmless. Bartlett then arranged for the building permit for the Aviles job which was subsequently applied for and issued to EER on July 24, 1987. On July 23, 1987, Rua informed Aviles that arrangements had been made for the permitting and that the permitting would cost an additional $344.00. Rua further advised Aviles that in order for the permitting to go through, Aviles would have to give the building contractor a hold harmless agreement. On July 24, 1987, Aviles paid Rua the sum of $344.00 for the permit, by check. Rua cashed the check and left the cash on the counter at Mr. Aviles' residence which was picked up by Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett and the Respondent shared that money. The only money paid to Bartlett from anyone (including EER) for the Aviles job came from Aviles on that occasion. Respondent did not receive any additional money from the Aviles' job from anyone. On July 25, 1987, Mr. Aviles signed the agreement which indicated that EER had been retained as a consultant to permit, advise and inspect the remodeling being done. The agreement is not signed by anyone from EER nor does it contain the Respondent's contractor's license number. The agreement provides that EER was not financially responsible for any of the work, nor for liability on the job. Prior to July 25, 1987, Mr. Aviles did not have any other agreement with EER. Until October, 1987, Mr. Aviles had never met or spoken with the Respondent, Mr. Bartlett or any other representative of EER. At all times pertinent hereto, no one employed by EER worked on the Aviles remodeling job. Subsequent to the permit being issued, work began again and continued until on or about September 28, 1987. Construction was again halted for lack of electrical and plumbing permits by the City of Tampa. Between July 25, 1987, and September 28, 1987, Rua and his workers did a substantial amount of work in the house. During this period of time, Mr. Bartlett appeared on the job approximately ten times, but Mr. Rua was in charge. Mr. Bartlett never did any work, but did try to supervise on occasion. The Respondent visited the jobsite approximately two times, stopping by after working hours looking through the windows from the outside and, therefore, did not supervise the jobsite. Essentially between July 25, 1987, and September 28, 1987, Mr. Rua and his employees continued doing all the work, just as they did before the permit was pulled by EER. On October 7, 1987, Aviles argued with Rua about the permits and the delay in construction. Rua left the job, removing EER's building permits from the window, along with a concrete permit. Thereafter, Aviles attempted to contact other contractors to complete the work, but was unable to do so since no one wanted to take a partially finished job which had been red tagged. On October 16, 1987, Aviles met Respondent and Bartlett (for the first time) at the jobsite and both assured Aviles that whatever assistance was necessary to complete the job would be provided. Neither the Respondent nor Mr. Bartlett offered to complete the job, but furnished Mr. Aviles a list of subcontractors who would supposedly complete the job. At this point in time, no part of the job had been completed, but most all of the work had been started and was nearly complete. The Respondent at this time advised Mr. Aviles that he would retrieve the permits so that Aviles could continue the remodeling. The permits were subsequently returned and the Respondent offered to allow Mr. Aviles to continue using the Respondent's permit for construction even though neither Respondent nor any of his employees would be on the jobsite. Mr. Aviles subsequently determined that the work performed by Mr. Rua was not acceptable, and thereafter, he had most of the work redone using other subcontractors. The permit applied for by EER indicated it was for non-structural general repairs. The permit issued to EER allowed both structural and non- structural repairs to be done since EER was a general contractor. The work done under the permit issued to EER was both structural and non-structural. Inspections were required and on this job, the general contractor, EER, was required to notify the City when inspections were required. No inspections were ever called for by EER because both Respondent and Bartlett did not think any were required. Under the permit issued, the general contractor, EER, and the Respondent were required to supervise the work. The work done by Rua and the Latyvs, under EER's permit, was required to have been performed by an employee(s) of EER who was paid by EER which did not occur. When EER pulled the building permit, it could not limit its role to supervision only. A licensed building contractor can agree to do supervision only, but not when the contractor pulls the building permit. The Respondent is a very experienced contractor who at all times mentioned herein not only was a certified general contractor, but was a certified roofing contractor, certified mechanical contractor and certified pool contractor in the State of Florida. He has also written portions of the general contractor's examination. The Respondent knew or should have known that there is a difference between a licensed contractor agreeing to supervise a construction job and a licensed contractor pulling the permit for a construction job and then trying to limit his liability to supervision only and not assuming any financial responsibility for the work done.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Assessing the Respondent an administrative penalty of $1,000 for aiding and abetting evasion of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in Section 21E-17.001(13), Florida Administrative Code. Assessing the Respondent an administrative penalty of $1,500 for misconduct in the practice of contracting by failure to supervise, thereby causing monetary harm to the customer. This is in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in Section 21E-17.001(19)(b), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-10. Accepted 11-12. Rejected as irrelevant. 13-36. Accepted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted 4. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence 5-18. Addressed Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's letter with attachments, dated June 1, 1989 is rejected as improper submission of documentary evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Michael Steinberg, Esquire 601 Twiggs Street, Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 =================================================================
