Findings Of Fact Respondent, Colin Spruce, was issued a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR-COI5679, in an active status, in June, 1930, as an individual. This license was renewed, as an individual, for the 1981-83 licensing period, which expired on June 30, 1983. This license has not been renewed and is in a delinquent status. Respondent at no time qualified Angle Enterprises, Inc., to engage in contracting in Florida. James D. Roland and his wife own nine low-income family apartment buildings in Melbourne. On November 2, 1981, the Rolands signed a contract with Respondent to rehabilitate these apartments with funds provided on loan from the federal government. Respondent signed the contract on November 3, 1981, and began work on November 9, 1981. He fully completed one of the nine buildings and partially completed one other. He also did some work on the roofs of all. On or about January 13, 1982, Respondent called Mr. Roland's home and left word he would be out of town for several days. He never returned to work on the project. The work was 35 percent complete when Respondent abandoned the project. Later, Mr. Roland completed the project himself at an overrun of approximately $2,500 above the contract price. Aside from one minor modification which cost an additional $261, there were no changes to the plans and specifications when Roland took over. It was only later that Roland got word that the subcontractors had not been paid. He paid off those who filed liens against his property. During the course of his work on the Rolands' property, Respondent, in his own name or as Angle Enterprises, Inc., entered into agreements with several subcontractors, including Scotty's, Berger Roofing, Melbourne Insulation, City Gas Co., and Jackson Electric, all of which provided either materials or services, or both, for this project. Scotty's provided materials valued at $16,513.24, but was paid only $6,751.46, leaving an unpaid balance of $9,761.78 for which the company filed a lien against the Rolands' property. This sum, left unpaid by Respondent, was subsequently paid by Mr. Roland. Berger Roofing, Inc., furnished labor and materials for the porch roofs on each of the project's buildings during late November and early December, 1981, and was due $750 from Respondent for this job. Respondent did not ever pay, and Berger also filed a lien against the property. This lien was also satisfied through payment by Mr. Roland. Melbourne Insulation furnished labor and materials to the project through contract with Respondent for approximately $2,000 of which only one-half was paid by Respondent. The balance has not been paid, though no lien was filed here because of an oversight by claimant's lawyer. City Gas Company is still owed $1,524.75 of the $4,784.33 it billed Respondent for labor and materials (heaters) it provided for the project for a contract it had with Respondent dated December 1, 1981. No lien was filed for the unpaid amount here, either. Jackson Electric performed electrical work on the project which included removing plates, switches, and fixtures from one of the buildings in November, 1981, based on an agreement with Respondent. The contractor was about to start work on a second building in the project, but due to the fact that Respondent was a slow payer on previous jobs done for him, the additional work was not started and Jackson was never paid for the work done. Respondent also failed to pay the wages he owed to several of his employees, including David Jones and Carl Cramer. Jones worked for Angle Enterprises, the company owned by Respondent and under which he did business from November, 1981, to January, 1982, in a job on Roland's buildings which involved stripping the roofs off the buildings and painting. He was not paid for his final week of work, which ended on January 15, 1982. He is owed for 32 hours work at $5.75 per hour. He considered himself a close personal friend of Respondent who gave no advance notice that he would not pay his employees. Cramer and a third employee (Mr. Kibben) also were not paid their earned wages by Respondent. He was working at the time in question as a carpenter/foreman for Respondent. On the last morning of work, Friday, January 15, 1982, Respondent told him that the accountant would come by and pay him and the other men that afternoon. Respondent then left and was not seen again, nor was the accountant or the wages. Cramer was due 32 hours pay at $7 per hour. During the time he was working on this project, Respondent submitted four draw requests and was paid on three. These draws were submitted to Mr. Grinstead at the Community Development Office for approval and were approved when Grinstead checked to see that the approximate work was done. Mr. Grinstead was at the project site almost every day. The last time he saw Respondent there was on or about January 15, 1982. As of that date, the work was not completed, but Respondent did not go back. Mr. Grinstead approved three draws. These were: December 10, 1981, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's; December 21, 1981, for 54,000, payable to Respondent; and January 8, 1982, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's. A fourth draw request on December 12, 1981, for $2,400 was denied by Y. Grinstead because sufficient additional work was not done to justify it. All three approved checks were cashed. As to the check for $13,000 dated January 8, 1982, Roland signed it and Respondent took it to Scotty's, where he convinced the credit manager to endorse it in exchange for his, Respondent's (Angle Enterprises'), check dated January 11, 1982, in the amount of $7,446.61. Thereafter, the same day, Respondent signed a stop-payment order at his bank on which that check was drawn, listing as his reason for that action a corporate reorganization. Payment was stopped, and Scotty's was not paid by Respondent. On the basis of Respondent's conduct regarding the check, an information charging him with altering a worthless check and grand theft (second degree) was filed in the Circuit Court in Brevard County, Florida, on June 1, 1982. Thereafter, on November 30, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both offenses and was placed on probation for five years. Conditions of probation included full restitution of the $13,000 and a prohibition from engaging in construction or repair services without permission of the court.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's certified residential contractor's license be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 5th day of April, 1984. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 5th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Colin Spruce 1001 SW Conover Avenue Palm Bay, Florida 32907 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated October 19, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department and the Construction Industry Licensing Board are authorized to regulate and discipline licensees pursuant to Chapters 489-and 455, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, license number CG CO43229. That license was first issued in June of 1988, and will remain active and in effect for the 1989-92 licensing period. The license described in paragraph 2 was issued to the Respondent in his individual capacity. Respondent has not sought, and therefore has not obtained, a license to qualify a business entity as a general contractor. More specifically, Respondent did not obtain licensure for an entity known as Marlow Engineers and General Contractors. Further, Respondent is not registered as a primary or secondary contractor for that entity. On or about September 15, 1988, the Respondent, doing business as Marlow Engineers and General Contractors, entered into a contract with Joseph and Delores Cappella, owners of the home located at 7100 Thompson Road, Lantana, Florida. The purpose of the contract was to secure a porch addition to the structure for a total purchase price of $8106.00. The Respondent was to pour a foundation, install the porch and roof, and completely screen the room (including doors). The contract between these parties provided, in part: 3.2 The Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work not later than Four work weeks from the time the permit is obtained. Permit will be applied for within five working days of the signing of the contract or when the deposit is received which ever is later. Subject to adjustments of this contract Time as provided in the Contract Document. The Respondent obtained the permit to begin the Cappella's porch on September 30, 1988. Within a few days, the Respondent started the slab work for the porch foundation. That work failed inspection and had to be corrected. Respondent worked sporadically on the porch project until October 11, 1988, when he stopped work. At that time only the concrete foundation with the support posts were in place. Respondent did not return to the work site until after October 24, 1988. From October 27, 1988 through Christmas of that year, the Respondent's work on the porch was infrequent and of a below quality standard. The Respondent failed the initial inspection on each aspect of the construction of the porch. Consequently, he was directed to correct all work before approvals could be sought. The Cappellas were required to hire an electrician to complete the electrical work for the porch, a handiman to correct the plaster/paint deficiencies, and a screen company to reinstall the screening correctly. Because of the foregoing, the Cappellas did not remit the balance owed to Respondent under the contract terms. As of January 15, 1989, the work on the porch had not been successfully completed by Respondent. Mrs. Cappella has not seen Respondent since that date. A contractor is responsible for the quality of the work undertaken for the permits he pulls. Inspections are performed by the permitting authority to assure that the work conforms to building code standards. Based upon the inspections performed for the Cappella porch, the Respondent failed the following inspections: footing inspection, the roofing (ultimately passed after third inspection), the roof metal (where the porch roof was connected to the existing structure), and the porch framing . The Cappella porch did not pass final inspection until January 27, 1989. The number of inspection failures was abnormally large for contractors performing similar work in Palm Beach County. Respondent's performance on the Cappella contract fell below the community standard both as to the time for completion of the work and the quality of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and (m), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 together with a letter of guidance. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1417 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. But see finding paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Marlow 580 South Dixie Highway Lantana, Florida 33462 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fred H. White, was licensed as a registered general contractor in Florida under License Number RG 0005082 in February, 1968. Thereafter, in April, 1970, Respondent was issued his license to qualify BUILDINGS BY WINCHESTER, INC. His license went delinquent on July 1, 1973, however, it was reinstated and placed on active status in July, 1977 when Respondent qualified CAPITAL STONE COMPANY under that license. The license was to expire on June 30, 1981. In July 1982, it was again issued to Respondent qualifying as an individual and was, at all times pertinent to the issues alleged herein, active. On December 2, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. E.M. Powell, of Lot 10, Shell Harbour, St. George Island, Florida, to build a 1736 square foot home for them for the contract price of $74,120.00. The plans and specifications for this construction were listed by number on the hand written contract signed by Respondent and the Powells and witnessed by Ronald Jones. This contract was signed after Mr. Powell procured the issuance of a building permit to build a 1668 square foot residence, estimated to cost $52,500.00 on his Shell Harbour property. Mr. Powell-indicates that the application for the building permit was made by his architect, Mr. Clayton Anderson, however, the application and permit itself reveals no place thereon where Mr. Anderson's signature appears. In fact, the signature of the applicant, undated, is that of Mr. Powell, but the permit, number 4512, was issued on November 11, 1982. Both Mr. Powell and the Respondent attribute the difference in size of the building and the price to changes made and agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the issuance of the permit and prior to the signing of the contract. The contract in question is what could be best described as a "bare bones" contract. The basic legal requirements of a contract are present in that the parties are identified, consideration is reflected, there is a specific legal purpose, and obviously an offer and acceptance with, at the time of signing, an apparent meeting of the minds. This document is, however, an invitation to dispute, as there is no estimated time of completion or any other detail which might serve to more clearly identify the rights and obligations of the parties. Mr. Powell indicates that the Respondent estimated three months would be necessary to complete the project and that Mr. White indicated he would be on the site just about every day. Mr. White tells a substantially different story, however, in that he contends he had other projects under construction at the time, projects with which Mr. Powell was totally familiar, and that he, Respondent, was present when necessary, to supervise as necessary. Mr. White denies that he was the general contractor for Mr. Powell on this job. He contends that he was the framing contractor and that Mr. Powell served as his own general contractor. He contends, and Mr. Powell admits, that much of the building material purchased was picked out by Mr. Powell. On the other hand, much was also ordered by Respondent. Neither side could give a detailed accounting of who bought what and no evidence was presented to show who did what in any detail. Certain of the subcontractors were arranged for by Respondent. Others were arranged for by Mr. Powell. All bills were paid by Mr. Powell. According to Respondent, he signed the contract as general contractor only so that Powell could get a Veterans' Administration loan and issued the completion certificate as general contractor because "that's the way it was done." Be that as it may, the house was subsequently completed, and at the closing on or about October 31, 1983, Mr. White, as general contractor, presented Mr. Powell with a contractor's affidavit in which he indicated that all subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers had been paid in full; that all building codes had been complied with; that all installed equipment including roofing, ventilators, windows, skylights, fireplaces, insulation, etc., were installed according to building code and manufacturers' instructions and that all manufacturers' guarantees and warranties were thereby validated by the proper installation of the product. Respondent orally warranted he would stand behind his work for one year. Mr. White, as was indicated above, denies he was the general contractor but insists that he was properly supervising those portions of the project which it was his responsibility to supervise. Mr. Powell, on the other hand, insists that Respondent was frequently absent and there were several periods when he did not appear on the site to supervise construction of the property for extended periods of days. There was no detailed evidence, however, as to which days were involved, but it is clear from all the evidence, including the contract and the certificate as well as Mr. White's testimony, that he was the general contractor and had a responsibility to adequately supervise the construction regardless of whether the subs in question were directly hired by him or were hired by Mr. Powell. It is inconceivable that Respondent would have continued to perform under the contract if he did not feel that he had a responsibility to do so and that, for the most part, matters were going as they were envisioned to go under the terms of the agreements between the parties. After installation and from the very beginning, Mr. Powell noticed a problem with the upper outside fixed windows on the land side of the house which had been picked out by Respondent. It appears that water was leaking in the vicinity of these triangular windows and ran down the interior walls under the two outermost windows into the light fixture over the sink and down onto the counter tops. Water also ran down the wall over the entrance door and damaged a closet ceiling near that area. As a result, part of the ceiling fell in the closet the counter top in the kitchen began to swell and pull away from the wall and the drawers in the closets began to bind. When these leaks first occurred, even before the house was completed, Mr. Powell notified the Respondent both orally and in writing. Respondent promised to repair the windows and did, on several occasions, come out and attempt repairs by caulking around the windows. However, these repairs were ineffective and each time it would rain, water would again come in. Respondent never inspected right after a rain, however. Consequently, on December 19, 1983, Mr. Powell wrote a letter of complaint to Respondent which he sent by Registered Mail to that address utilized by Respondent--Route 8, Box 85B, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Respondent was left several notices by postal authorities but failed to claim the letter from the post office and it was returned to the sender undelivered. Mr. Powell, on February 15, 1984, hand-delivered a similar letter outlining the discrepancies in the house to Respondent on the steps of the county courthouse in Apalachicola, Florida, but Respondent denies ever having received the letter. Respondent attempted to explain why he did not receive notice of the letter sent to him by Registered Mail. His explanation was so convoluted and involved as to be incomprehensible and not capable of belief. By the same token, Mr. Powell has a faulty memory of many of the things recited by Respondent. This is obviously a situation where both parties see the matter in the light most favorable to them and, unfortunately for the resolution of this dispute, there is little independent evidence of what happened. However, in resolution of the matter, it is found that though the first letter was not received, the second letter was, and Mr. White was given ample notice, aliande the letters, of the defects in the installation of these windows as well as the chimney cap through which, reportedly, water was entering the chimney and rusting the firebox of the fireplace. With regard to this chimney, Respondent agreed to install a new chimney cap, just to keep the peace, even though he did not feel there was anything wrong with the installation of the original one. Mr. Powell was to get it, but did not do so, however, claiming that he was never instructed by Respondent as to what kind to get or when to get it. As to the allegedly deficient cap, Respondent describes it as a tubular piece of metal perforated all around so that the smoke can get out but hot ash is retained. Since there are holes in the device to let the smoke out, water can get in through those holes when it rains. Respondent claims that what is needed, if a total absence of water is desired, is to place a cover over the cap. Respondent contends that all fireplaces built that way with an uncovered cap, admit water to some degree. There was no evidence presented by the Petitioner to contradict Respondent's assertion or to show that Respondent improperly installed the chimney cap. With regard to the windows, however, after Mr. Powell had made the repeated efforts to have Respondent repair the windows so that the leakage would stop, he subsequently contracted with another builder to replace them. When this second builder examined the windows, it was determined that they were too small for the opening in which they were placed and that they were improperly installed. This left a large area around the window which Respondent had attempted to fill with caulking, but the space was so large that caulking itself was insufficient to correct the problem. The second contractor determined it would be necessary to remove the windows and install appropriate sized windows in a proper fashion and this was done at a cost of in excess of $500.00. The windows have not leaked since. Respondent contends that the windows were properly installed and caulked and that the leak did not come from the space around the windows. Instead, he contends, the leak was caused by improper caulking of the batting above the window below the soffit which was the responsibility of the painter who was, in fact, Mr. Powell's son-in-law and hired by him. Even the builder who replaced the windows agrees that caulking of the batting would be the responsibility of the painter, but he contends that this leak was not caused by this deficient caulking but by the improperly sized and installed windows. This was Respondent's responsibility and it is so found. There is no evidence, aliunde that described above which in any way shows that Respondent made any misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent misrepresentations in the practice of contracting. Though no detailed information was presented regarding the actual number of days Respondent was absent from the job site, there was some substantial evidence on the part of Mr. Powell, who had no reason to lie, that Respondent was absent from the job site quite frequently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of imcompetence in the installation of the windows in question in Mr. Powell's house, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint that the remaining allegations be dismissed that Respondent be reprimanded that his license be placed on probation for a period of two years under such terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board shall determine appropriate, and that he make restitution to Mr. Powell in the amount of $577.23. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1986. Copies furnished: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred H. White, pro se Route 8, Box 85-B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. lla. Irrelevant. Subordinate to the finding that Respondent was the general contractor. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Irrelevant. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 18-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 22-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 28. Irrelevant. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12.
The Issue Did respondent fail to properly supervise, direct and manage the contracting activities of the business of which he is the qualifier, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against respondent's contracting license?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the respondent was a certified building contractor licensed by the State of Florida and the qualifying agent for Custom Concrete of Naples, Inc. (Custom Concrete). Rodney Velez was the president of Custom Concrete and licensed only in concrete--concrete forming, placing and finishing. Susan Velez, Rodney Velez's wife, was an officer of Custom Concrete. On April 23, 1983, Custom Concrete, by and through Rodney Velez, entered into a contract with Mark and Penny Paterson to construct a home for $38,550.00. Mrs. Paterson had previously met Rodney Velez in the course of her work, and Velez had told her that he was a builder. Mrs. Paterson had suggested that Velez look at a floor plan that she and her husband had, and after certain negotiations, including a change of floor plan, the contract was entered into. During the course of the negotiations Mrs. Paterson never talked to the respondent and was unaware that the respondent was involved or would be involved in the construction of the home. Mrs. Paterson believed that Rodney Velez was the "builder"; however, the construction of the Paterson home was beyond the scope of Velez's concrete license. The respondent signed the application to secure the building permit for the Paterson residence, although he did not personally appear to procure the building permit. The clerk of the contractor's licensing section of the building code compliance department relied on the signature on the application because it was notarized. The notary was Susan Velez. Respondent did not supervise or direct the construction of the Paterson home. Neal Jackson, president of the company who did the electric work on the home, was unaware that respondent was involved in the project until well after the house was finished. Although it is usual for a supervisor or superintendent to be at the job site some of the time, Jackson never saw the respondent or Velez at the job site. Jeff Allain, the carpenter who did the framing and certain other work, was on the job site five or six days and saw the respondent once during the framing of the structure "just generally looking around." The respondent didn't say anything to Allain. David Isom did drywall work on the house. He had no contact with the respondent and did not see him at the construction site. Mrs. Paterson went by the construction site quite often and realized that the job was not being properly supervised. Velez was rarely there, and Mrs. Paterson never saw the respondent. The workmen on the site would ask the Patersons when Velez would be there because they had questions concerning the work. Neither of the building inspectors saw anyone supervising at the job site, although usually no one is at the job site when an inspection is made. Two days after the Patersons moved into their house, they compiled a "punch list" of the items that needed to be completed or corrected. The list was given to Velez, but the work was not corrected to the Paterson's satisfaction. Although Velez did not give the "punch list" to respondent, Velez discussed the problems with the respondent. Respondent did not take any steps to remedy the problems and said he thought "a lot of it was nonsense." Velez told respondent that he, Velez, would take care of it. Because of the unresolved problems with the house, Mrs. Paterson finally called the licensing board to file a complaint against Rodney Velez. At that time, she was informed that Rodney Velez was not the contractor; the contractor was the respondent. This was the first time that Mrs. Paterson was aware that the respondent was involved with the construction of the house. All of the Patersons dealings had been with Velez, and all checks for construction payments were made out to Velez personally. 2/ Even though the Patersons had not received satisfaction from Custom Concrete for the problems with the house, they signed the closing papers because Velez threatened to evict them. At closing the Patersons received a lien release from Custom Concrete which released all work prior to March 9, 1984. Subsequently, Velez filed a claim of lien against the Paterson property for work completed on February 9, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000.00, and that his license be suspended for 60 days from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1985.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Count II of the administrative complaint and that his licenses be suspended for a two year period; Count I should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent, Walter C. Davis, became licensed in Florida as a certified general contractor in March of 1973, holding license number CG C007063. Respondent was away from the State of Florida from late 1976 until 1979. During the 1977-79 and 1979-81 license periods, respondent renewed his license number CG C007063 on an inactive basis. On or about September 4, 1980, respondent submitted to the petitioner a "certification change of status application" to change his licensing status from inactive to active status. Among the questions asked on the application were 1) are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services as a result of the applicant's construction operations?, and 2) are there now any suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of the applicant's construction operations? To both these questions, respondent answered "no". By affidavit attached to the "certification change of status application", respondent vouched for the truth and accuracy of all statements and answers contained in the application. Respondent's license was placed on an active status and he currently holds such license number CG C007063. As a result of respondent's failure to pay for trusses used by respondent in the construction of a peach barn, Cox Lumber Company of Brooksville filed a lawsuit against respondent's construction company seeking the amount of $2,481.03. The original and amended complaints were served on respondent on September 1, 1976 and December 28, 1976. A Final Judgment, by default, was entered against the respondent on February 23 1977. This judgment remained outstanding as of September 4, 1980. Respondent failed to pay for certain prefabricated steel buildings provided by Kirby Building Systems. Suit was brought by Kirby against the respondent, the respondent was served with the complaint on April 13, 1977, and, on July 12, 1977, the Circuit Court for Sarasota County entered a Final Judgment, by default, against respondent in the amount of $5,713.11. This judgment remains outstanding. As of April 30, 1976, respondent owed $435.62 to Carroll Contracting Company for ready mix concrete used by the respondent on a construction project. This amount was past due on September 4, 1980. As a result of a complaint, the Citrus County Board of Examiners voted on June 22 1976, to suspend respondent's permit-pulling privileges in Citrus County. This action was to remain in effect until the respondent made restitution or satisfied the complainant's concerns. Citrus County Ordinance No. 72-3 requires the holding of a public hearing after notice to the holder of a Certificate of Competency prior to suspension or revocation of a Certificate. No such public hearing was held by the Citrus County Board of Examiners. On or about December 7, 1981, respondent entered into a contract with Boyd T. Peeler to construct a boathouse and shop for $6,200.00. Mr. Peeler paid respondent the entire contract price. The structure was completed and passed final inspection on August 18, 1982. Respondent failed to pay $490.00 to Overhead Door Company of Ocala for the labor and materials used to install two rolling doors for the Peeler boathouse. As of the date of the hearing, the bill remained unpaid by the respondent
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is
