Findings Of Fact Harry L. Wilson is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license, Number RC 0041328, was first issued in March of 1982. The license was issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing, 1943 Hardy Street, Jacksonville, Florida, with the Respondent as qualifier. The Respondent has been the qualifier of Harry L. Wilson Roofing at all times relevant to this proceeding. On December 6, 1984, the Respondent and Robbie L. Hicks, entered into a written contract (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2). Pursuant to this written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), the Respondent agreed to perform the repair work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" and Ms. Hicks agreed to pay the Respondent $2,395.00. The property to be repaired is rental property owned by Ms. Hicks. The property is located at 1508 Eaverson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent commenced work sometime during the early part of 1983. Shortly after commencing work, however, the Respondent and Ms. Hicks began having disagreements as to the work to be performed and the quality of the Respondent's work. These disagreements continued after the Respondent completed the work in November of 1983. Ms. Hicks testified that the work that the Respondent completed was done in an unprofessional manner and that the Respondent had not completed all of the work that he had agreed to perform. In particular, Ms. Hicks testified that the Respondent had failed to paint the interior of the house beige as required by the Contract, had failed to remove saw dust and other debris from the house following completion of the work, had failed to finish cabinets installed in the house, had failed to repair screens and generally had not performed in the manner he had agreed to perform. Ms. Hicks paid the Respondent all but $410.00 of the contract price. The Respondent testified that all off the work called for pursuant to the Contract had been performed. According to the Respondent, he had performed some work not required by the Contract and had not performed other work requested by Ms. Hicks because the work was beyond the scope of the Contract. The Respondent also stated that the work which Ms. Hicks expected would have cost considerably more than the price agreed upon in the Contract. The Respondent did not perform all of the work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" as required by the Contract. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Claude Bagwell, Deputy Chief, Building and Zoning, Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville, it is clear that no permit was issued by the City of Jacksonville to perform the work required by the Contract. The only permits issued with regard to Ms. Hicks' rental property was a permit issued in 1961 and the original building permit issued in 1949. Additionally, due to the fact that no Florida registered roofing contractor's license in the name of "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" had been filed with the City of Jacksonville, no permit could be issued to Harry L. Wilson Roofing with regard to the Contract. The Respondent admitted that he had not obtained a permit to perform the work required by the Contract. The Respondent indicated that he had not obtained a permit because he was not aware that one was required in order to perform the work. He did indicate that he had obtained permits to perform other jobs. The Respondent could not, however, have obtained permits for other jobs because no license issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing had been filed with the City of Jacksonville. The Respondent did take the examination required in order to obtain a registered roofing contractor's license. The Petitioner suggested in its Proposed Findings that the "permit requirement was explained" when the Respondent took the exam. No evidence to support such a finding was presented at the hearing. The Respondent in entering into the Contract clearly used the name "Wilson Recycling". Nowhere on the Contract is the name "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" used. The Respondent ultimately admitted that no Florida license authorizing the use of the name "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained by him. The Respondent, however, when initially asked whether a Florida license in the name of "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained indicated that such a license had been issued. On further examination, however, the Respondent testified that an occupational license in the name of "Wilson Recycling' had been obtained by him and not a Florida license. The work to be performed pursuant to the Contract was beyond the scope off the Respondent's license. As pointed out by Mr. Bagwell the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract would require licensure as a registered residential contractor or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting in a name other than the name as set forth on the Respondent's license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.119(2) and(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the Respondent failed to qualify the business name "Wilson Recycling" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), when he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting to perform and actually performing work beyond the scope of his Florida contracting license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this17th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry L. Wilson 1943 Hardee Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Martin Gold is now, and has been since July, 1986, licensed by Petitioner as a Registered Specialty Contractor authorized to do painting and waterproofing work in Dade County. He holds license number RX 0051718, which expires June 30, 1989. Since receiving his license he has been disciplined twice by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Gold is the President of Team Leisure Corp., a construction company, and is also its "qualifying agent." On August 14, 1986, Team Leisure Corp. entered into a written contract with Terry Dudley and his wife, Patricia, in which it agreed, for $12,000, to build a two-room, 27-foot by 13- foot addition to the Dudley home located at 15510 Leisure Drive in Dade County and to install new windows in the existing structure. According to the terms of the agreement, Team Leisure was to do "no painting." In his capacity as President of Team Leisure Corp., Gold hired William Sernaker to directly oversee the completion of the construction work specified in the Dudley contract. At the time, Sernaker was licensed as a general contractor in Dade County. As part of his arrangement with Gold, Sernaker assumed responsibility for ensuring that all work permits and inspections necessary to complete the Dudley project were obtained. On September 4, 1986, Sernaker obtained a building permit for the Dudley project. Thereafter, work on the project commenced. The foundation for the addition was laid and, on September 10, 1989, it passed the inspection of James Tucker, a Dade County building inspector. Fifteen days later, Tucker conducted a tie beam inspection. This phase of the project also received his formal approval. Sernaker obtained a roofing permit on October 14, 1986. The exterior of the roof was inspected by Russell Bergsma, another Dade County building inspector, on October 21, 1986. It too passed inspection. An electrical permit was obtained for the Dudley project on November 17, 1986, by Robins Electric, a subcontractor. When the electrical work was initially inspected by Grant Morse, another Dade County building inspector, it was rejected because there were a "few outlets missing." The record is unclear as to the results of any subsequent electrical inspections. Morse also conducted an inspection of the framing work done on the Dudley project. He did so on or around November 21, 1986. In his view, the framing was "not to code." Accordingly, he left a "tag" at the job site on which he gave the following written explanation for his rejection of the framing work: All window bucks must be tight with caulking, no gaps. When the stucco meets the window frame, it should be set back at approximately a 45-degree angle at a width of one quarter to provide a groove to be filled with caulking. Continuous back bed of caulking must be maintained. A follow-up inspection of the framing work was performed by Bergsma on December 1, 1986. In Bergsma's opinion, while some corrections had been made, deficiencies remained. He therefore issued another rejection. A third framing inspection was conducted on December 3, 1986. Tucker was the inspector who performed this inspection. He approved the work that had been done. Prior to this inspection, Gold had paid another contractor $600 to "redo" the framing. This additional expense was not passed on to the Dudleys. Morse attempted to conduct a final building inspection on December 22, 1989. He was unable to do so, however, because "[n]o one was home." From the outset, Gold kept abreast of the progress that was being made on the Dudley project by communicating with Sernaker. He also visited the job site on at least a weekly basis. Gold also heard from the Dudleys concerning the status of the project. The Dudleys closely monitored the work of Sernaker and his crew. If the work was not done to their satisfaction, they expressed their disapproval to Sernaker and, if he did not rectify the matter, they complained to Gold over the telephone. The following were among the complaints made by the Dudleys: the foundation was not level; the roof did not contain any fiberglass material; the window frames did not fit properly; the wood used for the open beam ceilings had cracks in it and was unsightly; the walls in the den were not level and had cracks in them; the linoleum on the Dudleys' screened-in porch was ripped by workers putting up a wall; the outside stucco was cracking and peeling; and trash was left on the property. An effort was made to address the Dudleys' concerns. For instance, in response to the Dudleys' complaints, a "thin cap" was placed over the foundation to make it level. The roof was redone with fiberglass material. The Dudleys were reimbursed for the linoleum they needed to replace on their porch. A contractor was hired to correct the framing problem. Nonetheless, the Dudleys became increasingly dissatisfied with Team Leisure Corp.. Sometime shortly before January 6, 1987, they became so dissatisfied that they ordered Sernaker and his crew off their property and refused to make any additional payments. Following this incident, Gold met with the Dudleys and attempted to mollify them. This was his first face-to-face meeting with them. He offered to send another contractor to the Dudleys' home to perform the work the Dudleys believed needed to be done to satisfactorily complete the project. The Dudleys accepted this offer. On January 6, 1987, Gold sent the Dudleys a letter which read as follows: As per our mutual agreement, these are the items you requested be taken care of. Once taken care of, you agree to sign completion certificate so we can be funded. COMPLETED (please check upon satisfaction) 1.) Touch up outside windows. 2.) Windows to be locked in. 3.) Walls in den to be taken down and leveled out. 4.) Frame around closet door. 5.) Fix two windows; replace concrete in doors and windows. 6.) Clean up. 7.) Replace vinyl, in rear den. 8.) $100.00 dollars to Mrs. Dudley, for clean-up. 9.) 10 year guarantee- roof and release of lien [sic]. 10.) Concrete over build. 11.) Crack under window sill. 12.) Nail in door frame. 13.) Gaps in drywall bedroom. 14.) Stucco cracking outside. 15.) Electrical inspection. (not to be Mike Charles.) Accepted and Approved: x x After receiving this letter, Mr. Dudley checked all but items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 on the letter's "completion certificate." Neither he nor his wife, however, signed this "completion certificate." Although the cracks in the outside stucco had been repaired at the time Dudley checked item 14, the stucco subsequently started cracking again. A final building inspection of the Dudley project was conducted by Tucker on January 13, 1989. The project was "turned down" by Inspector Tucker because it was unpainted. Under their contractual agreement, the Dudleys, not Team Leisure Corp., were responsible for the painting of the project. The painting was not done because the Dudleys noticed cracks reappearing in the outside stucco. On or around March 4, 1987, Mr. Dudley telephoned Inspector Bergsma and asked him to conduct an informal field inspection of the project. Bergsma complied with Dudley's request. When he arrived at the Dudley home, Dudley showed him a "gap on the rear of the house ... where the two roofs are at different levels and come together." Bergsma told Dudley that "[i]t didn't belong there" and that it would have to be eliminated if the structure was to pass a final building inspection. As of the date of the hearing, the structure had not passed such an inspection. Team Leisure Corp. received $10,200 for the work done in connection with the Dudley project. The remaining $1,800 of the $12,000 that the Dudleys were to pay pursuant to the contract was held in escrow by a bank. Ultimately, this $1,800, along with approximately an additional $500 from Team Leisure Corp., was given to the Dudleys as part of a settlement between them and Team Leisure Corp.. The money was to be used by the Dudleys to pay another contractor to complete the project to their satisfaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of contracting outside the scope of his license in violation of Section 489.129(1) (j) , Florida Statutes; (2) imposing a $750 administrative fine upon Respondent for said violation, and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent set forth in the instant administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 30th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 323399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Carlos Garcia, Esquire 8603 Dixie Highway Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33143 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed February 21, 1980, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (herein sometimes referred to as the Board), seeks to indefinitely suspend the Certified General Contractor License No. CGC007304 held by Robert L. Huffman (herein sometimes referred to as the Licensee or Respondent) and requests that his license not be reissued until Respondent provides to Petitioner proof of compliance with the Collier County Industry Licensing Board. Additionally, Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) against Respondent. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that Respondent abandoned a construction project without legal excuse in violation of Collier County Ordinance 78-2, 4.1.3 and thereby violated Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, Petitioner alleges that Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the local applicable building codes and laws in violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Robert L. Huffman, entered into a contract with Mack and Lois Trent of Columbus, Ohio, for the construction of a residence in Collier County on February 10, 1978, for a cost of $41,950.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pursuant to the terms of the contract entered into between the parties, Respondent agreed to use his best efforts to deliver the completed residence within one hundred fifty days (150) from the start of construction. The evidence reveals that construction commenced on June 1, 1978. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) The Trents became dissatisfied at the pace that the Respondent constructed their residence and filed a claim with the local Collier County Construction Board. The Trents did not release the final 10 percent of the contract price to Respondent since, according to the Trents, the house was not completed as scheduled. As a result of the complaint filed by the Trents with the local building officials, Raymond Dulaney, Jr., Building Administrator for the Collier County Building Administration, visited the Trent property on July 23, 1979, and issued a check list of incomplete items to Respondent which was memorialized by letter dated July 23, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) That list contained approximately nineteen (19) items which remained incomplete at the time of Mr. Dulaney's visit to the Trents' residence. When the Trents withheld the construction monies, there was approximately seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) remaining in the construction loan to be used by Respondent to complete construction of tie Trents' residence. During May of 1979, Respondent and the Trents had a discussion with regard to the rate of progress on their residence. The Trents then advised Respondent that they had planned to utilize the home for rental purposes to offset the mortgage payments. According to the Trents, they sustained a loss of approximately five thousand eight hundred twenty-four dollars and ninety-eight cents ($5,824.98) which amount reflects a rental loss beginning approximately March 1, 1979, until the home was completed during November of 1979, plus travel and other incidental expenses. The Trents rented the home during December of 1979. On October 10, 1979, Respondent and the Trents entered into an agreement respecting the problems connected with the Respondent's construction of the Trents' residence. Based on the agreement, Respondent was released from the building contract and likewise, the Trents were also released from any and all further obligations that they had under the building contract dated February 10, 1978. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) Additionally, Respondent installed a sprinkler system for the Trents at no additional cost. Raymond Dulaney, Jr., related the circumstances surrounding Collier County's investigation and determination of a complaint filed by the Trents against Respondent. Mr. Dulaney confirmed that he forwarded to Respondent a letter dated July 23, 1979, advising of the incomplete items remaining for the final inspection for the Trent residence. The results of the charges filed by the Trents against Respondent resulted in an action by the Collier County Board preventing Respondents from "pulling" building permits. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11.) A certificate of occupancy was issued for the Trent residence on October 29, 1979. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent denied that there was any abandonment of the Trent residence. Instead, Respondent maintains that when the construction funds were withheld by the Trents, there was a delay in construction which Respondent argues cannot be regarded as an abandonment. Respondent acknowledged that there were some problems in getting the subcontractors to complete their phase of the construction which was aggravated by the Trents withholding of construction monies. Finally, Respondent points out that the parties entered into an agreement which resulted in a release of obligations and claims by both parties (Trents and Respondent). That release gave the Trents the right to retain the remaining monies, which amount was more than sufficient to complete their house. Respondent noted that the parties entered into the agreement for the construction of their residence on February 10, 1978, and that a notice of commencement could not be issued until June because the Trents had not completed their arrangements for financing. Respondent acknowledged that when the owners withheld construction monies that were due, he was unable to complete the construction of their residence with his own money, resulting in the usual problems with subcontractors in situations where monies were unavailable. Respondent also points out that the house was approximately 90 percent complete when the funds were withheld and that even given the nature of the problems respecting the withholding of construction monies, construction progressed at a normal rate. In support of that statement, Respondent pointed out that in Collier County during the period in question, two hundred twenty to two hundred thirty (220 to 230) days was the average period required for completion of a residence. Respondent met with the Trents' attorney, a Mr. McMahon, on October 9, 1978, at which time he (Respondent) provided attorney McMahon a list of all contractors who were owed monies and a release was signed the following day at Naples Federal Savings and Loan Association. To satisfy the Respondent's agreement to reimburse the Trents at the rate of four hundred dollars ($400.00) per month for every month that their residence was not completed, Respondent gave the Trents a sprinkler system plus a final release of all claims for monies due him as part of the settlement. Respondent has not applied for any permits in Collier County since approximately February of 1979. When Respondent and the Trents entered into their settlement, the terms of the release agreement encompassed a discussion and made provision for rents and all other items due the Trents. Richard McDole, Administrative Director of Code Enforcement for Lee County, Florida, is in charge of taking action on citizens' and other complaints filed against builders in Lee County, Florida. Director McDole was familiar with Respondent's work and had encountered no problems relative thereto in Lee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jerry A. Jennings, held certified general contractor license number CG C020766 and certified residential contractor license number CR CO2OO84 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has held the licenses since June, 1981 and February, 1982, respectively. Then the relevant events herein occurred, Jennings was operating a construction business under the name of Quality Control Construction in Port St. Lucie, Florida. He now resides in Casselberry, Florida and is no longer active in the construction business. Respondent formed Quality Control Construction (QCC) in January, 1981 and operated under that name as a subcontractor doing interior trim work on condominium projects in the Port St. Lucie, Florida area. Respondent did not qualify QCC with the State. In May, 1982, Jennings met with the project manager for Riverside Associates, Limited (Riverside), a development firm in Fort Pierce, Florida, and agreed to serve as general contractor and construction coordinator on a Riverside project in Fort Pierce. The job involved the renovating of an old three-story structure known as the Fort Pierce Hotel into an office building. The agreement was entered into by Riverside and respondent doing business as Quality Control Construction. Jennings applied for and obtained all applicable building permits on the job using his state contractor's license. Under the terms of the agreement Riverside agreed to make payments to QCC which in turn was responsible for insuring payment to the subcontractors and materialmen on the job. The work on the project was done in phases. The first phase was completed in January, 1983 when a partial certificate of occupancy was issued by the City of Fort Pierce. Because of a cash flow problem on the part of the developer, work on the next phase did not commence until June, 1983. At that time, QCC and Jennings agreed to finish the job and Jennings obtained all applicable permits. Although Jennings claims it did not include any electrical work, it is found that the last phase included a subcontract agreement by Jennings and White Electric Company (White) for White to do all remaining electrical work for a cost of $2,994. This is evidenced by the fact that Jennings obtained a permit on July 18, 1983 to do additional structural, electrical and air conditioning work on the project, and corrobarative testimony by a representative of White. On August 9, 1983, White submitted a bill to QCC for $2,994 representing the work performed by that subcontractor. Jennings forwarded the bill to Riverside, and on August 22, 1983, Riverside cut a check in that amount payable to QCC. The check contained the notation "For Payment to White Electric." The check was deposited by QCC into its bank account the following day. When White did not receive payment from QCC it contacted Riverside to obtain payment. A representative of Riverside attempted to locate Jennings but learned he had moved and his telephone was disconnected. After some investigation, Riverside determined that respondent had moved to Pinellas County. A certified letter was sent by Riverside to Jennings in October, 1983 requesting payment of the money due White but he did not reply. In November, 1983 a Riverside representative talked by telephone with Jennings who advised Riverside that he had financial problems and used the money due White to relocate to the west coast. Respondent did not timely notify petitioner of his change in address from Fort Pierce to Pinellas County. Riverside eventually set up a payment schedule and finally fully reimbursed White in April, 1984. To date, Jennings has not repaid Riverside. Jennings now resides in Central Florida, is in the process of filing a bankruptcy petition, and does not use his contracting licenses. Jennings claimed at hearing that Riverside never fully paid him for his services and therefore he was justified in retaining the $2,994 intended for White. However, he did not file a lien on the job, made no formal demands for the money allegedly due, and presented no documentation to support the claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and III of the administrative complaint and that he pay a $1,000 administrative fine. It is further recommended that his two contracting licenses be suspended for one year, but if full restitution is made to Riverside, the suspension period be reduced to thirty days. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire 130 North Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry A. Jennings 420 Copperstone Circle Casselberry, Florida 32707
The Issue Whether or not Respondent has been disciplined by the local Charlotte County Building Department, and if so what, if any, administrative penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Herman W. Duffus, herein Respondent, is licensed as a registered specialty contractor holding license no. RX 0048193 in the State of Florida. Respondent obtained his local certifications by being "grandfathered" in. At all times material hereto Respondent was so licensed. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (herein Petitioner) was and is the State agency charged with the regulation of contractors in Florida. Jeffrey Deboer, a building code official employed by the Charlotte County Building Department, investigated a complaint filed against Respondent by Catherine Wolfe during mid-October, 1987. As a result of Deboer's investigation, Respondent was issued three notices of violation for engaging in the performance of electrical and plumbing contracting without first obtaining a certificate of competency in those two trades, for violating local ordinances and/or the Charlotte County zoning regulations and for engaging in electrical and plumbing contracting without first obtaining a- permit as required. At the time of the above-referenced investigation, Respondent had been hired by Catherine Wolfe to install a sprinkler system to her home in Port Charlotte, Florida. Respondent holds several local licenses to engage in the trades of carpentry, masonry, aluminum and installation of sprinkler systems. However, he is not licensed to engage in electrical and plumbing contracting. Following Deboer's issuance of the three citations to Respondent on October 16, 1987, a hearing was scheduled with Respondent before the Charlotte County Licensing Board on December 3, 1987, at which hearing Respondent attended. Respondent was found guilty of engaging in electrical and plumbing contracting without a license, violating local ordinances and the Charlotte County Zoning Regulations and failing to obtain a permit as required to engage in electrical and plumbing work for the work he did for Catherine Wolfe. Specifically, Respondent was found guilty of violating Ordinance 83-04, Section 10, Ordinance 83-04 amended by 84-15, Section 2, SSA, 10 and Ordinance 83-04 amended by 83-11, Section 2(a), Charlotte County Ordinances. As a result of those violations, Respondent's sprinkler system license was suspended for 60 days by the Charlotte County Building and Licensing Board. Prior to the above-referred incident, Respondent had been previously disciplined by Charlotte County for doing work outside the scope of his license in February, 1985 and as a result thereof, his aluminum and carpentry licenses were suspended for 30 days. Finally, Respondent was previously disciplined by Petitioner during March, 1986. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). After Respondent was cited for violating the Charlotte County Ordinances in December 1987, he engaged the services of a licensed electrical contractor and has paid the requisite fee to correct the items for which he was cited and found guilty of violating to include payment of the requisite fees for obtaining the permits. Respondent is 76 years old and is semi-retired although he needs to continue his livelihood in contracting to satisfy his financial obligations.
Recommendation Based on Respondent's age and demonstrated need to continue practicing his livelihood in the construction business, his willingness to, and in fact, the correction of the electrical problems for which he is now being cited, such factors are herein considered in mitigation of penalty. Based thereon, and in view of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the aggregate amount of $1,000 which fine shall be payable by Respondent to Petitioner within 30 days of entry of the final order. Further, to insure payment of the fine, the final order shall provide that Respondent's license shall be suspended, effective 30 days from the date of the final order, for a period of 30 days and provided the administrative fine is paid within the required time, the suspension will not be imposed. If the fine is paid after the 30 days but during the effective period of suspension the suspension will be suspended when paid. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 1985, Respondent Bernardo Duran as qualifying agent for Duran Roofing, Inc., d/b/a A-1 Duran Roofing was issued a Certificate of Competency as a roofing contractor by the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. By letter dated July 22, 1986, Respondent was notified of five charges brought against him by the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. On August 14, 1986, Respondent attended a formal hearing before the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board to answer the charges brought against him by the Board. At the conclusion of the hearing Respondent was advised by that Board that the Board had found him guilty of two of those charges and that the Board was taking disciplinary action against him as follows: a reprimand and a fine of $1,000 on one of those charges, and revocation of Respondent's personal and business Certificates of Competency plus a fine of $2,500 on the other charge. The fines totaling $3,500 were to be paid within 60 days. By letter dated August 15, 1986, Respondent was again advised that he was being given a reprimand, that his personal and business Certificates of Competency were revoked, and that he was being fined a total of $3,500 which was required to be paid within 60 days of the date of the formal hearing. On September 11, 1986, Respondent appealed the Order of the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County. On February 4, 1987, Respondent filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, his application for registration as a roofing contractor. Respondent attached to that application a copy of his revoked Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board Certificate of Competency, thereby indicating that he had met the prerequisites for state registration. Respondent specifically failed to advise that the certificate which he was attaching had been previously revoked. The application which Respondent filed with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board specifically asks on the applicant whether the applicant or a corporation for which the applicant is an authorized representative has ever had disciplinary action taken against a contracting license by any state, county or municipality. Respondent answered that question in the negative although he was fully aware that a negative answer was false. Unaware of Respondent's false representations contained within his application for state registration, on February 19, 1987, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issued to Respondent as the qualifying agent for A-1 Duran Roofing a temporary license as a roofing contractor, registration number RC 0052908. Thereafter, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board became aware that Respondent's personal and business Certificates of Competency had been previously revoked by his local Board. Accordingly, no permanent license was issued to Respondent. On September 9, 1987, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, issued its Mandate in Respondent's appeal from the Order of the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. Contrary to Respondent's assertion at the final hearing in this cause, the Circuit Court did not reverse the revocation of his certificates but rather reversed the final order of the Board and remanded the case for a new hearing to be conducted by that Board. Respondent admitted during the final hearing in this cause that no one had ever advised him that filing an appeal from an order of the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board could stay any disciplinary action taken by that Board. Rather, Respondent admitted that he was specifically advised by that Board that he could only work again as a roofer if any appeal filed by him were successful. When Respondent submitted his application for registration to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, he knew that the Certificate of Competency he attached to it had been revoked and that his denial of previous disciplinary actions was false.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint filed herein and revoking Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1- 11, 13, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 15 have been rejected as being secondary to the ultimate issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 14 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 17 and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of facts but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1- 3 and 5 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard D. Katz, Esquire 300 Aragon Avenue Suite 330 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
