Findings Of Fact Respondent holds certified residential contractor's license number CR C018843, which was issued to him in February, 1981. He was not licensed before that time. In 1979 and 1980, prior to his licensure, Respondent operated as a building contractor in one or more businesses known as Associated Building Contractors, Associated Building Contractors of Altamonte Springs, Inc., and Associated Building Contractors Sales, Inc. Neither Respondent nor any other individual was registered as a qualifying agent with Petitioner on behalf of any of these companies. However, a licensed general contractor, Robert Evans, was affiliated with Respondent from approximately February to October, 1979, and believed he qualified Associated Building Contractors during that period. Respondent's contracting activities in 1979 and 1980 included the contracting for and construction of a residential house in Seminole County for Robert K. and Debra A. Good. This home is located on Lot 273 in the Barclay Woods Subdivision. Respondent signed the contract with the Goods on November 27, 1979, as seller. On May 20, 1980, Respondent signed an affidavit as president of Associated Building Contractors of Altamonte Springs, Inc., certifying there were no unpaid bills or security interests in the Good property. Respondent signed this affidavit in order to obtain disbursement of funds from the lender. Respondent's affidavit was false, there being outstanding unpaid bills to subcontractors and materialmen as of May 20, 1980. These debts included over $2,000 due on the Good project to a carpet business owned by John Polk (Carpet Service Unlimited and its successor, Design Flooring, Inc.). This debt has never been paid and is currently an unsatisfied judgment against Respondent or his company. The law suit was instituted by Polk's complaint filed in the Seminole County Court, apparently on September 22, 1980. See Petitioner's Exhibit 16. Respondent, or his company, also owed Overhead Door Company of Orlando, Inc., $612 for services on the Good house as of Nay 20, 1980. The Overhead Door bill was settled in October, 1980. Additionally, Respondent, or his company, owed Schilke Enterprises, Inc., a window and door business, $1,558 which was billed to the Good project and was the subject of a law suit filed December 2, 1981. Respondent, or his company, owed Castle Custom Cabinets $1,777 for work on the Good house as of April, 1980. This bill was finally settled in June, 1981. Respondent applied for a contractor's license in December, 1980. Petitioner's application form included the question: Are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services, as a result of the construction operations of [the applicant] or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Respondent answered "No" to this question, when in fact he and/or his organizations owed several past due bills relating to the construction operations discussed above. The application form contained a similar question regarding liens, judgments or pending law suits, to which Respondent also answered "No." However, with the possible exception of the Polk suit, the evidence did not establish that any pending law suits, liens or judgments were in effect at the time Respondent answered this question. A further question on Petitioner's license application form asked: Has [the applicant] ever been convicted of any offense . . . other than traffic violations? Respondent answered "No" to this question. There was no evidence that this answer was improper, although on January 5, 1979, Respondent was placed on five years probation, adjudication of guilt withheld, by the Circuit Court of Orange County. The charge was second degree grand theft, a felony, to which Respondent had entered a plea of nolo contendere.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) , and revoke his license as a certified residential contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street, Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790 James Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Department of General Services, (hereinafter "DGS") is a state agency, the responsibilities of which include the management of state construction project. It accomplishes such management through its Division of Building Construction. The Divisions responsibilities include, negotiation of architect/engineer contracts, review of plans and specifications, contract administration, and contract management. One such project is Project No. MA-87080010, the subject matter of which involves repairs and alterations to the National Guard Armory in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Armory Project. Certain portions of the bid specification for the Armory Project were prepared by the project architect, Mr. William D. Tschumy, Jr. Other portions, specifically the portions dealing with bidding conditions and contractual conditions, were provisions provided by DGS for inclusion in the specifications. The project architect was not familiar with all of the bid specification provisions provided by DGS. Prior to submitting its bid on the Armory Project, James P. Moran, Inc., had been prequalified for bidding on the project. Such prequalification did not obviate the need for James P. Moran, Inc., to meet the experience requirements in the bid specifications and in Rule 13D-11.904(2)(a)(8), Florida Administrative Code. The bid specifications for the Armory Project include the following provisions: 1/ Section B-2, page 9: 8. Firm experience - must have successfully completed no less than two project of similar size and complexity within the last three years. and; Section B-22, page 16: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the best interest of the State of Florida and to reject the proposal of a bidder who the owner determines is not in a position to perform the contract and to negotiate the contract in accordance with its Rule 13- D11.08 if the low qualified bid exceeds the project construction budget. James P. Moran, Inc., timely submitted its bid on the Armory Project and was subsequently notified that it had been recommended for contract award by the Director of the Division of Building Construction. This recommendation was made on the basis of a recommendation by the project architect that the bid be awarded to James P. Moran, Inc. At the time of making his recommendation, the project architect was not aware of the firm experience provision in either the bid specifications or the applicable rules. A timely protest was filed by another bidder on the Armory Project, in which the protesting bidder raised the issue of the firm experience of James P. Moran Inc. DGS concluded that the protest was valid and after further deliberation made the determination to reject all bids. All the bids other than the bid submitted by James P. Moran, Inc., exceeded the funds available for construction of the Armory Project. Because the other bids all exceeded the available funds, DGS decided that the best course of action would be to modify the scope and nature of the work involved in the project and then re-bid the project. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed modifications to the project will result in lower bids, because the modifications would permit the work to be done quicker and at less cost to the contractor. James P. Moran, Inc., was incorporated in 1981. However, prior to the summer of 1988, it had submitted no bids acquired no permits, and had neither started nor completed any jobs. The qualifying contractor for James P. Moran, Inc., is Mr. James P. Moran who, for many years prior to the summer of 1988, was an employee, officer, and shareholder of Frank J. Moran, Inc. Mr. James P. Moran holds a State of Florida building contractors license, a State of Florida electrical contractors license, a Dade County electrical masters license, a Broward County electrical masters license, and a State of Maine electrical contractors license. While employed by Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was also the qualifying contractor for that corporation. While so employed, Mr. James P. Moran's primary duties were those of project director and estimator. He was also a corporate officer of Frank J. Moran, Inc. During his employment with Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was the project manager on projects of similar size and complexity to the Armory Project. The construction budget for the Armory Project is approximately 250,000. The dollar values of construction jobs are valid indicators of the comparative sizes of construction jobs. The dollar values of the two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are approximately $161,000 and $112,000, respectively. The two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are not of similar size to the Armory Project. While DGS is concerned about the qualifications of the personnel employed by a contracting firm, DGS is also concerned about the track record of the firm itself, and, therefore, requires that a firm have completed projects in its own name in order to qualify for a bid award. In other words, a new firm cannot "take credit" for work performed by one of its employees at a time when the employee was working for another firm. Also, DGS does not allow "stacking" of the dollar value of several small jobs in order to demonstrate completion of a job of similar size to the job that is the subject of a bid. The purpose of the experience rule is to require a contracting firm to have completed at least two jobs of similar dollar size to the dollar size of the job being contracted. Among, the reasons stacking is not allowed is that completion of a job of any given size is a more complicated and complex undertaking than completion of a series of smaller jobs that total up to the same dollar value as the job of given size. DGS has now modified the scope of the project and has amended the plans and specifications in such a fashion that it will take less time to complete the modified Armory project and may reasonably be expected to result in lower bids closer to or below the construction budget. The modified Armory project may reasonably be expected to result in a savings of both time and money.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services issue a final order in this case rejecting the bid of James P. Moran, Inc., as being non-responsive, and rejecting all other bids, in order to modify the scope of the project and rebid it. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of March 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., 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 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since 1981, a Florida- licensed general contractor (holding license number CG C019787). At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been licensed as an individual in his own name, not as a qualifying agent 3/ or under a fictitious name. At no time has Respondent been licensed in the State of Florida as a roofing contractor or as any other type of contractor other than a general contractor. Larry Thomas is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the sole owner and president of Home Improvement Time, Inc. (HIT), a corporation that he formed in or around December of 1995. Mr. Thomas, in naming his company, hoped that the public, when hearing the company's name, would associate it with the popular "Home Improvement" television program. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any other owners, officers, or directors of the company. Until late in 1998, HIT was actively engaged in the business of soliciting home improvement work, including room additions and the installation of roofs, hurricane shutters, and screens. To solicit such work, HIT used telemarketers who contacted homeowners over the telephone from HIT's office (located in a shopping center in Jensen Beach, Florida and having the mailing address of 867 Northeast Jensen Beach Boulevard, Jensen Beach, Florida), and it also employed salespersons who visited homeowners at their homes. Among the salespersons who worked for HIT were Vince Ketchum and Bob Andrews. At no time material to the instant case did HIT have a licensed contractor serve as its certified qualifying agent. 4/ Mr. Thomas has never been licensed as a general contractor. Some time after 1996, he obtained aluminum structure and concrete contracting licenses from the City of Port St. Lucie and from Martin County. In or around January of 1996, shortly after the formation of HIT, Respondent met with Mr. Thomas at HIT's office and observed HIT's operations. As a result of this meeting, Respondent hired HIT, on a commission basis, to solicit home improvement work for him. Respondent was the only general contractor for whom HIT solicited business. When a HIT telemarketer made contact with a prospect, the telemarketer indicated that he or she was with HIT. If asked who would be doing the home improvement work, the telemarketer advised the prospect that the work would be done by Respondent. If a prospect contacted by a HIT telemarketer was interested in having home improvement work done, a HIT salesperson was dispatched to the prospect's home. Respondent provided HIT salespersons with training and instructions as to what to do when calling on prospects. On their visits to prospects' homes, the salespersons brought with them preprinted form contracts for the prospects to sign. These form contracts were jointly developed by Mr. Thomas and Respondent (using, as a model, a form contract that was published in a "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine article). On the top right hand corner of these form contracts were the words "licensed" and "insured." To the left of these words, in large, stylized lettering, were either the words "Home Improvement," "Home Improvement Inc.," "Home Improvement Time, Inc.," or "Home Improvement by Richard Kosalka" (depending on the time frame). These words were included on the form because Respondent wanted homeowners to make the connection between him and HIT and the television program after which HIT was named. Underneath these words appeared the following: 667 N.E. Jensen Beach Boulevard Jensen Beach, FL 34957 Richard Kosalka State License # CGCO19787 Among the provisions in the form contracts was the clause, "This agreement subject to office approval." When they returned from their sales calls, the salespersons brought any signed contract to Mr. Thomas at HIT's office. Depending on the nature of the work involved, Mr. Thomas approved or disapproved the contract himself or he gave the contract to Respondent 5/ to approve or disapprove (pursuant to the "subject to office approval" clause in the contract). Any contract that Respondent approved became Respondent's contract to perform. Although he did perform some contract work himself, most often he used subcontractors who worked under his general supervision. HIT received a commission for every approved contract its salespersons procured for Respondent. Its commission (the amount of which was established by agreement between Mr. Thomas and Respondent) was included in the contract price offered to the homeowner. Typically, payment from the homeowner was not due until the contract work was completed. Payment was made by the homeowner to HIT, which then paid Respondent by check in an amount equal to the contract price minus HIT's previously established commission. In an effort to make the public aware of the services it offered, HIT, in or around August of 1996, placed an advertisement in the Bell South Yellow Pages for Port St. Lucie and Stuart. In the advertisement, which was placed without Respondent's knowledge or authorization, HIT's name and telephone number appeared, along with a listing of home improvement services. Among the services listed was "roofing." Appearing at the bottom of the advertisement was the following: "Licensed & Insured KOSALKA CGC 019787." Among the homeowners who had signed the above-described preprinted form contracts that HIT's salesperson's brought back, for "office approval," to the HIT office in 1996 were the following three Port St. Lucie residents: Larkin Dunbar (whose residence was located at 114 Dorchester); Clara Masters (whose residence was located at 246 Northeast Mainsail); and Rita Maciuba (whose residence was located at 733 Southwest Curry Street). The Dunbar, Masters and Maciuba contracts were dated February 19, 1996, May 28, 1996, and June 14, 1996, respectively. On the top of the Dunbar contract, in large stylized lettering, were the words "Home Improvement Inc." On the top of both the Masters and Maciuba contracts, in the same large stylized lettering, were the words "Home Improvement by Richard Kosalka." The Dunbar contract provided for the "furnish[ing of] the following materials, improvements, labor, and/or services" for the price of $3,600.00: the installation of a "new fascia and soffit system," the "repair [of the] master bedroom walls," the "repair [of] roof leaks," and the "paint[ing of the] gutter and garage door to match [the] fascia and soffit." No work was performed pursuant to this contract (nor is there any evidence that the homeowner made any payments for the performance of such work). The Masters contract was signed by Ms. Masters and Vince Ketchum, the HIT salesperson who had negotiated with her at her home. At the time she signed the contract, Ms. Masters was approximately 85 years of age. The contract provided for the "furnish[ing of] the following materials, improvements, labor, and/or services": installation of a "new roof" with "shingles to be selected by Clara Masters" for $3,255.00; the repair and painting of the "interior ceiling" for $627.00; and the "pressure clean[ing] and paint[ing] of [the] exterior of [the] home" and the driveway for $2,628.00. After his mother had signed the contract (and before any contract work had started), Ms. Masters' son, Joseph Masters, who lived next door to his elderly mother and looked after her business affairs, telephoned Respondent, who was an acquaintance of his. Mr. Masters asked Respondent to come by his mother's home to discuss the contract his mother had signed. Respondent went to Ms. Masters' home as Mr. Masters had requested. Upon Respondent's arrival, Mr. Masters informed Respondent that he (Mr. Masters) and his mother wanted the roof work to be done first. Respondent and Mr. Masters then discussed the matter further. Their discussions lead to the contract being modified to provide that only the roof work would be done (for a price of $3,255.00). The modification was made by lining out the other work listed in the contract, having Ms. Masters put her initials next to the line-outs, and adding contract language to reflect that the total contract price was $3,225.00 for the "roof only." Before leaving Ms. Masters' home, Respondent told Mr. Masters that he would have "some roofers [come] around to get the estimate on the roof." Mr. Masters assumed that these roofers would be subcontractors. Respondent brought the modified contract back to the HIT office. The Sunday after his visit to Ms. Masters' home, Respondent's wife suffered a stroke and was hospitalized. Respondent remained in the hospital with his wife and stayed there for three days. David Harris is a licensed general, residential, and roofing contractor and the owner of David Harris Construction (DHC). He has had his roofing license (for work in Martin and St. Lucie Counties) since 1992. In 1996, and for several years prior thereto, Respondent used Mr. Harris as a subcontractor for concrete and roofing work (mostly on new residential construction). At the time he reviewed the modified Masters contract, Mr. Thomas was familiar with Mr. Harris and DHC. Mr. Harris used HIT to follow up on leads generated by DHC's Yellow Pages' advertising. Moreover, Respondent had spoken favorably to Mr. Thomas about Mr. Harris as a roofer. Accordingly, Mr. Thomas telephoned Mr. Harris and told him about the Masters re-roofing project. On the Monday after Respondent's wife was admitted to the hospital, DHC workers went to Ms. Masters' home and began to remove the old roof. A young child (around nine or ten years of age) was on the roof with the workers. Some time later that day, while the workers were still removing the old roof, Mr. Masters came by his mother's house and noticed the workers and the child on the roof. Mr. Masters was dissatisfied with the manner in which the workers were acting and with the quality of their work. He therefore "chased" them off the roof and told them to leave the property. Mr. Harris was not at the site at the time the workers (and the child) were directed to leave, but he later telephoned Mr. Masters "want[ing] to know what was wrong." Mr. Masters told Mr. Harris why he had removed the workers from the property. He further advised Mr. Harris to "not come back anymore," explaining that he would hire another roofer to complete the job (which he subsequently did). Mr. Masters assured Mr. Harris that payment would be made for the work that had been done by DHC on the roof that day, but there was no agreement reached as to the amount of the payment. A few days later, Mr. Harris telephoned Mr. Masters again, inquiring "if he [Mr. Harris] was going to get paid." In response to this inquiry, Mr. Masters replied that he was "going to get with [Respondent] to figure out the amount of work that was done" and he (Mr. Masters) would pay Mr. Harris accordingly. Subsequently (some time on or after June 4, 1996), Mr. Masters received in his mailbox a copy of an "invoice" (in an unstamped, unsealed envelope) from DHC which read as follows: DAVID HARRIS CONSTRUCTION TO: Home Improvement Date: 6/4/96 RE: 246 NE Mainsail, PSL (Masters) DESCRIPTION: Labor & Materials 1 DAY PRICE: $863.39 Thereafter, Mr. Masters telephoned Respondent and told Respondent about the bill he had received (the amount of which Mr. Masters thought was excessive). In response to Mr. Masters' telephone call, Respondent, on June 18, 1996, visited with Mr. Masters and his mother at the latter's home. There, Mr. Masters showed Respondent the copy of the "invoice" he (Mr. Masters) had received. Based upon his knowledge of the prices that Mr. Harris typically charged, Respondent determined that a fair price for the work that the DHC workers had done on Ms. Masters' roof was only $480.00. Respondent so advised Mr. Masters and then telephoned Mr. Harris (from Ms. Masters' home) in an effort to persuade Mr. Harris to accept that amount. Respondent and Mr. Harris, however, were unable to reach agreement on the matter. After hanging up, Respondent told the Masters that he and Mr. Harris "would work something out and get it straightened out." Thereafter, at Respondent's suggestion, Ms. Masters made out and signed a check to "Home Improvement" in the amount of $480.00, which she gave to Respondent, who told the Masters that he would "take care of" the matter. In addition to giving the Masters this assurance, Respondent also provided Ms. Masters, in exchange for the $480.00 check, a receipt marked "paid in full" and a release of lien signed by him. In the release of lien, Respondent identified himself as "Richard Kosalka of Home Improvement, a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida." Respondent delivered Ms. Masters' $480.00 check to Mr. Thomas and asked Mr. Thomas to issue an HIT check in that same amount payable to DHC. Mr. Thomas did as he was requested by Respondent. The $480.00 check signed by Mr. Thomas was received and deposited by DHC. Nonetheless, thereafter, on August 19, 1996, DHC filed a claim of lien for $383.39 (the difference between $480.00 and the amount of DHC's original invoice) on Ms. Masters' home. The $383.39 (which DHC claimed it was owed) was never paid; however, DHC took no action with respect to the lien and the lien expired. The Maciuba contract was signed by Ms. Maciuba and Bob Andrews, the HIT salesperson who had negotiated with her at her home. It provided for the "furnish[ing of] the following materials, improvements, labor, and/or services" for the price of $3,600.00: "Tear off existing shingles- Replace rotten facia and roof sheets. Shingle color: Shasta white (lightest color). 4 lengths of ridge vents." HIT contacted DHC to do the work described in the contract. DHC obtained a re-roofing permit for the work on June 21, 1996. DHC hired Jerry Poston to work as subcontractor on the project. Mr. Poston and his crew worked on the project during the period from June 21 through July 29, 1996. Mr. Harris also made an appearance at the work site. Ms. Maciuba made an initial down payment of $300.00, which she gave to Mr. Thomas. Subsequently, after the work had been completed, she gave Mr. Thomas three checks that were payable to herself and which she endorsed. Two of these checks were for $1,000.00, and the remaining check was for $800.00, for a total payment, including the down payment she had made, of $3,100.00, which was less than the $3,600.00 contract price. Ms. Maciuba refused to pay any more because of the damage she claimed her property had sustained as a result of re-roofing work. On August 23, 1996, Mr. Harris filed a claim of lien on Ms. Maciuba's home, in which he alleged that, "in accordance with a contract with Home Improvement Time, Inc.," he had "furnished labor, services or materials" in the amount of $2,565.00, and had not received any payment therefor. On October 15, 1996, Mr. Harris executed a Sworn Statement of Account acknowledging that he was owed only $1,873.18 inasmuch as the "contractor" had made direct payments to Mr. Harris' suppliers, thereby reducing the amount he (Mr. Harris) was owed. Ms. Maciuba, in small claims court, sought to have the lien removed. On November 19, 1996, a mediation session was held at which Ms. Maciuba, Mr. Harris, Mr. Thomas, and Respondent were present. At the session, Mr. Harris agreed to remove the lien in exchange for $1,450.00, of which amount $800.00 was to be paid by Ms. Maciuba and the remaining $650.00 was to be paid by HIT. That very same day, November 19, 1996, Ms. Maciuba and HIT made these agreed-upon payments, and Mr. Harris executed and recorded a release of lien. Ms. Masters and Ms. Maciuba filed complaints that were investigated by Edward Garcia, an investigator with the Department. As part of his investigation, Mr. Garcia spoke with Respondent by telephone on November 7, 1996. Respondent told Mr. Garcia that HIT was a telemarketing business owned by Mr. Thomas; he (Respondent) hired HIT to solicit business for him; he (Respondent) advertised as "Home Improvement" in order to "play off the name of Home Improvement Time"; the contract with Ms. Maciuba was for a re-roofing project and he (Respondent) subcontracted the work to DHC; and he (Respondent) was not aware, that he was not authorized, as a licensed general contractor, to enter into contracts for re-roofing projects. Mr. Garcia also visited HIT's office and met with Mr. Thomas. During this meeting, Mr. Thomas signed a document agreeing not to violate the provisions of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, by engaging contracting activities without an appropriate license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, V, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint; (2) disciplining Respondent for having committed these violations by requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of these charges; and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1999.
The Issue Whether the certified general contractor's licenses and the registered roofing contractor's licenses held by Petitioner Robert J. Nali should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The certified General Contractor's License number CG-C007395 and CG- CB07395, and the Registered Roofing Contractor's License number RC0028067, issued to Robert J. Nali are active and current. Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Charles Rapp on June 1, 1977, to have a house constructed for the contract price of $29,500. The home was financed through the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Leesburg for the sum of $27,730. Disbursed directly to Respondent Nali in five different draws was $16,638. These disbursements left a total of $11,092 in the bank account for completion of the home. Two bills remain unpaid, one for $500 and one for $560.92. Cost of the home was approximately $2,035.87 above the contract price. Two liens were filed against Mr. Rapp's property which were satisfied out of construction funds from the bank, one by Adobe Building Center, Inc., in the amount of $1,315 and one by Branch Garage Door Sales in the amount of $171.38. Respondent Nali admitted that the Kennedy Company supplied air conditioning duct work for the home, and that Yale Ogron Builders provided labor as a subcontractor; that he was paid for the supplies provided by the Kennedy Company on the second drawing, and for the labor provided by Yale Ogron Builders on the fourth draw. Respondent Nali admitted he did not pay these concerns although he did receive the funds for the material and labor supplied. Mr. Rapp fired Mr. Nali and completed the home himself. There was no date of completion in the contract, but Respondent did not actively pursue the completion. Respondent Nali entered into a contract with Mr. Charles Fosmoen in June of 1977, for the purpose of constructing a home. The contract price was $28,150. The home was financed through the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Leesburg for the sum of $26,471. Disbursed to Nali under the contract was $19,845.75. The disbursement left a total of $6,625.25 to complete the house. Expended to complete construction of the home in accordance with the contract was $9,351.08, an excess of $2,725.83 of the contract price. A claim of lien was filed against the Fosmoen home by Lake Pre-Hung Door Manufacturing Company, Inc. Mr. Nali was fired from the job and, although no time was designated in the contract for completion, Respondent Nali did not actively pursue the construction of the home. A contract was entered into with Mrs. Ellen Haffey on November 16, 1977, to construct the shell of a home for the contract price of $17,600. Mrs. Haffey paid the sum of $10,000 directly to Respondent and expended a sum of $6,625.93 to complete the house as contracted. She has bills remaining unpaid in the amount of $3,620.50. Spent by Mrs. Haffey above the contract price was $2,648.43. Mrs. Haffey, a contractor, dismissed Mr. Nali, and the house is not yet completed. A claim of lien was filed against Mrs. Haffey's property on behalf of Leesburg Building Materials, Inc., in the amount of $4,384.47. The lien was for materials which had been delivered to the project site and should have been paid for out of the sum previously paid to Respondent. Mrs. Haffey paid $4,000 for the third draw instead of $6,000, as called for by the contract, a fact that prevented Respondent from timely payment of bills. A lien was filed on Mrs. Haffey's property by Keeman Brick of Central Florida, Inc., in the amount of $1,238.03. Respondent admitted he was charged with a criminal violation of misapplication of funds but pled nole contendere, and adjudication was withheld. A document entitled "Stipulation on Motion for Clarification and Modification" was received into evidence. The document constitutes an admission of Respondent that restitution was due from him to the complainants, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Rapp, Mrs. and Mrs. Charles Fosmoen, and Mrs. Ellen Haffey. Petitioner contends that Respondent diverted funds he had received to pay two subcontractors for the Rapp home; that although he may Waive underbid the Rapp and Fosmoen he later also underbid the Haffey contract, which caused these consumers inconvenience and loss and violated a contractor's position of trust. Respondent contends that he could have finished each of the houses within the contract terms, since time was not of the essence. He contended that increased building material costs contributed to the delay of the housing construction, and that he could have finished the houses were he not fired from each of the construction projects. Respondent denied that he had diverted any funds from construction projects. The Hearing Officer further finds: Both Mr. and Mrs. Rapp and Mr. and Mrs. Fosmoen gave Respondent Nali notice that they were dissatisfied because Mr. Nali was not actively finishing the construction of their respective homes. Both gave him notice and an opportunity to recommence active construction, which he did not resume; The dates of completion of homes were not specified in the contracts, but oral promises were given that the homes would be completed within a reasonable time. The delay caused each complainant much inconvenience; Liens were filed against these homes for nonpayment of bills. Respondent did not pay the liens; Each of the three homes cost more than the contracted price before said homes were completed by the parties contracting with Mr. Nali. Mr. Nali received money from Mr. Rapp for work and supplies provided by the Kennedy Company and Yale Ogron Builders, yet Respondent did not pay for these materials or work; and The complainants were justified in dismissing Respondent.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Robert J. Nali for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joan L. Wollin, Esquire Post Office Box 236 Leesburg, Florida 32748 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 78-2103 ROBERT J. NALI, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Jonas C. Merricks, Respondent, was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, as a residential building contractor. In May 1981 Respondent was approached by John Oden regarding a building permit to add a room to the residence of Ms. Betty J. Wilson. Respondent testified he went to see Ms. Wilson to discuss the permit before pulling the permit; however, Ms. Wilson testified she did not see Respondent until after the word started. Regardless of the correct version Respondent pulled the permit for the construction knowing that he was not going to do the work. On May 23, 1981 Ms. Wilson entered into a contract with John Oden to construct an additional room on her residence. This contract was modified on May 26, 1981 to enlarge the room two feet and it is this contract (Exhibit 3), upon which the work was done. The contract made no mention of Respondent or of J & J Building Company which is owned by Respondent. Under the terms of the contract Ms. Wilson was to pay Oden one-third when walls were up, one-third when the roof was on and the final one-third when the job was completed. During the course of the construction Respondent appeared on the site a few times and straightened out existing problems. Ms. Wilson made all of her payments to Oden in accordance with the contract. However, she made the final payment before the work was completed. Her attempts to get Oden to satisfactorily complete the job were unsuccessful and Ms. Wilson complained to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs who referred her complaint to the Construction Industry Licensing Board which investigated and filed the complaint here under consideration. No evidence was submitted that Respondent pulled permits for work done by J & J Building Company. Evidence was presented that J & J Building Company is not licensed by petitioner. Respondent testified that he pulled the permit as a favor to Ms. Wilson and not for Oden, and that he did not know Oden had contracted with Ms. Wilson to do this job. However, Respondent did know that Oden was going to build the addition for Ms. Wilson; and, in his affidavit, Exhibit 5, Respondent acknowledged he had "helped out" Oden several times, that he was paid by Oden for work Respondent did on the premises, that payment for this work was made out to J & J Building Company, and that he supervised the work when he was on the premises.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
