Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Paul K. Scapecchi, is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RG 0015926, and a registered roofing contractor, holding license number RC 0031048. The Respondent is the qualifier for Paul's Construction Company, which is the Respondent's firm. Edwin Schmid is a resident of West Germany who vacations in North Florida, and who testified by deposition which was received in evidence as Exhibit 1. He owns six parcels of real estate, or lots adjacent to each other, including Lot 19, Bon Bay Estates, in Santa Rosa County, Florida, which he purchased in approximately February, 1980. Edwin Schmid intended to have a home constructed on Lot 19 to be used as rental property. Subsequently, Edwin Schmid was introduced to the Respondent and the Respondent's father, Walter Scapecchi, by Lee and Carolyn Swigger. The Swiggers had become friendly with Edwin Schmid because Carolyn Swigger speaks German. Thereafter, Edwin Schmid contracted with the Respondent and Walter Scapecchi to have his home built on Lot 19 in Bon Bay Estates. This contract was in written form and dated March 21, 1981. Although Walter Scapecchi signed this contract "doing business as Paul's Construction Company," as contractor, the Respondent admitted that the contract was with himself, and that his father was merely an employee of the firm. The initial contract with Edwin Schmid in which the price was set at $36,000 was participated in by both the Respondent and his father. Edwin Schmid dealt with the Respondent directly on several occasions, but the business card he had been given showed Walter Scapecchi's name written in by hand over the Respondent's name. The deposit check written by Edwin Schmid was made payable to Walter Scapecchi in the amount of $8,000. Walter Scapecchi is not licensed to engage in the business of general contracting, but was so engaged, aided and assisted by his son, the Respondent. The deposit check for $8,000 was to be used to cover the digging of the foundation, the necessary fill, the pouring of the concrete foundation, a culvert for the driveway, and electrical service, which was to have been completed by April 10, 1981, pursuant to the contract. A second payment of $10,000 was to have been made on April 10, 1981. On April 10, 1981, however, no work had yet been done, and none was done until March of 1982, nearly one year later. The work done in March 1982 consisted only of placing foundation markers. The Respondent admitted that the work of placing foundation markers did not cost anything near the $8,000 paid, and that he did not request the second payment of $10,000 because the work done did not exhaust the initial payment. Nevertheless, no part of the $8,000 initial payment was refunded to Edwin Schmid. Throughout the period of time after the contract was executed in March of 1981, Edwin Schmid wanted the Respondent to complete the construction pursuant to the contract. At one point after the first year had elapsed without any substantial work being done, Edwin Schmid attempted to effect a new contract with the Respondent that required the initial work for which he had already paid $8,000 to be completed. The Respondent agreed to this, but did not perform any more work at the construction site. The Respondent admits that he has not performed as required by the contract. He contends this was due to personal financial problems. Other excuses for the Respondent's nonperformance included his underestimation of the amount of fill required, heavy rains which caused delays, and State of Florida requirements. Nevertheless, work was not begun for nearly one year after the contract, contrary to the agreement, and only a minimal amount of work was done as of the date of the hearing. The Respondent moved out of the State of Florida in February of 1982, without notifying Edwin Schmid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Paul K. Scapecchi be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(e), (f), (h), (j) and (k), Florida Statutes, and that licenses numbered RG 0015926 and RC 0031048 held by Paul K. Scapecchi be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 27th day of September, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul K. Scapecchi 133F 25th Court, N.W. Birmingham, Alabama 35215 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 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 parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and held license number CG- C016730. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Bilo Homes, Inc. (Bilo), a corporation engaged in Florida in the business of general contracting with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Huston resided at 29843 S.W. 149th court, Leisure City, Florida. On February 24, 1988, the Hustons contracted with Bilo to build an addition to their house for the sum of $20,000 pursuant to plans and specifications that had been prepared by an architect. The Hustons' existing house was valued between $30,000-$40,000. The contract called for a one-story room addition to be built on a concrete slab with stucco exterior and sheet rock interior. The addition was to have a sliding glass door and was to be connected to the existing structure by a tie beam. The roof of the existing house was to be reshingled to match the shingles on the addition. The project also involved electrical work and plumbing work. The contract was signed on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, and work began on Friday, February 26, 1988. The contract did not specify a time for the completion of the project. The following draw schedule was agreed to by the Hustons and Bilo: 20% of the contract price upon the acceptance of the contract by the Hustons; 10% of the contract price upon the pouring of the concrete slab; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the tie beam: 20% of the contract price upon the drying in of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the completion of the rough mechanical work; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the shingling of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the installation of the plumbing fixtures;; 10% of the contract price (the balance) upon completion of the job. The Hustons made payments to Bilo in the total amount of $14,000.00. These payments were broken down as follows: $4,000.00 paid on February 24, 1988, upon acceptance of the contract; $2,000.00 paid on March 22, 1988, upon the pouring of the concrete slab; $2,000.00 paid on April 5, 1988, upon the completion of the tie beam; $4,000.00 paid on April 18, 1988, upon the drying in of the roof; and $2,000.00 paid on June 25, 1988, upon the completion of the shingling of the roof. Before June 25, 1988, Respondent had asked the Hustons for the draw due upon completion of the rough mechanical work in addition to the draw due upon completion of the shingling. The Hustons refused to pay both draws because they were dissatisfied with the quality of Bilo's work. The Hustons engaged the services of a lawyer and, on June 29, 1988, presented Respondent with a list of items they wanted corrected before paying the draw for the rough mechanical work. Respondent and the Hustons disagreed as to when the items on the list should be corrected. Respondent contended that the items could have been corrected as part of the punch list prior to the final payment. The Hustons contended that the items should be corrected before Respondent received any further draws. This dispute is resolved by finding that while several of the items on the list could have been corrected as part of the final punch list, there were items on the list that should have been corrected by Respondent before he proceeded. Considering the very poor quality of work that went into this job, the Hustons were justified in their demand that Respondent make these corrections before receiving an additional draw. Respondent contends that the Hustons did not pay the draw for the rough mechanical work because they ran out of money. This contention is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. After the Hustons presented Respondent with the list and refused to pay the draw for the rough mechanical work, Bilo stopped work on the project. Bilo performed no work on the project after June 29, 1988. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired K & H Plumbing as the subcontractors to the plumbing work on the Huston job. K & H Plumbing's work failed to pass a Metro Dade County tub and water pipe inspection because the work did not meet the South Florida Building Code. K & H never completed its work on the Huston addition and no final inspection of its work was approved. K & H Plumbing filed suit against the Hustons for the unpaid portion of their contract with Bilo. In addition, K & H Plumbing failed to properly replace wood decking which it had pulled up during the course of its work on the Huston job. Respondent had received funds which1 should have been used to pay K & H. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired Tom Mentelos to perform the electrical subcontracting work on the Huston addition. The work performed, by Mentelos was substandard. His work failed to pass inspection by the Metro Dade County Building and Zoning Department on six different occasions. In addition to this substandard work, one of Mentelos' employees cracked the Huston's kitchen ceiling while working in the attic over the existing portion of the house. This crack was never corrected by Mentelos or by Bilo. Mentelos never completed his work on the Huston addition, although he was never fired by the Hustons. Mentelos filed a claim of lien against the Hustons in he amount of $2,000.00. The first claim of lien was released and Mentelos filed a second claim of lien against the Hustons in the amount of $2,623.00. Respondent had received funds which should have been used to pay Mentelos. Respondent obtained the roofing permit to build the new roof on the Huston addition and to reroof the existing roof. The roofing work involved a process commonly referred to as "hot mopping", a process which requires the services of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent exceeded the scope of his licensure by engaging in hot mopping. Bilo's employees punched two unnecessary vent pipes through the roof and placed a flat piece of PVC material around the vent holes to keep the, roof from leaking. This is an improper and unacceptable construction practice. Bilo's employees damaged the existing screen porch while working on the roof. The metal flashing which connected the existing roof to the aluminum screen porch was taken off but was never replaced. As a result, the screen porch leaked, a problem that had not been corrected as of the time of the final hearing. While Bilo's employees were working on the roof of the existing structure, a rainstorm occurred which resulted in water stains to the ceiling of the Hustons' main structure. The workmen were not supervised by Respondent and were unprepared for the rain. Other than the water stains, no damage was done to the ceiling. To repair the ceiling stains would require a chemical coating, followed by repainting of the ceiling. The cost of the repair would be approximately $75.00. Bilo engaged in poor construction practice in constructing the exterior wall by facing the poorer grade side of the exterior plywood toward the outside as opposed to inside. The better construction practice is to place the poorer grade side toward the inside where it will not be exposed to view. There is a gap in the area where the metal flashing comes down the exterior side of the end gable and meets the top of the roof. In the work performed by Bilo, the piece of sheathing was above the bottom of the sill plate which caused a gap from one inch to five inches over a distance between eight and ten feet. This gap is a source of potential leaks. Bilo attempted to cover the v-notch in the area of the gag with tar pitch in an attempt to correct this deficiency. Both the gap and the attempted repair are unacceptable construction practices. Bilo had not cut vents in the soffits at the time it stopped work on the project. Without vent holes in the soffits, the job would have not passed inspection. Bilo could have, at little expense, cut the soffit vents at a later point in the job. The end member of the frame for the partition wall between the laundry room and the masonry wall is not pressure- treated wood. The South Florida Building Code requires that the wood used for the end member of such construction be pressure treated or that there be a barrier between the end member and the adjoining wall. Here, Bilo failed to exercise either acceptable option, and, consequently performed work that failed to comport with acceptable construction practices and did not meet code. The manner in which Bilo supported the timber girder that supports the roof trusses fails to meet code because the tie beam, into which this girder is pocketed for support, is improperly supported. A hole was knocked in the cement block wall that supported the tie beam when a plumbing vent was redirected. As a result of this hole, the tie beam rests on only approximately two inches of concrete, which is inadequate to support the tie beam and the timber girder. This work fails to comport with acceptable construction practices. Bilo failed to brace the roof trusses as required by the plans and specifications of the architect. This is an unacceptable construction practiced. Bilo cut into the roof truss without authority from the truss manufacturer or from a qualified engineer. Cutting into a truss can impair its structural integrity and is a violation of code. Respondent maintained at hearing that he would have been able to get approval from the truss manufacturer for the modification of the truss caused by the cut. Respondent did not have such approval as of the time of the final hearing, and there was no evidence, other than his unilateral expectation, to support this contention. The facia board on the eaves did not join properly because Bilo's workmen did not take the time to properly cut the boards with the aid of a square. Although this is a matter that could be corrected for approximately $25.00, this work, along with the other deficiencies detailed herein, demonstrates the substandard work that went into this project and establishes that Bilo failed to provide its workmen adequate supervision or adequate training. At hearing, there was a dispute as to how much time Respondent personally spent at the Huston job site. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent was personally on the job site for at least 30 minutes on days when work was progressing. When major items were being performed on the job, he spent more time on the job site. When minor work was being done, Respondent did not go to the job site on a daily basis. Regardless of the number of minutes or hours that Respondent spent on the job site, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent failed to properly supervise his workmen in light of the low level of skill the workmen exhibited throughout the job. Respondent had the responsibility as the general contractor to properly supervise his workmen and his subcontractors. He failed to perform that responsibility. As of the final hearing, the Huston addition remained uncompleted. At the time of the work stoppage, it would have cost the Hustons more than $6,600 to complete the job, the difference between the contract price and the amount that the Hustons had paid Respondent. The evidence was clear that the Hustons had incurred damages as a result of their dealings with Respondent. The amount of those damages were not established with any degree of certainty. On or about July 15, 1988, Respondent filed a claim of lien against the Hustons' property claiming that Bilo was owed $8,350 for the work that had been done. Respondent has been a certified general contractor for fifteen years and has been certified as a general contractor in the State of Florida since 1980. Respondent's licensure had not been disciplined prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(h), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes, which imposes administrative fines in the amount of total amount of $5,000 for such violations, and which suspends his licensure as a general contractor for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0765 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings in Section VI (A) are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made. (Section VI (A) pertains to facts established through Respondent's failure to respond to Request for Admissions.) The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 5 - 10 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made or are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraphs 11, 19, and 25 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraph 12, 26, and 27 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 20 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 19, 27, and 30 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 32, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 11 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 14, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 34 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: regory A. Victor, Esquire 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a residential contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CR C022406, and was the licensed contractor qualifying Rothberg Homes, Inc. On or about May 21, 1986, the Respondent entered into a contract to build Mr. and Mrs. Frank Sargent a new home in Palm Harbor, Florida, for $95,670. The home was to be completed before November 15, 1986, so that the Sargents could qualify for a lower interest rate. The Respondent relied heavily on his construction superintendent, Frank Jackson, to accomplish the work in a timely and workmanlike manner. The Respondent was responsible primarily for selling contracts and for taking care of the company finances. To comply with the technical requirements of the contract, the Respondent had construction begin in July, 1986, with the clearing of the lot. But foundation footers were not dug and poured until about a month later, and construction proceeded at a slow pace (then it went on at all.) The Sargents registered numerous complaints to Jackson about the slow pace and some complaints to the Respondent about Jackson, but nothing was done to speed construction along. In October, 1986, the Sargents, who were on the job site daily, began hearing complaints from suppliers and subcontractors that the Respondent was slow paying them but was told that he eventually was coming through with the payments due. By November, the Respondent was not making payments at all in some cases. Also in October and November, Jackson was in the process of opening his own business (not construction-related) and was devoting less and less time to the Sargent job. November 15, 1986, approached, and it became obvious that the deadline would not be met. The Sargents and the Respondent met and agreed to extend the deadline one month to December 16. On December 11th, the Sargents again reminded the Respondent of the deadline and its importance to them, but the December 16 deadline also came and went with the house only about 70 percent complete. In December, Jackson quit altogether. The Sargents complained to the Respondent, who promised to replace Jackson but never did. Because the Respondent had stopped paying subs and suppliers, they refused to do any more work, and the Sargents wound up having to pay some of them out of their own pockets in order for work to continue. In March 1987, some of the subs and suppliers also filed claims of liens for unpaid work which the Sargents had to clear out of their own pockets in order to close the purchase of the house. Mr. Sargent himself did some of the work, some of which would have been warranty work if the Respondent had paid his bills on time, to save some additional expense caused by the Respondent's failure to keep current on his accounts with the subs and suppliers and to avoid some of the additional hassle of trying to persuade an unpaid sub or supplier to do warranty work. On March 16, 1987, the Sargents met with the Respondent to arrive at an accounting for purposes of the upcoming closing. They agreed that the Sargents should receive the last construction loan draw of about $9,500 to compensate them for payments they made that should have been made by the Respondent and that the Respondent still owed them $6,000, which the parties agreed would be the subject of a promissory note from the Respondent to the Sargents. (This does not even account for the Sargents being shortchanged when a three-foot roof overhang for which they had contracted turned out to be only a two-foot overhang.) The Respondent has paid the promissory note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Daniel S. Rothberg, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Daniel S. Rothberg 624 Charisma Drive Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Daniel S. Rothberg 196 Mayfair Circle Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Warren A. Wilson, III, Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Floyd M. Cardin holds a license as a building contractor, having been issued license No. CB C033326. On December 17, 1986, Cardin used this license to become the qualifying agent (QA) for American Screen and Awning. On December 29, 1986, Liz Peters and Robert Turbert entered into a contract with American Construction Company for extensive renovation on their existing home. This contract was slightly amended by an addendum dated January 15, 1987. Both of these contract documents bear the license number of Cardin. It appears that the parties all treated American Construction Company and American Screen and Awning as the same entity. However Cardin testified that he was never the QA for American Construction Company. The contract was signed by Jerry Fries, a salesman for American Construction Company who did all of the negotiating and contracting with Peters and Turbert. Cardin never saw a copy of the final contract between American Construction Company and Peters and Turbert. He was given an incomplete draft of the contract on an American Construction Company form with no price or cost stated by Fries. Based only on what Fries told him, on January 6, 1987, Cardin applied for a building permit for the job. On the application Cardin listed the cost as $6,000, when in actuality the contract called for a cost of $22,765 plus $290.00 in the addendum. Cardin used his license number on the permit application and listed the company as American Screen. The permit was issued on January 6, 1987. Cardin understood that he was to oversee the work and ensure that it was done correctly. However, Fries and American Construction were to hire the subcontractors and order and purchase materials. Cardin began this job and two others at the same time. He acted as the QA for American Construction on all of these jobs. Problems began almost at the start of the Peters/Turbert job. Fries made promises to the homeowners which Cardin knew nothing of and which Cardin could not keep. Fries hired and fired the subcontractors with no supervision by Cardin. Cardin assumed the subcontractors would pull the necessary permits for the plumbing, electric and fireplace and would then call for the necessary inspections. This was never done. As a result, the fireplace does not meet code requirements and is hazardous and cannot be used. As the work slowly progressed, the homeowners complained more and more about construction deficiencies. Among the problems that were never corrected were the failure to level the house, the failure to have the rooms be plumb and square, the failure to correct leaks which existed from the second week of construction, poor workmanship in the dry wall and plaster, and poor planning which resulted in a room that could not be used because the door could only open partially and the window edge was flush with the wall and couldn't be trimmed. Peters paid a deposit when the contract was signed. She paid the next draw on January 12, 1987, when Fries told her the job was roughed in. American Construction Company never completed enough work to get the next draw. In mid-March, 1987, Cardin discovered that American Screen and Awning was not paying the subcontractors as needed and was not purchasing the materials as needed to do this job. He also realized that he was being kept in the dark about the contract terms and that he had no control over the job. Cardin wrote the homeowners, assured them that he would see the job through to completion, and requested that all future payments be made payable to both him and American Screen Company. From mid-March until April 14, 1987, very little work was done on the Peters/Turbert job. Materials were not available because American Construction Company did not pay for them. Subcontractors complained to the homeowners that they had not been paid. Peters finally paid for the kitchen cabinets herself after American Construction's check bounced. Peters spent $6,000 of her own money to buy materials which were to have been covered by the contract. She also ended up paying $2,000 to have the house leveled, which should have been done by Cardin pursuant to the contract, and $1,375 to Winter's Plumbing, one of the subcontractors, to have the plumbing work completed and hooked up. This was also included in the original contract, but was never done by Cardin and American Construction Company. Cardin never finished the Peters/Turbert job because on April 17, 1987, he was ordered off the premises by the owner of American Construction Company. Peters was present and acquiesced in having Cardin removed since American Construction Company had another contractor, Bill Davis, who said he would repermit the job and complete it for American Construction Company. Cardin left the job on April 14, 1987, and cancelled the permits he had pulled for American Screen and Awning that same day. American Construction Company and Bill Davis never completed the job. Cardin did not actually file the necessary forms to cancel his license as the QA for American Screen and Awning until August, 1987. Cardin acknowledged at hearing that this was the first time he had been a QA for a company he did not own. He acknowledged that he should have known whether the subcontractors pulled the necessary permits and got the necessary inspections. He further acknowledged that as the QA, he was responsible for the job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order and therein: Dismiss the allegations involving Section 489.129(1)(j). Find Floyd M. Cardin guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d), (k), and (m). Place Cardin's license on probation under such appropriate terms and conditions as to ensure that Cardin will not violate the statutes in the future as they relate to the responsibilities of qualifying agents. Impose a fine of $250 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(d). Impose a fine of $250 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(k). Impose a fine of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(m). Require that all fines be paid prior to future contracting activities pursuant to Cardin's license. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 29th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0556 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Floyd M. Cardin Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2 + 3); 4(12); 5(15); 7(12)and 20(15). Proposed findings of fact 2, 6, 12-14, 18, 22-24, and 40 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. 3. Proposed findings of fact 3, 8-11, 15, 19, 29, 30, 34, 35, and 37-39 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 4. Proposed findings of fact 16, 17, 21, 25-28, 31-33, and 36 are irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph P. Mawhinney Attorney at Law 119 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Floyd M. Cardin, Pro Se 5052 Lourcy Road Jacksonville, Florida 32223 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
