Findings Of Fact The foregoing findings of fact 1, 2, and 3 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth anew. On January 8, 1987, the Respondent was found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(2), 489.129(3), and 489.129(1)(g) Florida Statutes, by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in DPR Case No. 60987, DOAH Case No. 88- 0002. The Respondent was not present at that Board meeting. He asserted this was due to lack of timely notice of the Board's meeting. Respondent was fined $1,000 by the Final Order of the aforementioned Board filed/served on February 20, 1987. The Respondent has failed to pay the fine. Respondent has not appealed the final order or fine. Respondent expressed himself at formal hearing as intending never to pay the lawfully imposed fine.
Conclusions The foregoing Conclusion of Law 14 is adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth anew. Respondent is charged with gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, for failure to pay his $1,000 fine pursuant to the Board's February 20, 1987 final order. However, Petitioner has cited no statutory or rule authority which labels a licensee's refusal to pay a fine or obey a final order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board as gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. (Emphasis supplied, see definition of "contracting" at Section 489.105, Florida Statutes). Without such authority, the factual allegations of the administrative complaint, although proved, support no conclusion that a statute or rule has been violated. Petitioner's recourse lies not in this forum but in enforcement, execution, and collection actions in Circuit court.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Construction Industry Licensing Board enter its final order dismissing the charge of a violation of Section 489.129(1)(m). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-0275, 88-0732 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF). DOAH CASE NO. 88-0275 Petitioner's PFOF have been accepted with certain modifications for greater clarity and to conform to the record as a whole. Respondent's Closing Statement is accepted in part in FOF 9. The remainder is rejected as mere argument or as based upon hearsay not properly in the record. DOAH CASE NO. 88-0732 Petitioner's PFOF have been accepted with certain modifications for greater clarity and to conform to the record as a whole. Respondent's Closing Statement is mere legal argument addressing the underlying facts of the previous final order finding Respondent guilty of certain violations and assessing a $1,000 fine. Absent a timely appeal, these matters are immaterial and rejected. These proposals are also rejected as mere argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 David L. Norris 3144 Northwest 39th Court Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33309 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James S. Stroz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC 0034849 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was first licensed in November, 1979, and at that time qualified under the name of Stroz Roofing. A change in status application was later filed to qualify Stroz Roofing, Inc., 13696 Exotica Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida. Although licensed as a roofing contractor, respondent's firm only performs work on wood shakes or shingles. He does not do hot roofs or flat roofs, which is another speciality in the roofing business. While working for a roofing firm in1979, Stroz became acquainted with Lacy Davis, an unlicensed individual who specialized in flat roof work. When Stroz started his own roofing company in 1983, he began contracting out the flat roof work to other licensed roofing contractors. Lacy Davis learned of this and approached Stroz offering his services on the flat roof work. Stroz knew Davis was unlicensed and would not initially hire him, but Davis gave him a business card of Henry Haywood, a licensed roofing contractor in Palm Beach County and explained he and Haywood were partners and that the work and permitting would be done under Haywood's license. In actuality, Haywood had not authorized Davis to use his business cards, or topull permits under his name. Indeed, Haywood had no knowledge of Davis' activities. Without verifying the truth of Davis' representations, and accepting them instead at face value, Stroz agreed to hire Davis to perform his flat roof work. Between January 20, 1983 and September 30, 1984, Stroz performed some twenty-one jobs using Davis for the flat roof work. At all times, Stroz was under the impression that the work was being done under Haywood's license and that his activities were lawful. Stroz made all checks for the work payable to Lacy Davis or Lacy Davis Roofing. He did this because Davis told him he frequently had difficulty reaching Haywood to cash the checks, and because the business bank account was in Davis' own name. A few of the checks carried a notation at the bottom that payment was for work by Haywood Roofing, but most made no reference to Haywood. Stroz pulled all permits on their jobs reflecting that Haywood Roofing was the licensed contractor. Of the twenty invoices given by Davis to Stroz for the twenty-one jobs, only four were on invoices printed with Haywood's name. The remainder had various other names including "Lacy Davis Roofing," "Lacy Davis" and "Lacy Davis and Benny Guy Roofing Contractors." None of these were licensed as roofing contractors by petitioner. In June, 1984, a member of Davis' crew was injured and it was discovered Davis had no insurance. Stroz's insurance paid the claim, but an investigation ultimately determined that Davis was unlicensed and had no authority to act on Haywood's behalf. This led to the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Respondent has fully cooperated with petitioner, and in fact voluntarily disclosed one job with Davis that petitioner's investigation had failed to uncover. He admits he was negligent in not checking out the representations of Davis, but he never intended to violate the law. No consumer was harmed in any way by Davis' work, and there are no complaints concerning the quality of the jobs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and that he be fined $500 to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order rendered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Jesse Bruce, Respondent herein, is a registered roofing contractor and has been issued license No. RC0022948. On September 2, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract to repair a roof at 3684 NW 29th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, for Ms. Beryl Babb for the sum of $485.00. Respondent admits that he commenced construction under the above-referenced contract without first having obtained a building permit. Respondent was paid in full under the contract by Ms. Babb on September 4, 1981. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, Respondent provided for a two-year warranty on the roof repairs. Within an approximate two-month period following the repairs by Respondent, Ms. Babb made repeated phone calls to Respondent's construction company to report complaints that she was having in that the roof and garage appeared to "leak more than it had leaked prior to the repairs." Ms. Babb made at least six telephone calls to Respondent's construction company to no avail. During November, 1981, Ms. Babb filed a civil complaint in small claims court and during January, 1982, Ms. Babb received a judgment against the Respondent for $300.00. 1/ Respondent ahs been a licensed and registered roofing contractor since October, 1974. Respondent acknowledged that he received complaints from Ms. Babb as was testified herein; however, he states that he was busy during the times in which the complaints were made, an further that he did not want to make repairs inasmuch as Ms. Babb had elected to file a civil complaint against him in small claims court. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he was obliged to return tot he Babb residence to make the repairs inasmuch as the complaints from Ms. Babb came during the two-year period in which the warranty for the roof repairs was in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jesse Bruce 721 NW 20th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed negligence in the practice of engineering as alleged in the amended administrative complaint filed by Petitioner and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was duly licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0023976. In September, 1992, Dade County passed and adopted an emergency ordinance amending the South Florida Building Code to handle the processing of construction permits and inspections created by the devastation of Hurricane Andrew. Section 6(e) of the Emergency Ordinance addressed roof repairs and required a minimum of six nails to be used for each shingle. By early 1993, Dade County Roofing Inspectors were severely overtaxed by the volume of work occasioned by Hurricane Andrew. To ensure more timely inspections, Dade County Officials approved the use of private practice architects and engineers to assist the county in making inspections and affirming code compliance. At all times pertinent to this case, Robert Brombach (the "Owner") was the owner of a residence (the "House") located at 8050 SW 92nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. In March 1993, the Owner hired Hytek Roofing to re-roof his residence because of damage from Hurricane Andrew. The re-roofing job was to begin on March 8, 1993 and was to be completed by March 23, 1993. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by All State Engineering & Testing Consultants, Inc. Hytek Roofing hired Respondent in his capacity as a special inspector for Dade County to perform the shingle inspection/final inspection for the re- roofing of the House. The roof of the House had two separate systems. The front and back of the roof were pitched sufficient to hold shingles. There was also a flat deck portion of the roof that had very little pitch. Prior to the repair work at issue in this case, this flat portion was hot mopped and tarred. Pursuant to the 1988 South Florida Building Code which was in effect at the time of this re-roofing job, composition shingles were not to be applied to roofs having an incline of less than 2 1/2 inches per foot. After it completed re-roofing the shingled section of the roof, Hytek contacted Respondent to do an inspection. On March 23, 1993, Respondent conducted a "shingle inspection/final inspection" of the roof and prepared a Daily Field Inspection Form (the "Inspection Form".) Respondent's Inspection Form states, "JOB DESCRIPTION: The entire roof completed as per the codes and specifications...INSPECTION RESULTS: Placement of shingles comply [sic] with the New South Florida Building Codes [sic] and Requirement." Respondent submitted his Inspection Form to the Metropolitan Dade County Building & Zoning Department. Subsequent to Respondent's inspection, Hytek Roofing applied shingles to the flat deck portion of the roof. After applying the shingles on the flat roof, Hytek contacted Dade County building officials to conduct a roof inspection. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Manuel Jimenez was a Metropolitan Dade County Building & Zoning Department Roofing Inspector. On March 31, 1993, Jimenez conducted an inspection of the House's roof. During his inspection, Inspector Jimenez performed a spot check of the roof on the front part of the House. All of the 20-30 shingles he examined in the selected area did not comply with the six nail Dade County code requirement. In fact, all of them were found to contain only three (3) nails a piece. In addition, some of the nails were above the tar strip. Jimenez also noted that the back of the roof did not appear to be properly laid. The back roof shingles were not laid in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations nor were they straight. After spot checking the front and back of the roof, Inspector Jimenez noticed the shingles on the flat portion at the rear of the House. Using a level, Inspector Jimenez measured the "pitch" on the flat roof as "one and one- quarter to twelve" instead of the code required minimum of "two and one-half to twelve." He concluded that the roof was in violation of the code because shingles were used on the flat roof which did not have an adequate pitch. On April 1, 1993, Jimenez issued a Summons to Hytek Roofing noting the above violations and requiring corrections including the re-nailing of shingles below the tar strip with six (6) nails per shingle, and the removal of the shingles from the flat roof. The county also required that the back of the roof be replaced. The Metro Dade Building & Zoning Roofing Inspections Checklist requires a shingle inspection to include an inspection of the tie-in to any flat roof. Because the flat deck portion of this roof was in the back, Respondent should have looked at the back of the roof in order to inspect the tie-in to the flat deck. Respondent introduced a number of form documents which reflect language used in the industry by Special Inspectors when certifying the completion of construction work. The standard language on those documents provides that by filling in the designated blanks, the Special Inspector asserts that the work, to the best of his knowledge or belief and professional judgment, is in substantial accordance with the approved plans and the South Florida Building Code. Respondent's Daily Field Inspection report was prepared on his company's letterhead, not a form document and contained Respondent's statement that the entire roof had been completed as per the codes and specifications. Respondent's report did not contain the qualifying language set forth on the forms presented at the hearing. In other words, Respondent did not qualify his statement or state the extent of his investigation leading to that statement. After considering all the evidence, it is concluded that Respondent's inspection was insufficient and that the conclusions set forth in his report were inaccurate. Moreover, at least some of the Code Violations cited by the county should have been detected by a reasonable inspection. Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent failed to utilize due care in the performance of his engineering duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Alberto Ramirez guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, impose an administrative fine of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, issue a reprimand, and place the license of Alberto Ramirez on probation for a period of two (2) years with such reasonable terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4312 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 8. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 6. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 13. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 21. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 21. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 22. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 22. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 23. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 24. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 25. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 8. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11 and 12. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 15. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16 and 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Subordinate to findings of fact 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 20. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 20. Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Dept of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe St, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Dept of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff Chief Attorney Dept of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Reydel (Sonny) Santos, Esq. Inter-American Law Center 10753 SW 104th Street Miami, FL 33176-8842
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since 1982, a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. He holds license number RC 0041149. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the licensed qualifying agent for Reinforcement Roofing and Painting Company (Reinforcement). On or about November 29, 1987, Reinforcement, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Wayne Leidecker in which it agreed, for $4,655.00, excluding permit fees and taxes, to replace the roof on Leidecker's residence, located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street in Miami, Florida. Shortly thereafter, Reinforcement obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department to perform the work specified in the contract. It then proceeded to begin work on the project. The felt underlayer of the new roof was improperly installed. Reinforcement laid the shingles over this improperly installed felt underlayer without first calling for a tin cap/anchor sheet inspection, in willful violation of the local building code. The result was a roof having a "wavy" appearance. To make matters worse, some of the shingles were not properly fastened to the roof deck. Furthermore, the metal eaves and gable drips were installed too close to the facie in violation of the local building code. The work on the Leidecker project, which was performed under the supervision of Respondent, was completed in January, 1988. The job, however, having been done in an incompetent manner, failed its final inspection. Efforts were subsequently made by Reinforcement, under the direction of Respondent, to correct the foregoing problems. These efforts were inadequate and unsuccessful. Consequently, the project was still unable to pass a final inspection. Leidecker was growing increasingly impatient. In the latter part of 1988, he had Charles H. Walton, the Vice-President of Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., examine the roof. Based upon his examination, Walton concluded, in a written report which he gave Leidecker, that "[d]ue to all of the above deficiencies, South Florida Building Code infractions and the waviness of the shingles, the only way that I can truthfully say that this roof can be properly corrected is to remove this existing shingle roof entirely to a smooth workable surface and reinstall a new 3-tab, 20 year type fungus resistant fiberglass shingle roof system, that meets all of the South Florida Building Code specifications and manufacturers' requirements." This was consistent with what Leidecker had been told by the building inspectors who had previously inspected the roof. Accordingly, after receiving Walton's report, Leidecker refused to allow Reinforcement to do any further patchwork on the roof. He expected Reinforcement to take the removal and reinstallation measures Walton had recommended in his written report. He would accept nothing less. By letter dated July 14, 1989, Respondent was informed that a formal hearing would be held before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) on the following four charges filed against him relating to the Leidecker project: Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3401.4(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the final roofing inspection required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3403.3(h)(2) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to imbed sheets of roofing felt without wrinkles or buckles as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3408.3(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to install metal eave and/or gable drips so the bottom of said metal drips did not touch facie and did [not] have the minimum of a one-half inch clearance from the structure as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 10-22(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, in that they did fail to fulfill their contractual obligation to honor a six (6) year warranty in connection with roofing work done on the residence located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The hearing on these charges was held as scheduled on August 10, 1989. The CTQB found Respondent guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 3 and not guilty of Charge The following penalties were imposed: Charge 1- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $1,000.00; Charge 2- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $250.00; and Charge 3- official letter of reprimand and a fine of $250.00. In addition, he was directed to pay $257.00 in administrative costs. On October 12, 1989, Respondent made another appearance before the CTQB. He made a request that the foregoing penalties be reduced. His request was granted. The CTQB "lifted" his suspension, but with the caveat that if he did not timely pay his fines the suspension would be reinstated. Respondent failed to make timely payment. As a result, his suspension was reinstated. Neither Reinforcement, nor Respondent in his individual capacity, has yet to take the measures necessary to correct the problems with the Leidecker roof that were caused by the shoddy work done under Respondent's inadequate supervision. Respondent has been disciplined on two separate, prior occasions by the Construction Industry Licensing Board for conduct unrelated to that which is the subject of the charges filed against him in the instant case. On February 12, 1986, the Board issued a final order in Case No. 0053301 imposing a $250.00 administrative fine upon Respondent. On June 16, 1988, in another case, Case No. 81135, the Board fined Respondent $500.00 for violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, charged in the instant amended administrative complaint and suspending Respondent's license for a period one year and imposing upon him a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990.
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Ronald E. Lotz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC0031773 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has been a licensed roofing contractor since February, 1978. His present address is 1650 Palm Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. In April, 1979 Lotz and Allen Hartwell entered into a contract whereby Lotz agreed to install a "new truss, and shingle roof" on Hartwell's house located at 4005 Northwest 19th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. The agreed upon price for the job was $1,225. As is relevant here, Lotz agreed, inter alia, that a "(n)ew exterior siding (would) be used on all gables". According to their agreement, Lotz was to purchase the plywood necessary to complete the work while Hartwell agreed to buy all their necessary materials. Section 6 of Marion County Ordinance 78-5, adopted on January 24, requires that a roofing permit be obtained on all jobs where the value of the work exceeds $100.00. Lotz did not obtain such a permit even though he conceded at the hearing that such a permit was required. Although the contract called for a new exterior side on all gables, Lotz did not install the same. Instead, he installed tongue and groove 3/4 inch boards which he felt were an adequate substitute. He discussed this with Hartwell at the time the job was performed and Hartwell did net object to this change in the contract. Hartwell, who filed a complaint against Lotz, was primarily dissatisfied with a wavy roof. However, that aspect of the job is not a part of this proceeding. The contract itself was modified by the parties a number of times. As a result, Lotz omitted certain requirements therein but added others without additional charge. In all, he was paid $1,125 for the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of failing to obtain a roofing permit in violation of Subsection 489.129(I)(d) Florida Statutes, and that he be given a public reprimand and fined $250. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Deaptment of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ron Lotz 1650 Palm Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor (RC- 0034055), building contractor (CB-C033206), and certified roofing contractor (CC-C035625). At the time of hearing, license RC-0034055 had expired and was no longer in effect. Although Petitioner introduced a "certification of licensure", executed by its custodian of records which purports to establish prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Respondent, said certification references license number CG-C024378. There is no documentation in the record to establish that Respondent has license number CG-C024378, and in any event if this is, in fact, his license, this case does not involve license number CG-C024378. The records' custodian was not present to testify or to be cross-examined, and therefore this apparent discrepancy in the certification is unexplained. Further, the only documentation introduced to support prior disciplinary action by the Board against one of Respondent's licenses, is a certified copy of an order dated August 7, 1985 (Case No. 0051210), but this case involves license RC-0034055, which expired in July 1987 and is no longer in effect. Therefore, it has not been established by evidence in this record that Respondent has previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board concerning his current valid licenses, CB- C033206 and CC-C035625. Respondent was the qualifying agent at all times material hereto, of Unique Construction, Inc., 1302 North Clearview Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On February 25, 1986, George Katsarelis entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his entire house at 6 Venetian Court, Tarpon Springs, Florida. Respondent was not present when the contract was executed, and had not met Katsarelis at the time work commenced on the job. Katsarelis specified to the salesman representing Unique Construction, Inc., that he wanted to be sure all required local permits were pulled for this job. Work on the Katsarelis roof began within only a few days of the execution of the sales contact. Crews from Unique Construction tore off approximately 80% of the Katsarelis roof before a City of Tarpon Springs building inspector stopped work on the job because no permit had been obtained. Thereafter, it took two days for Unique to put a temporary cover over Katsarelis' uncovered roof while a permit was being obtained. A permit was finally obtained on March 19, 1986, and the work was completed. Katsarelis paid Unique Construction, Inc., $7,000, the full contract amount, for reroofing of his home. Between February 25, 1986, and December 1987, Katsarelis had to repeatedly call Unique Construction since his roof leaked every time it rained. A ten foot ceiling section in his Florida room eventually caved in due to these leaks. In December 1987, Respondent came to Katsarelis' home for the first time and decided to reroof the whole house for a second time. No additional payment was required or made by Katsarelis for this second reroofing job. After a hard rain in April 1988 his roof again leaked, and within a week prior to hearing, Respondent made a third attempt to correct Katsarelis' leak problem. According to expert testimony and evidence offered at hearing by Owen Baynard, who was accepted as an expert in roofing, work performed by Unique Construction on the Katsarelis roof was incompetent and the result of a lack of proper supervision of the work crews by the qualifying agent, Respondent. The job fails to meet the standards of local building practices. There was improper and insufficient preparation of the roof surface, a lack of adequate adhesive, nailing, and mopping to meet Sections 101, 107, 109 and 113 of the Southern Standard Building Code Roof Coverings standards, applicable in this case. The only way to remedy Katsarelis' continuing leak problem is to completely redo all work done by Unique Construction on his roof, and completely reroof his house in a workmanlike manner. As qualifying agent for Unique, Respondent was responsible for beginning work on Katsarelis' roof without obtaining or assuring that someone else had obtained a local permit for the job. A permit was not posted on the site when this work began, in violation of local building code requirements. Respondent failed to obtain required local building department inspections on the job. Respondent's actions on the Katsarelis job, as qualifying agent and in actions taken personally on two occasions to correct continued leakage, were incompetent and of substandard quality. On December 17, 1986, Lawrence E. Burkett entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his home on 62nd Avenue, N.E., in St. Petersburg, Florida. Work commenced shortly after this contract was executed, and upon completion Burkett paid Unique $3,657, the contract amount. Respondent admits that leaks continued to exist in Burkett's roof for nine or ten months after Unique's crews worked on his roof. Finally, on September 16, 1986, Unique's crew replaced a section of roof and this corrected the leaking. In an attempt to correct or prevent damage from leakage, Unique's crews installed pans between Burkett's drop ceiling and the roof to catch water which was leaking into his Florida room. A permit was not posted on the Burkett job, but the record does not establish whether a local permit for this job was required to be posted. On or about February 23, 1987, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the United Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. However, no action was taken against his local certificate. This reprimand resulted from a roofing job performed by Respondent on the home of Gerald T. Minnick in late 1986. Repeated attempts by Respondent to correct leakage in the Minnick roof failed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's licenses numbered CB-C033206 and CC-C035625 for a period of six (6) months and imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; provided that after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Final Order if Respondent pays said fine in full, his license shall be immediately reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of August, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 116 East 3rd Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issues that were presented for disposition in the above-styled cases were whether Respondent committed certain alleged violations of Chapter 489, F.S. and if so what discipline is appropriate. As stated below, the parties stipulated to the violations, leaving only the issue of discipline to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Gordon Lee Cederberg is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0051346, by the State of Florida. At all times material Respondent was the licensed qualifier for Allied American Roofing Company and was responsible in such capacity for supervising its contracting activities. Allied American Roofing Company was dissolved on November 4, 1988. Stipulated Violations By stipulation, Respondent has admitted the following allegations of the amended administrative complaint in DOAH #91-8319: 3. CASE NO. 0106373 COUNT THREE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Michael Roberts on April 4, 1988 to reroof a home located at 530 Mason Street, Apopka, Florida. The contract price was $942.80 and was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the City of Apopka Building Department. By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, Apopka, Florida, by failing to obtain a permit and inspection is as required by that municipality. 4. CASE NO. 0107766 COUNT FOUR Respondent's license was under suspension by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board between August 10, 1988, and March 3, 1989. Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Nancy Wiegner on September 22, 1988, to reroof a home located at 15 Kentucky Street, St. Cloud, Florida. The contract price was $1,600.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent commenced work under the contract but failed to obtain a permit prior to commencing such work from the City of St. Cloud, Florida, and the municipality issued a stop order on the job. Respondent further engaged in contracting in a municipality where he had not registered. By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., in that he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), F.S., in that he engaged in contracting in a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida, where he had failed to comply with the local licensing requirements for the type of work covered by his registration. COUNT FIVE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida by failing to secure a permit as required by that municipality. COUNT SIX By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT SEVEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting. 8. CASE NO. 0112740 COUNT EIGHT Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Emma Smith on October 3, 1988 to reroof a home at 1911 Mullet Lake Park Road, Geneva, Seminole County, Florida. The contract price was $4,100.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof which continued to leak and caused damage to the home. Respondent has failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he was requested to do so. By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that the Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT NINE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT TEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor the written warranty described in paragraph twenty-six above. COUNT ELEVEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 12. CASE NO. 89-001674 COUNT TWELVE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Thelma Beck to reroof a home at 3910 Pineland Ridge Road, Orlando, Orange County, Florida on January 26, 1989 for a price of $2,270.00. Respondent accepted a $100.00 deposit for said job; the work was not begun and the $100.00 deposit was returned to Mrs. Beck. By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT THIRTEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT FOURTEEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Morris Remmers to reroof a home at 8719 Butternut Boulevard, Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on or about February 23, 1989. The contract price was $2,870.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department. By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded in a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT FIFTEEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT SIXTEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 17. CASE NO. 89-008737 COUNT SEVENTEEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Robert Speirs to reroof a dwelling at 2467 Fieldingwood Road, Maitland, Seminole County, Florida on or about October 14, 1988. The contract price was $3,600.00. Respondent proceeded to work the job but failed to obtain a permit and secure required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a water tight roof which continued to leak. Respondent failed to honor the three (3) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract although he was requested to do so. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT EIGHTEEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while license was suspended. COUNT NINETEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs forty-seven above. COUNTY TWENTY By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 21. CASE NO. 109636 COUNT TWENTY-ONE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Daniel J. Doherty to reroof a home at 225 Dover Wood Road, Fern Park, Seminole County, Florida on October 2, 1988, for the contract price of $3,590.00 which was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to construct a watertight roof, which contributed to water damage to the interior of Mr. Doherty's home. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract, although he was requested to do so. By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., by proceeding on the job without obtaining a local building department permit and inspections. COUNT TWENTY-TWO By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S. by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT TWENTY-THREE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his warranty as described in paragraph fifty-six above. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Gloria Viruet to reroof a home at 3010 (renumbered to 3007) Northwood Blvd., Orlando, Orange County, Florida on June 7, 1988. The contract price was $3,500.00. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without receiving a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department. The Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof and a leak developed after construction. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he has been requested to do so. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a County, to wit, Orange County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that County. COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting, by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs seventy. COUNTY TWENTY-NINE By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 28. CASE NO. 0108263 COUNT THIRTY Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with John E. Hultin to reroof a home located at 3610 Lakeview, Apopka, Florida on November 7, 1987. The contract price was $2,900.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly install a roof covering, violating Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roofing Coverings adopted by Seminole County and Seminole County Ordinance Section 40.51. The contract provided for a five (5) year labor warranty and a twenty (20) year material warranty. Respondent made several attempts to correct defects but has not fulfilled his warranty as the roof continued to leak. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that county. COUNT THIRTY-ONE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by installing the above described roof in a grossly negligent manner and in a manner which violated Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roof Covering, adopted by Seminole County and Seminole Ordinances Section 40.51. COUNT THIRTY-TWO By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practices of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described above. COUNT THIRTY-THREE By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. FACTS RELATED TO RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED MITIGATION Respondent has been engaged in the practice of roofing contracting for over twenty years. Prior to moving to Florida in 1983 his company worked in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana on large commercial jobs. In 1983 he was employed by the Disney company to do commercial roofing work. After licensure in Florida, Cederberg continued with large public works and commercial jobs in Florida. Sometime around 1988, after a disastrous reversal of fortune, the company filed for bankruptcy. Although he was utterly unfamiliar with the practice of residential roof contracting, particularly the demanding supervision involved, Gordon Cederberg began doing residential work. Around this same time Cederberg's wife left him and he was given custody of three children, ages three, six, and nine. He was emotionally distraught and obtained counseling and financial and other support from his church group. Cederberg's roofing contractor's license was suspended by the Construction Industry Licensing Board from August 1, 1988 to March 1, 1989, during which time he continued to work, due to financial pressures. Warranty work was not done due to his financial and emotional straits. According to Cederberg and his witnesses, he is in the process now of turning his life around. He operates on a smaller scale and is able to handle the work. He has one employee and has been able to avoid new complaints. He is still financially unable to provide restitution to the customers previously harmed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the parties' stipulation with regard to dismissals and admissions described above be accepted by the Board and that the following penalty be imposed: a) 1000.00 fine; one year suspension, with this penalty suspended during, and removed upon successful completion of, probation with an appropriate timetable for restitution and the requirement that appropriate continuing education courses are completed; and payment of costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 31st day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 William S. Cummins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack Snow, Esquire 407 Wekiva Spings Road, Suite 229 Longwood, FL 32779
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a registered roofing contractor with license number RC-0021643 and was acting as the qualifying agent for Poe Roof Company, Inc. The City of Coral Gables has adopted the South Florida Building Code which requires that a contractor obtain a building permit prior to commencing roof construction or repair. However, no permits is required when such work does not exceed $300 in value. If a roofing contractor fails to apply for a building permit the City is unable to conduct required inspections and is unaware of ongoing construction unless it is discovered by the City's code enforcement section. A Notice of Violation is issued when unpermitted construction activity is discovered, and the contractor is asked to "dry the roof in" to avoid the possibility of damage due to bad weather. All work is then stopped and the contractor must apply for a permit. On July 28, 1983 Poe Roof Company, Inc., submitted a proposal to reroof St. Mark's Lutheran Church which was accepted in March 1984 and work was begun. Construction was completed in June, 1984. Respondent did not apply for a permit for this job prior to the work commencing, and therefore required inspections were not made by the City. Respondent subsequently did apply for a permit on June 4, 1984. When a complaint from the church was received by the City about the work being performed, the City required Respondent to cut a "roof plug" so that it could be determined if the roof was being properly installed. No defects in the roof installation were discovered. The Church's representative had complained that Respondent did not properly supervise the installation and that the wrong roof tiles were used. The evidence presented does not establish that the wrong tiles were used, but it is evident that Respondent visited the job site infrequently, if at all. An investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation interviewed Respondent on July 5, 1984 and testified that Respondent admitted that he had never visited the job but simply supervised the reroofing from his office. The City of Coral Gables issued Notices of Violation against Poe Roof Company, Inc. on May 2, May 21 and July 11, 1984 for performing other roof work and repairs without the required permit. In these instances the value of each job exceeded $300, Respondent had not applied for a permit prior to the issuance of the Notice of Violation, and he was therefore assessed a double fee when he did submit applications on June 4, 1984 for the jobs associated with the Notices issued on May 2 and 21. He was also assessed a $100 fine by the City as a result of the Notice of Violation issued on July 11, 1984 for which he subsequently applied for a permit on September 26, 1984. In November, 1983 Respondent submitted a change of status application to the Construction Industry Licensing Board to change his license from inactive to active. Although he was designated as the applicants the license number for Roger Miller, owner of Poe Roof Company was shown on the application as well as on the check that accompanied the application. As a result of this error, Respondent's license was not changed to active status until July 9, 1984 when he was issued a 60 day temporary license to serve as qualifier for Poe Roof Company. Thus, when the work at St. Mark's Lutheran Church was taking place and two Notices of Violation were being issued on May 2 and 21, Respondent did not have an active license. His license was inactive when he subsequently applied for permits for these three jobs on June 4, 1984. Respondent knew his license was inactive since in defense he contends the City would not have issued permits to him if he had timely applied for them because he did not have an active license. The parties were given an opportunity to submit posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that a Final Order issue imposing an administrative fine of $750 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 10th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce M. Cease, Esquire 2720 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
