Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Roger L. Irven, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C027873. At all time material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, doing business as Irven Construction Company. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-0714 On about June 25, 1978, Respondent pled guilty and was adjudged guilty of the felony offense of wanton endangerment in the Circuit Court of Oldham County, Kentucky. On July 25, 1978, the Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years probation by the Oldham County Circuit Court. The Respondent was represented by counsel. Respondent was placed on probation with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the Respondent receive treatment in the infirmary for his epileptic condition. The Court ordered that the Respondent be hospitalized for four (4) months in the prison infirmary. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board received applications from the Respondent to take the certified contractor's examination on December 16, 1982, April 1, 1983, August 17, 1983 and December 7, 1983. On each application, Respondent answered in the negative indicating that he had never been convicted of any offenses in this state, or elsewhere, other than a traffic violation. Respondent took the Certified Contractor's Examination four (4) times. Respondent passed the examination on the fourth attempt. On March 14, 1984, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-3393 On November 1, 1984, the Respondent contracted with Kathy and Larry Evans, 5746 Wingate Drive, Orlando, Florida, to remodel their home at a cost of $6,700.00. On November 5, 1984, the Evans' paid Irven Construction $3,350.00 towards the contract price. The specifications for the remodeling work were prepared by Irven Construction. Mr. Evans was told by the salesman for Irven Construction that the remodeling would commence within fifteen (15) days of signing the contract and be completed within forty-five (45) days of the commencement, which amounted to sixty (60) days for total completion after signing the contract. No work was performed on the Evans project until December 19 or 20, 1984, when the windows were put in. The air conditioning duct work and heating elements were put in and the old oil furnace was removed. Respondent informed the Evanses that no work was done before this because he was ill. On January 3, 1985 Irven Construction entered into a contract with Central Air, Heating and Cooling, Inc. to perform air conditioning and heating work on the Evans' home at a cost of $3,195. A few days after entering into the contract, Central Air & Heating completed only the rough-in of the contracted work. The rough-in consisted of the installation of the heating and air conditioning ducts and the furnace installation, but not the installation of the condensing unit. Central Air & Heating was given cheeks for $1,278 by Irven Construction for the rough-in work it had completed. The checks were deposited by Central Air & Heating in its bank account, but were returned because insufficient funds were on deposit to cover them. Central Air & Heating notified Irven Construction about the returned checks; the Respondent stated that he would submit another check, but failed to do so. Because it was not paid by Irven Construction, Central Air & Heating sent a Notice to Owner to the Evanses. The Evanses also received a Notice to Owner from Window Works, Inc. for custom windows which had been ordered by Irven Construction, but never paid for. Window Works filed a lien for $600 against the Evans t property due to it not being paid for the custom windows. Subsequently, the Evanses were sued in civil court by Window Works for the amount owed under the lien. The Evanses were required to pay Window Works the amount owed plus other costs, totaling $1,800. Window Works was not paid because Respondent gave the money to one of his salesmen to buy the windows. The salesman, Nr. Renfuller, kept the money and put the windows on credit. At the time that Respondent wrote the check to Central Air & Heating, Respondent thought that there was enough money in his account to cover it. Nothing was done on the Evans project in accordance with the contract after the rough-in by Central Air & Heating. At the time of the cessation of the work, the Evans job was 60% complete and the value of the work completed was approximately $3,400. On December 12, 1984, Respondent contracted with Irving Bernstein, 1018 Matchlock Drive, Orlando, Florida, to build an enclosed porch for a price of $2,000. The Bernsteins discussed the completion date of the contract with the Respondent and his brother, Richard Irven. Bernstein was told that the remodeling would commence three (3) days after Irven Construction obtained the permit for the work and that the work would be completed within seven (7) days after that. Bernstein paid Irven $100 at the time of signing the contract. Before signing the contract, Respondent informed Bernstein that several sub-contractors were available to start the remodeling, and, that construction could start as soon as the contract was signed. After signing the contract, no one immediately appeared from Irven Construction to perform the remodeling. Bernstein made several calls to Respondent and left several messages, seeking to obtain information as to when someone was coming to begin the remodeling work. When Bernstein spoke with the Respondent, the Respondent informed him that he had to obtain three (3) bids. On January 2, 1985, Bernstein paid Irven Construction $975.00, making his total payment $1,075. Respondent obtained the building permit for the Bernstein project on January 9, 1985. At the end of January, 1985, Respondent and his son arrived at the Bernstein residence to start the remodeling job. Respondent and his son worked approximately three (3) hours that day, putting in 2 x 4's around the sides. The following day, Respondent's brother and son worked on the project for approximately three (3) hours, removing some tiles off of the roof and the side molding from the house. When they left they stated that they would return the following Monday: however, no one came that Monday. That Monday morning, Bernstein called Irven Construction and spoke with Respondent's brother, Richard Irven. Respondent's brother informed Bernstein that Respondent had a bad back and that completion of the job would be delayed. Bernstein requested the return of his money, but no money was ever returned by Irven Construction. On February 21, 1984, Respondent wrote a letter to Bernstein indicating that he wanted off of the job since it appeared to him that Bernstein did not want him to finish. At the time of the cessation of work by Irven Construction, appoximately 50% of the work had en completed. Both Respondent and Bernstein believed that there was a breach of contract by the other. Bernstein contracted with another contractor, Mark Spires Construction Company, to perform the remodeling work. Bernstein's contract with Mark Spires involved more work than the contract with Respondent. Bernstein's contract with Respondent was for a simple porch close-in with no substantial roofing work. Spires Construction Company re-leveled the beams and reconstructed the 2 x 4's of the framework. To effectuate the two (2) walls envisioned by the contract of Respondent, the existing beams were to be utilized. The only thing that Respondent had to do was to tie into the existing house. The Respondent took off the top row of tiles on the roof so he could tie it in. The only improvements Respondent made to the existing roof was "ducking and drying-in". On January 14, 1985, Sam Ross entered into a contract with Irven Construction, to remodel his home's porch, at a cost of $1,550. Ross chose Irven Construction because Irven Construction had contracted to remodel the porch of his neighbor, Nr. Bernstein, and the cost of the Bernstein job sounded reasonable. Ross was informed by Irven Construction that they would be working on both his job and Bernstein's job at the same time. At the time of signing the contract, Ross paid Respondent $775. Ross discussed the commencement and completion of the project with Respondent's brother, Richard Irven. Ross was told that the work would commence within ten (10) days of the signing of the contract and would take about five (5) days thereafter for total completion. Irven Construction delivered some supplies to his home at the same time supplies were delivered to the Bernstein project site. Because commencement of work on the project was slow, Ross called Irven Construction numerous times concerning the work on his home. Respondent eventually assigned an individual named Nark Withlow to perform work on the Ross project. However, Ross did not want Withlow to work on the job because Ross felt that a certified carpenter was needed; Mark Withlow was qualified as a remodeler. Thereafter, Ross refused to allow anyone from Irven Construction to work on his home because of his dissatisfaction with Mark Withlow's assignment to his job and because he discovered the problems that Bernstein and Respondent were having. Ross requested the return of his money from Respondent. Respondent offered, by letter dated February 21, 1985, to refund $513. Ross did not respond to Respondent's letter because he wanted a full refund and felt that Respondent's offer was "ridiculous." Ross later contracted with Mark Spires Construction to perform the remodeling work, which was eventually completed. The materials left at the-project site were used by Mark Spires Construction. The value of the goods and materials which were delivered to and remained at the Ross project was between $50 and $80.00. Ross sued Irven Construction in civil court and obtained a judgment for the full amount he paid Respondent, plus court costs. Respondent was involved in an automobile accident on July 3, 1984. As a result of the accident, Respondent suffered severe head, shoulder and back injuries. In November of 1984, Respondent was hospitalized with a "trimmed disc"; in January, 1985, Respondent briefly returned to active participation in the business but reinjured his back while working on the Bernstein project. After the July 1984 accident Respondent provided little or no control or supervision to his business and was bed-ridden frequently from July 1984 to March, 1985. In addition, the automobile accident caused Respondent's seizures to return. Respondent has suffered from a seizure disorder, i.e. epilepsy, since 1975. Respondent was seizure free from 1979 to 1983. The type of seizure that the Respondent suffers from affects his memory and decision making and may last for several days following a seizure activity. Since the accident in July, 1984, Respondent has been taking medication for his back pain, i.e. Darvocet, and medication for his seizures, i.e. Tegretol, 200 mg. From August 29, 1984 to March, 1985, Respondent was having heavy seizure activity and frequented the Epileptic Foundation of Orlando for treatment at least once a month or every six weeks. He was advised by the Foundation to always take his medication and to be with someone. During the same period, he was treated by a Dr. Litchfield, a chiropractor, at least two to three times a week. The Respondent's ability to give effective directions or make decisions was impaired due to his physical problems from August 1984 to March 1985. In August or September, 1984, Davis Chaffee began working with Respondent as a salesman. After about ten (10) days to two (2) weeks as a salesman, Respondent allowed Chaffee to run the business due to the Respondent being bedridden most of the time and not being able to function as a result of the accident of July, 1984. Davis Chaffee had no construction background; his experience was in sales and business administration. To assist Chaffee in running the business, Respondent prepared an outline which included a basic scale for bids. James NcCall served as the superintendent for Irven Construction. Respondent felt that NcCall was competent to be superintendent as long as he was supervised by Respondent. After Respondent's accident of July, 1984, McCall handled all the construction aspects of the business including overall supervision of the project. McCall continued as the superintendent on the jobs, handled bids and proposals and dealt with the prints, materials and subcontractors for all the jobs. Despite Respondent's reservations about McCall's abilities, McCall was allowed to literally "run the business" because of Respondent's physical problems. Davis Chaffee had the authority to approve contracts and prepare bids without consulting McCall. Chaffee was fired by Respondent in December, 1984. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-4216 On September 27, 1984 Respondent contracted with Richard Loman to build an addition to Loman's residence at 783 Formosa Drive, Winter Park, Florida at a cost of approximately $20,000. Loman and Respondent discussed the commencement and completion date of the remodeling and Loman was told that the project would be completed within 45 days from approval of the plans and the signing of the contract. Loman paid Irven Construction $10,000 as a deposit, $500.00 on September 24, 1984 and $9,500 on October 2, 1984. In addition, Irven Construction received a contractor's draw of $3,333 on October 23, 1984 and $3,333 on November 5, 1984. As of November 5, 1984, the drywall, insulation, fixtures, toilet, vanity, heat and air, and the hot water heater remained to be completed. On January 16, 1985, the contract price was increased another $1,000 for additional electrical work which was requested by Loman. The work on the remodeling was progressing slowly and Loman repeatedly called Respondent to get someone out to complete the remodeling. Respondent repeatedly promised to send someone to complete the work. In February, 1985, a drywall person came out and completed the drywall. Loman received a letter dated February 1, 1985 from the Respondent. The letter indicated, among other things, that the Respondent was physically ill but had all intentions of complying with the contract and completing the remodeling and that he had a contractor who would contact Loman to arrange to complete the remodeling. Since the drywall person completed his work in February, 1985, no one has gone to the Loman's residence to complete the remodeling. No contractor has contacted Loman to arrange for the completion of the project and no money has been returned to Loman. At the time Irven Construction stopped work- on the Loman project, it was about 90% complete. Loman completed the job himself on June 1, 1985. Loman received, by certified mail, liens from Tillman's Plumbing and Jackson Drywall Service for the remodeling work done on his home under the contract with Respondent. Tillman's lien was $360 and Jackson Drywall's lien was $1,350. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-4246 On August 29, 1985, Irven Construction entered into a contract with Stephen Dubin and his wife to remodel their family/living room at a cost of $7,200. In accordance with the modified specifications, electrical lights and an electrical fan were installed. James McCall, Respondent's superintendent completed most, if not all, of the electrical work. The project was completed and Irven Construction was paid in full. The Seminole County Building Department's records show that a building permit for the Dubin project was applied for, approved, and assigned a permit number, but never issued because it was not picked up. The Building Department's records also showed that no electrical permit was applied for. Respondent was required by the Seminole County Building Code to obtain a building permit before commencing the remodeling. After a building permit is issued, periodic inspections of the project site are required. Without a building permit, there are no inspections by the Building Department. During this period, the Respondent was having personal problems with the employee that was responsible for picking up the permit. The Respondent was unaware that the employee had failed to properly perform his duties by picking up the permit. Respondent was ill during this period and had very little input into the Dubin project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's license be suspended for a period of four (4) years, with the condition that he may be eligible to apply to the Board for reinstatement after a period of two (2) years and upon a showing satisfactory to the Board that his financial affairs are in good and sound condition and that he is physically capable of carrying on a contractor's business. Further, for the purposes of such an application for reinstatement, Respondent shall be required to appear before the Board for such questions as the Board feels appropriate and shall supply the Board with such documents as the Board feels necessary. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stuart G. Green, Esquire 712 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801-2994 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Partially adopted in Findings of' Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34.I Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 111. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 114. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the Respondent (None submitted).
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be revoked or suspended, or some other discipline imposed, for the reasons alleged in a multi-count Administrative Complaint. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint may be summarized as follows: Count One--failure to properly qualify a company under which Respondent was doing business and acting in a name other than that on his license; Count Two--abandoning a construction project without just cause and willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable local building codes; Count Three-- diverting funds received for the completion of a specified construction project when as a result of the diversion the contractor is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on matters officially recognized, I make the following findings of fact: Admitted and stipulated facts The Respondent is a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C007067. The Respondent's last known address is DeMaria & Sons Construction Company, Inc., 4451 N.E. 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334. On July 14, 1982, Respondent, doing business as Big D Construction, contracted with Jolly Libo-on of 312 S.E. 22nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to build an addition to Libo- on's house for a contract price of $17,500.00. At all times material herein, Respondent qualified DeMaria & Sons Construction Company, Inc. At no time did Respondent properly qualify, nor did any licensed contractor properly qualify, Big D Construction. The Respondent began work on Libo-on's house on August 23, 1982, and continued construction until at least the last week of September of 1982. Libo-on has paid the Respondent $13,500.00 as called for by their contract. The following subcontractors or suppliers filed claims of lien against Libo-on's property because of Respondent's failure to pay them for services or supplies: Minute Men Associates, Inc. $1,752.47 Apachee Roofing 885.00 Meekins, Inc. 439.53 Greenlee Plumbing Service, Inc. 795.00 Total liens $3,862.00 7. The Respondent has not satisfied the liens filed against Libo-on's property, but the liens were later satisfied by Libo- on. Other relevant facts established by the evidence of record After September 27, 1982, the only work performed by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Libo-on residence was by employee Shawn Brannigan on November 16, 1982, and by employee Bob Walters on November 21, 1982. The work performed by Brannigan and Walters in November was de minimis in nature and did not significantly advance the completion of the contract. From September 27 through November 25, 1982, Libo-on called the Respondent by telephone on a daily basis to inquire about why no work was being done on the project. The Respondent would promise that someone would come the next day, but with the exception of the de minimis efforts on November 16 and 21, no work was done on the project after September 27, 1982, by or on behalf of the Respondent. Libo-on quit trying to make telephone calls to the Respondent after the Respondent told Libo-on on the telephone that he had reached a wrong number. The Respondent's services were terminated on December 7, 1982, via letter from Libo-on's attorney, Linn Brett. At no time prior to the termination of his services did the Respondent inform the Libo-ons that he could not do any more work nor did the Libo-ons dismiss him from the work at any earlier date. At the time Respondent's services were terminated, the addition was approximately 75 per cent completed. In addition to the subcontractors and suppliers listed in paragraph 6 above, the Respondent also failed to pay the sum of $2,393.00 which was due to International Drywall Systems, a subcontractor who provided services and supplies on the Libo-on project. Abandonment of a construction project constitutes a violation of Broward County Ordinance 78-9, Section 9-14(b)(8). Libo-on paid the lienors $3,441.00 in satisfaction of the liens. Libo-on contracted with Robert Hobart to finish the construction, at an additional cost of $4,000.00. Libo-on paid $2,200.00 for lawyers fees, $3,441.00 for liens, and $4,000.00 to Mr. Hobart. These costs minus the $4,000.00 remaining under the Respondent's contract resulted in Libo-on expending $5,641.00 above the original contract price. Of the $13,500.00 which was paid to him by Libo-on, the Respondent can establish that he spent only approximately $9,000.00 on the project. The Respondent was unable to complete the project because he did not have on hand the money to pay the subcontractors and suppliers.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of five years and providing further that the suspension will be reduced to one year upon the Respondent's demonstrating to the Board that he has made restitution to Libo-on in the amount of $5,641.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4450 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties to this case. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: The findings of fact included in this Recommended Order include the substance of all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner with certain minor modifications and additions in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The unnumbered paragraphs of the Respondent's letter of October 22, 1985, have comments, arguments, legal conclusions, and factual assertions all interspersed. Nothing in the letter constitutes a proposed finding of fact per se. Were it not for the fact that the Respondent is unrepresented by counsel, I would decline to attempt to address the issues raised in the Respondent's letter of October 22, 1985, due to both its tardiness and its failure to separately state proposed findings and proposed conclusions. Nevertheless, giving the Respondent more process than is perhaps his due, I have specifically ruled on each of the contentions which relates to factual matters and have also attempted to address his legal contentions. In the rulings below I have referred to the unnumbered paragraphs in the order in which they appear on each page of the letter. Page one, first paragraph: No ruling required. Page one, second paragraph: No ruling required. Page one, third paragraph: Respondent's version of the facts on this issue is rejected for several reasons, including the following: (1) competent substantial evidence supports the finding that from September 27 until December 7, 1982, only "token" or "de minimis" work was performed on the Libo-on project, and (2) the Respondent did not offer into evidence the documentation mentioned in this paragraph. Page one, fourth paragraph: There is competent substantial evidence for the Petitioner's version of the finding addressed by this paragraph. The Libo- on testimony on this subject is not hearsay. Page one, fifth paragraph: To the extent that in this paragraph the Respondent attempts to dispute the fact that he abandoned the Libo-on project, such a finding is rejected because the persuasive competent substantial evidence compels an opposite finding. Page one, sixth paragraph: With regard to the issue of the percentage of completion of the project at the time the Respondent abandoned it, there is conflicting evidence. The more persuasive evidence is that the project was approximately 75 percent completed. Page one, seventh paragraph (which also continues at top of page two): This paragraph contains a mixture of legal and factual contentions. With regard to the factual contentions it is sufficient to note that the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the amount paid to Hobart to finish the work on the Libo-on project was a reasonable amount because, in fact, it was exactly the same amount that remained to be paid to the Respondent on his unfinished contract. No one is trying to charge the Respondent for additional work that was not in his contract. The amount to which the Libo-ons are entitled in restitution is the sum of their expenses incurred for legal fees and for obtaining satisfaction of liens placed against their property because of the Respondent's failure to pay subcontractors and suppliers. Page two, first full paragraph: The Respondent's contentions in this paragraph are contrary to the persuasive competent substantial evidence. These contentions are also contrary to Respondent's admission at hearing that he could account for only approximately $9,000.00 of the $13,500.00 he was paid by the Libo-ons. Page two, second full paragraph: This paragraph requires no comment other than to note that there is a significant difference between imposing a fine and providing for a reduced suspension in the event of restitution. Page two, third full paragraph: Contrary to the Respondent's assertion, there is persuasive competent substantial evidence to establish the amount of the financial injury suffered by the Libo-ons as a result of the Respondent's misconduct. Page two, last paragraph: No ruling required. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Vincent A. DeMaria 4451 N.E. 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: During times material hereto, Respondent was a certified residential contractor having been issued license number CR C018874 since 1981. Respondent, during late 1986, was approached by a Mr. Marlar, owner of Pinellas Builders, who requested that Respondent affiliate with Pinellas Builders using his licensure to qualify Pinellas. Respondent tentatively agreed to a business arrangement with Marlar, however, prior to the time that Respondent formally qualified Pinellas, the negotiations broke down and Respondent never formally qualified Pinellas. During January, 1987, Pinellas entered into a contract with a customer, John Kane of Clearwater, Florida, to build an addition to Mr. Kane's residence for a sum of $33,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pinellas was required to obtain a permit to construct the addition to Kane's residence. Pinellas obtained the permit and utilized Respondent's license to do so. Kane encountered difficulty with Pinellas as the subcontractors were not paid and liens and/or notices of intent to file liens were placed on his home. Mr. Kane ultimately had to rehire the subcontractors and pay them directly resulting in an additional expenditure by Kane of approximately $10,000 over and above the amount that Pinellas agreed to complete the addition to his home. During June of 1987, Kane filed a complaint with Petitioner and in connection therewith, Petitioner's investigator, H. Dennis Force, spoke to Respondent via telephone respecting the fact that permits were being pulled under his name. Respondent was unaware that Pinellas was utilizing his name as a qualifier to obtain permits nor was Respondent aware that Pinellas had obtained contracts to perform work utilizing his name as the licensing authority. As a result of Investigator Force's conversations with Respondent, Respondent revoked the letter of authorization given to Marlar during April, 1987. Respondent distributed copies of the revocation of authorization given to Marlar to the various local cities in the surrounding area. Respondent acknowledges his liability as a qualifier and accepts that responsibility. Respondent is not presently affiliated with any corporate entity in that he prefers to work as an individual such that he can insure the quality which he strives for comes to reality. Mr. Kane acknowledges that he never saw Respondent on the jobsite and had never met him during any of the negotiations with Marlar (Pinellas). Respondent received no monies from Kane or any other persons who had entered dealings with Pinellas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a civil penalty of $500 payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days and issuing a written letter of reprimand to Respondent based on his authorization of an unlicensed person to use his name to obtain permits. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Aubrey E. Clark's license as a building contractor was first renewed in 1975 (Exhibit 2). He was so licensed at all times here relevant and has been a licensed building contractor for approximately nine years. In 1979 Clark was building homes for Development Corporation of Orlando (DCO) who was in the land-development business. He ran into difficulties in getting paid by DCO and agreed to take over the home building on his own with the company selling the lot and Clark building the home. At this time he was doing business as A & L Builders. A & L Builders was not incorporated and Clark, who held a building contractor's license, was simply doing business as A & L Builders. Subsequently, and during the time material to these charges, A & L Builders became incorporated. Clark remained the licensed building contractor who pulled the permits for construction but failed to license the corporation. At the time Clark was doing business as A & L Builders there was no legal entity but himself, and A & L Builders did not require a license. Clark failed to recognize or understand the different legal entities created when A & L Builders, Inc., came into existence and required licensing. Respondent had completed some 50 to 60 homes in the subdivision and had approximately 20 under construction, including those of the two complaining witnesses, when he suffered a stroke on March 21, 1981, and was placed in intensive care for 21 days followed by another eight days in the hospital before being able to leave the hospital. In addition to the stroke, he had a dilated left ventricle to his heart. While Clark was in the hospital the foreman he had employed to supervise the construction quit. Clark's brother, a trim carpenter, came to the job site to keep the projects going but did not have sufficient experience to properly schedule the subcontractors and get them on the job when needed. When Clark was released from the hospital he had someone drive him to the job site where he attempted to get things in proper order. After a few hours on the site he collapsed and had to be taken home and put to bed. The following day he again tried to go to the job site but his physical condition would not allow him to even supervise at the site. His doctor told him that if he did not stay away from the job site for at least six months to one year he could have another stroke and perhaps suffer permanent paralysis. A & L Builders, Inc., contracted to build a home for the Haineses for $33,450, of which $31,750 was to be paid in progress payments as the construction of the home progressed (Exhibit 3). At the time of Clark's stroke A & L Builders had drawn some $24,163 (Exhibit 5) under this draw schedule. After Clark was unable to complete the residence, Haines contracted with Lifestyle Pool & Construction to complete the residence in accordance with specifications for $7,624 (Exhibit 6) This was almost exactly the amount remaining in the construction loan for this house. A & L Builders contracted with Kelly to build a home for $44,475 (Exhibit 11) , of which $42,250 was to be paid to A & L Builders in progress payments (Exhibit 11). At the time Respondent became unable to complete this contract he had drawn slightly more than $30,000 (Exhibit 16). This contract further provided that the seller would pay discount points on mortgage loan up to three points. After Clark became ill Kelly ultimately had to pay these points. When A & L Builders abandoned the site, the bank arranged with Kelly to enter into a contract with another builder to complete the project. Kelly entered into a contract with Winchester (Exhibit 17) on July 3, 1981, and the home was finished with a total cost to Kelly about the same as it would have been had the home been completed by A & L Builders. Clark testified that he could have completed the Kelly house in accordance with the contract for an amount significantly less than Winchester was paid. Liens were placed on both Haines' and Kelly's houses by subcontractors and material men. However, none of these lienors brought action against either Kelly or Haines and all considered the amounts represented by these liens to be owed to them by Clark. At the time of the hearing all of these liens had lapsed and were no longer valid liens against the property of Haines and Kelly. Clark considers these debts represented by these liens to be debts he owes and which he expects to repay some day. He has not filed bankruptcy proceedings although during the time he was unable to work up until the time of this hearing his liabilities far exceeded his assets. Respondent did not keep separate bank accounts for each house he had under construction in the project. Draws received from the Kelly contract, for example, were placed in the A & L Builders, Inc., bank account and checks were written on this account to pay for labor and materials used on all of the houses under construction in this project. No evidence was presented that such funds were used on any project outside the subdivision of homes Respondent had contracted to build.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact During the applicable time period, the Respondent was a certified building contractor in the state of Florida and held license number CB C026049. On or about January 6, 1986, the Respondent was hired by West Coast Remodeling & Construction Company. The Respondent was hired as an employee to supervise a building project based on a contract between West Coast and Clarence Harrod for the building of a quadriplex in Rotunda West, Florida. On January 17, 1986, the Respondent applied for a building permit for the Harrod project. The Respondent represented on the permit that he was the builder on the project instead of West Coast, who had the written contract with Harrod. Neither of the principals in West Coast, Gunnar Jacobsen or Gerald Hanley, held a building contractor's license and a licensed contractor was necessary to obtain the permit for the project. After the application for the permit was completed, but before the building permit was issued, the Respondent received a document from West Coast evidencing that the Harrod contract was assigned to him as an individual. At the time the Charlotte County Building Permit was actually issued, the Respondent was the assignee of the Harrod contract. Although the assignment was in effect on January 22, 1986, West Coast continued to receive the funds from Mr. Clarence Harrod, who was not notified of the assignment of the contract. The Respondent either allowed or acquiesced in the continued management of the project and the building funds by West Coast until April 15, 1986. Sometime between January 17, 1986, and January 31, 1986, the Respondent became a shareholder in West Coast. By April of 1986, the Respondent was a corporate officer and had a one-third interest in the corporation. The corporation had three shareholders: the Respondent, Gunnar Jacobsen, and Gerald Hanley. Although all three men were corporate officers, the Respondent was to supervise new construction projects, Jacobsen was to handle administrative affairs and solicit new work, and Hanley was to supervise the remodeling jobs obtained by Jacobsen. In April of 1986, the Respondent determined that there were insufficient funds in the corporate accounts to complete the Harrod project if overhead costs were not reduced immediately. This insight was acquired by the Respondent around the same time the following events occurred: A. Mr. Harrod complained in early April that the job was taking too long. The project was still in the framing stage, and Mr. Harrod was asked for $15,000 of the $25,184.44 draw which was set aside in the contract for the drywall phase of the project. B. Smaller projects that West Coast had in progress, such as three concrete jobs, were found to be unprofitable by the principals in the company. C. Jacobsen was complaining to the Respondent and Hanley, the other two corporate officers, that framing costs were too high on the Harrod project. D. The Respondent and Hanley had decided, between themselves, that Jacobsen was not earning his salary with the corporation because he was not acquiring the new remodeling jobs for the company that he was supposed to under their business arrangements. On April 15, 1986, Hanley and the Respondent locked Jacobsen out of the corporate offices and removed all the money in the corporate accounts, including the money involved in the Harrod project. On April 22, 1986, an agreement was signed by Jacobsen, Hanley, and Respondent which dissolved their business relationships. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondent resigned his position as an officer in West Coast and assigned his stock in the corporation to Jacobsen. The Respondent and Hanley were also required to make an accounting of the corporate funds removed from the corporate accounts on April 15, 1986. The agreement does not reveal whether the Harrod project was to remain with West Coast or the Respondent. However, the project did remain with West Coast, and the Respondent contacted the Charlotte County Building Department to remove his name from the building permit effective 8:00 a.m., April 23, 1986. When the business relationship between the corporate principals was dissolving in April, the Respondent had contact with Mr. Clarence Harrod. He did not tell the owner about the assignment of the contract to him on January 22, 1986, nor did he advise the owner of the cost overruns which he now asserts were a reason for his resignation from the corporation. The documents attached to the April 22, 1986, agreement reveal that the Respondent was aware of the need for two releases of lien totalling $40,185 on the Harrod project at the time he left the corporation and allowed the corporation to take back and continue with the Harrod project. The Respondent appears to have commingled corporate funds with the Harrod project funds when the funds were under his and Hanley's joint control. During the seven days the Respondent and Hanley had joint control of the $11,611.88 seized from West Coast, the Respondent was paid $2,026.30 and Hanley was paid $2,633. On April 22, 1986, $5,281.97 was returned to West Coast with a list of acknowledged outstanding bills totalling $1,711.17. During the period of time between the assignment of the Harrod project to the Respondent on January 22, 1986, and the takeover of the project by West Coast on April 22, 1986, the Respondent accepted his legal responsibilities as a licensed contractor only on the occasions where it best served his most immediate personal interests.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent undertook to act as a contractor without a license as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 20.165, the Division of Professions is a subordinate unit of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department). The Department provides administrative support, including prosecutorial support to the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board), which is also located within the Department. Mr. Grandmont is not currently licensed as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in this state, nor has he ever been licensed by the Board. Mr. Grandmont's last known address is 355 China Berry Circle, Davenport, Florida. He was provided notice of the hearing at that address, and at 7733 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28210, which is the address he used when demanding a hearing on disputed facts in two of these cases. In DOAH Case No. 06-3279, he provided no address in his demand for a hearing. All attempts by U. S. Mail to notify Mr. Grandmont of the hearing, were returned. Mr. Grandmont is deemed to have known of the time, date, and place of the hearing, and is deemed to have waived his appearance at the hearing. On November 11, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Robert L. Coe, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged mobile home. He provided a written estimate of $10,500. The estimate contained a list of 11 items requiring repair, and stated that he would accomplish the repair of them. He demanded a $4,200 down payment, which Mr. Coe provided in a draft drawn on Fidelity Cash Reserves, and dated November 11, 2005. Mr. Coe never saw Mr. Grandmont again. The repairs set forth in the written estimate were not accomplished. The draft, however, was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont. On November 12, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Joseph Webster, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged residence. Mr. Grandmont discussed charging $13,500 in return for repairing Mr. Webster's residence. After negotiations, Mr. Grandmont agreed to do it for $11,500. No written estimate or contract was prepared. Mr. Grandmont demanded $5,750 payment in advance. Mr. Webster rounded off the down payment to $6,000 and presented Mr. Grandmont an official check of the Taunton Federal Credit Union, of Taunton, Massachusetts, for that amount. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the promised repairs were not accomplished. On November 4, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Ella Arseneau, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to replace her roof. He provided an estimate of $5,500 in return for repairing Ms. Arseneau's residence. He demanded that she pay $3,500 in advance, which Ms. Arseneau provided by presenting Mr. Grandmont a check for $3,500, drawn on an account in Wachovia Bank. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the roof was not repaired as promised. Mr. Coe is 78 years of age, Mr. Webster is 85, and Ms. Arseneau is 77.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation impose a fine upon Clifford Grandmont in the amount of $30,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Clifford Grandmont 7733 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Simone Marstiller, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
