Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board dismiss the Respondent from further responsibility to answer to the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John W. Tanner, Esquire Suite One. 434 N. Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue Whether the Respondent was validly disciplined by a local government, which causes the Respondent to be in violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent failed to perform the contracting job alleged in the Administrative Complaint in a reasonably timely manner, or abandoned the job, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), (k), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent exhibited financial mismanagement, misconduct or diversion, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), (m), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in connection with the job alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1985).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Charles R. Schelah was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C016841. Mr. Schelah was the qualifying agent for Schelah Construction, Inc. On March 11, 1986, Schelah Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Moner F. Green and Karen L. Green to construct a residence in Prairie Creek Park, Charlotte County, Florida A copy of the contract is Petitioner's Exhibit Pursuant to the written agreement, construction would occur as per the signed construction drawings. The total contract price was to be $102,775.00. This quote was contingent upon a construction start on or before March 15, 1986. After that date, increases in supply and labor costs would be borne by the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Green. The contract further stated that there is no specific completion date, that an expected completion date was August 30, 1986. Construction began on the residence on April 4, 1986. Three revisions of the drawings were completed by the owner before a building permit was requested by the Respondent Schelah. Throughout the progress of construction, major and minor revisions were made by the owners. Many of these revisions delayed construction as the Respondent was required to obtain new special order materials and retrofit many of the changes into the existing construction phase. The Respondent recollected that thirty-five revisions were made to the construction plans by the owners during various phases of construction. In September 1986, the owners began to frequently telephone the Respondent in order to urge him to quickly complete the project as the owners were now required to pay the savings and loan association mortgage installments. The Respondent did not return the telephone calls. A letter was sent to the Respondent by the owners' attorney on November 3, 1986, notifying him that he needed to resume his responsibilities at the construction site. The Respondent did not reply to this letter. On November 7, 1986, the Respondent was removed as contractor of record by the owners. All but the final draw from the savings and loan had been given to the Respondent before his removal. After the Respondent was removed from the project, the owners were given notice of the following liens: $2,750.55 to Pre-Hung Doors of Florida for supplies delivered in August 1986; $700.00 to Paul Hartt Plastering and Stucco, Inc. for work completed in September 1986. The work completed by both subcontractors was performed during the Respondent's term as the prime contractor on the project. These two contractors were never paid by the Respondent out of draws received by him for that purpose through October 1986. These subcontractors, as well as others, testified that they were unable to communicate with Respondent after September 1986. The final draw from the savings and loan in the amount of $19,618.97, was used by the owners to complete the project themselves. The proof of payment submitted by the owner, Mr. Green, at hearing for completion under the direct contract was $6,149.14, in Respondent's Exhibit 14. The residence was completed by the owners in December 1986. Mr. Green, the owner, filed a complaint with the Charlotte County Building Board on October 29, 1986, alleging that the Respondent refused to call him, and was dragging completion of the job for unknown reasons hearing was held on February 19, 1987. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Charlotte County Building board suspended the permitting privileges of Schelah Construction, Inc., until such time as all jobs in progress were finished. During the administrative hearing, the Respondent admitted that a twenty-one day delay on the Green project occurred when he was unable to acquire a sheetrock hanger who would go to the hinterlands (Prairie Creek Park) where the residence was being built. He contends however, that the additional time delays were a result of changes in supply orders due to the changes made by the owners, and the requirement that subcontractors be rescheduled to accommodate these changes. Petitioner's experts in construction practices within Florida, Mr. Bernard Verse and Mr. Stanley Ink, were unable to render an opinion that the Green Construction project had been abandoned by Respondent Schelah, or that there had been a diversion of funds. However, Mr. Ink did render an opinion that the project was not completed in a reasonably timely manner, that the Respondent is guilty of financial mismanagement, and that the Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct on the job in that the Respondent did not use due diligence in completing the job, staying on the job, and paying the subcontractors as the contractor should. Mr. Verse opined that the Respondent committed financial mismanagement and gross negligence in the practice of contracting. It was gross negligence not to maintain contact with clients. The Respondent's own expert in construction practices in the Punta Gorda area, Mr. Larry Deirmeyer, noted that it is difficult to acquire unscheduled building supplies in the Punta Gorda area if a contractor runs a small construction company because the supply houses are in Fort Myers, where rapid growth is occurring. In addition, it is difficult to get subcontractors to work on construction in areas like Prairie Creek Park, which is remote from the developed areas of Charlotte County. After Mr. Deirmeyer was admitted as an expert in construction practices, the Hearing Officer learned that he had built a custom home for the owner Moner Frank Green in 1980. Mr. Green's removal of Mr. Deirmeyer's company from the construction project during the last draw of that project, and his continuous changes in those plans were not considered by the Hearing Officer in this case except for the purpose of weighing Mr. Deirmeyer's independence as an expert witness. Another expert witness in construction practices presented by the Respondent was James Anderson, a state certified contractor from the Port Charlotte area. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the local builder supply problem and rendered the opinion that nine months was a reasonable period of time in which to complete the Green project, based upon the construction plans, the change orders, and the travel required to the project, which is not in the immediate Port Charlotte area. The Respondent Schelah did not maintain communication with the owners regarding the progress of the project, even though he was telephoned repeatedly and received written communication from the Green's attorney. This failure to maintain communication resulted in the Respondent's dismissal from the project. The County's Building Director's requests for communication were also refused by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph five of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(m) and (k), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph six of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph seven of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph ten of the administrative complaint in regard to misconduct by the Respondent on the Green project. That the penalties assessed against the Respondent not include an aggravation of penalties under Rule 21E-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, and that the Respondent pay a fine of $750.00, as set forth in Rule 21E-17.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-3442 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected as to location of project. The rest is accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #13 and #11. Rejected. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #3 and #8. Accepted. See HO #7. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #7. 9. Accepted. See HO #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13. 10. Rejected. Irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 John Charles Heekin, Esquire 21202 Olean Boulevard, Suite C-2 Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Hamilton held registered residential contractors license number RR0015037. Hamilton agreed to construct a house in Clearmont, Florida, with a completion date no later than May 1, 1977, for Robert J. and Margaret M. Phlepsen. The construction price was $75,000.00. After construction of the house it was discovered that there existed two violations of the Southern Building Code. First, the "step-down" from the kitchen to the garage was an eleven inch riser contrary to the code requirement that the height of a riser shall not exceed seven and three quarters inches. The second violation occurred through the use of 2 X 8 joists where the code would require 2 X 10 joists. The extra high riser between the kitchen and the garage was apparently caused by an oversight. Hamilton merely failed to install an intermediate step at that location. The second violation occurred because the owner and Hamilton agreed to use the smaller joists in order to save money on the contract price. In neither case is there sufficient evidence to establish that Hamilton's violations were willful or deliberate as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On June 6, 1978, the Lake County Board of Examiners suspended Hamilton's Lake County Certificate of Competency because of violations of building code requirements in the construction of Phlepsen's house.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent was a registered building contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RB 0009164. At no time material to this proceeding was Domingo Alonzo (a/k/a Domingo Alonzo) registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent and Alonzo signed and submitted a proposal to Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox for remodeling and additions to their residence located at 1550 Zuleta Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida in accordance with plans prepared by Frese - Camner Associates on file with the City of Coral Gables, Florida, File No. 2897 for a contract price of $65,940.00 with draw schedules attached. On December 6, 1982, Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox (Homeowners) accepted the Proposal (Contract). On December 6, 1982, the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,297.00 in accordance with the contract whereby they were to receive 5 percent of the contract amount as a down payment upon signing. The draw schedule provided for a 10 percent retainage from each draw which was to be paid to Respondent and Alonzo upon completion and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. On December 21, 1982 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $2,025.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 3 for $1,350.00, Schedule II - Item 2 for $360.00 and Item 5 for $315.00. On December 17, 1982 the Homeowners and Respondent filed the affidavit required by ordinance with the City of Coral Gables for the purpose of having a building permit issued covering the work under the contract. 9. On January 19, 1983 Respondent using his building contractors license applied for building permit to cover the work anticipated under the contract and on the same day was issued building permit, No. 28214. Under the contract the Homeowners were to pay for the building permit and the bond required by the city. On January 26, 1983 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,000.00 which along with a payment on January 27, 1983 of $500.00 and January 31, 1983 of $544.60 represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 2 for $405.00, Item 5 for $1,260.00, Item 6 for $1,547.10 and Item 13 for $832.50. All payments from December 6, 1982 through January 31, 1983 under the contract by the Homeowners totaled $9,366.50 and were paid jointly to Respondent and Alonzo. On February 4, 1983 Respondent and Alonzo entered into an agreement, prepared by Myron Gold in the law office of Gold and Fox, whereby the Homeowners were to pay the balance of the funds remaining under the contract to Alonzo individually. After this date all payments were made to Alonzo. It was the Homeowners understanding after the February 3, 1983 agreement that Respondent would still be responsible for the supervision of the construction although they never saw Respondent again until October 1983. Edward Borysiewicz testified that he dealt with Respondent during March 1983 when he made the floor slab inspection on March 3, 1983 and the columns inspection on March 14, 1983. The record is clear that shortly after the agreement on February 3, 1983 Respondent no longer came to the construction site and supervised the work of Alonzo. On February 8, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,060.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 1 for $810.00, Item 5 for $1,417.50 and Item 13 for $832.50. On February 28, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,155.40 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 4 for $1,705.50 and $729.90 for extras apparently not covered by the contract but whether the balance of check No. 1161 (Pet. Ex. 13) of $720.00 was for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 18, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $1,000 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 9 for $819.00. Again whether the balance of check No. 1206 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) of $181.00 is for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 21, 1983, the Homeowners paid Alonzo $6,400.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Items 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. On March 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $2,166.90 but Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 does not list check No. 1210 as being a payment under the contract or for extras. On March 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $4,230.00 which represents a draw under Schedule I - Item 7 for $2,520.00 and a payment for extras not covered under the contract in the amount of $1,710.00. On April 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,207.40 which represented a draw Schedule I - Items 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14. On June 24, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,788.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 12 for $667.00, Item 14 for $3,024.00 and payment for extras not under contract for $2,097.00. After March 14, 1983 Respondent was not seen on the job site and there was no longer any apparent supervision of Alonzo by Respondent. After Respondent left the job site there was no licensed building contractor involved in the construction. After Respondent left the construction site the Homeowners soon realized that Alonzo did not know how to proceed with the work and experienced problems with the pace and manner in which the work was being accomplished. On July, 1983, Alonzo stopped working altogether. Although the Homeowners were aware of the problems that Alonzo was having with the construction and that Respondent was not on the job, the record does not reflect that they ever attempted to contact Respondent after the meeting on February 3, 1983. On August 1, 1983 the Homeowners notified Respondent and Alonzo that the contract had been terminated. The Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo $42,174.20 total under the contract (pages 1-5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) and paid Alonzo $10,766.37 for extras (Pages 6- 10, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15). On August 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Edward Bryant, plastering contractor the sum of $3,100.00 for plastering performed by Edward Bryant. This was for work under the contract that had not been completed or work necessary to correct problems that were already completed. Roberta Fox testified that there were no extras on plaster, however, page 7, line 11 and page 9, line 21 of Petitioner's Exhibit 15 indicates that there was extra plastering. On August 29, 1983 and September 29, 1983 the Homeowners paid Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. the total amount of $4,875.00 for work contemplated under the contract that had not been completed or needed correction. Homeowners had paid Alonzo $3,591.00 for plumbing under the contract. Both Alonzo and Southwest Plumbing, Inc. were paid for extra plumbing not covered by the contract in the amount of $567.00 and $391.50, respectively by the Homeowners. From September 13, 1983 through June 13, 1984 the Homeowners paid Charles Brueg, Jim Brueg, Charles Buffington and Dan, Inc. the total amount of $4,192.91 for electrical work contemplated under the contract that was not completed or required correction after Alonzo left the construction site. Page 6 lines 6 and 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 indicate that there were extras not covered by the contract. The total amount for electricity contemplated by the contract was $3,649.00. Alonzo was paid $2,627.10 under the contract and $1,710.00 for extras. The Homeowners were required to obtain the services of an air conditioning contractor to complete the work contemplated under the contract after Alonzo left the job site and as a result were required to pay Cameron, Inc., the air conditioning contract the amount of $5,181.60 between August 16, 1983 and January 24, 1984. The total amount contemplated under the contract was $3,600.00 of which $1,134.00 had been paid to Alonzo. Debris was dumped in the swimming pool requiring the Homeowners to pay $7,000 to refurbish the swimming pool. This amount included the repair contemplated under the contract and the extra work caused by Alonzo. The contract contemplated $2,300.00 for repairs of which none had been paid to Respondent or Alonzo. The Homeowners paid $1,150.00 to a painting contractor to finish the painting contemplated under the contract. Alonzo had been paid $1,125.00 for painting. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) The contract provided $2,500.00 for all painting required under the contract. Respondent failed to notify the building department that he was no longer responsible for the construction. After the Homeowners terminated the contract due to Respondent's and Alonzo's nonperformance, the Homeowners had to expend a substantial amount of extra money to complete the construction. The evidence is insufficient to determine an exact or approximate amount. Roberta Fox's testimony was conflicting with regard to her understanding as to whether or not the Respondent would continue to supervise the construction after the meeting in the Homeowners' law office on February 3, 1983 when Respondent and Alonzo entered into this agreement. Myron Gold testified that it was his understanding that Respondent would continue to supervise Alonzo after the agreement. However, the Homeowners action in this regard subsequent to February 3, 1983, in making no effort to bring the matter to a "head" and requiring Respondent to supervise the work or terminate the contract and in continuing to deal with Alonzo although Homeowners were aware shortly after February 3, 1983 that Alonzo could not perform without Respondent's supervision and that they knew Respondent was not on the job, tends to show that they were aware or should have been aware that Respondent was no longer involved in the day to day supervision of the construction. Alonzo installed a fireplace pursuant to the contract that the building department determined to be a fire hazard and recommended against its use. The Homeowners applied for and were granted a "owner/builder" permit on September 1, 1983 and requested cancellation of the building permit issued to Respondent which was cancelled on September 6, 1983. They have not received a certificate of occupancy because the building department has not performed the following inspection: electrical final; plumbing final; air conditioning final; roofing final and public works final. The building department would have issued a "stop-work order" had it been aware that Respondent was not supervising the construction and would have required the Homeowners to obtain another licensed building contractor or proceed as a owner/builder. The plans prepared by Frese-Camner Associates that were made a part of the contract by reference were not introduced into evidence with the contract and thus the record is insufficient to determine what was required to meet the specifications of the plans and thereby determine if the specifications had been met. There was a permit issued for the septic tank and drain field which work was started in December, 1982. The construction of the house itself was started in January 1983. The first inspection (foundation) on the house was made by the building department of January 21, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)(k)(m), Florida Statutes (1981) and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) years, provided, however, that if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of restitution to Myron Gold and Roberta Fox within one (1) year from the date of the final order herein, then the suspension shall be stayed and Respondent placed on probation for the balance of the suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 6th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2529 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 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 except clarified as to the last date on construction site. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact24 but clarified to show correct amount paid under contract as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified to show that extra plastering not under contract was required. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32 but clarified to show that the record does not support a figure that approximate $32,000.00. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence even though the Homeowners' testimony supported this fact because the Homeowners' actions with regard to Respondent after February 3, 1983, was to the contrary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: No Findings of Fact was submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 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, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Beason Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George J. Soler, Pro Se 3315 S.W. 96th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents discriminated against Petitioners based on race regarding the renting of a house.
Findings Of Fact LM Rentals owns 80 houses, which it rents. Mr. Peeples manages LM Rentals. LM Rentals contracts with Vantage to provide management of the rental properties, and Ms. Mossow is employed by Vantage. LM Rentals rented a house to the Odoms for approximately eight years, beginning in 2003. Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mr. Odom is White and is not a Native American. No evidence was presented to establish that either anyone from LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow was aware that Mrs. Odom is a Native American. Mrs. Odom's physical appearance, her speech, and her surname could reasonably lead one to think that she is not a Native American. Her appearance would lead one to believe that she is White. The application which the Odoms filled out to rent the house did not require the Odoms to state their race. Mrs. Odom never informed employees of LM Rentals or Ms. Mossow that she is a Native American. Mrs. Odom claims that her children have darker skin than she, and, therefore, Ms. Mossow and employees of LM Rentals should have known that she is a Native American by looking at her children. However, no testimony was presented that Ms. Mossow or anyone from LM Rentals ever met Mrs. Odom's children prior to the filing of the discrimination complaint. Ms. Mossow did not meet any of Mrs. Odom's children until a short time before the final hearing when she delivered copies of exhibits to the Odoms' home. Mr. Peeples, the representative of LM Rentals, did not meet the Odoms' children and never met the Odoms until a few days before the final hearing. The house which the Odoms rented from LM Rentals developed a mold problem. Instead of bringing the mold problem to the attention of Ms. Mossow or anyone at LM Rentals, the Odoms contacted the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), which sent an environmental specialist to investigate the mold situation in January 2010. LM Rentals received a letter from the Health Department concerning the mold. LM Rentals hired a third-party testing company to test the house for mold. The coils on the air conditioner were replaced. The Odoms were not satisfied and requested that Ms. Mossow find them another rental house in the same school district in which they currently resided. LM Rentals has an average vacancy rate of five percent, which equates to about four houses at any given time. At the time that the Odoms requested to be relocated, there was only one house vacant in the school district which the Odoms wanted. The Odoms did not like the house and refused to relocate. Mrs. Odom claims that there were other houses available, but could not point to any specific house. Her claim is based on sheer speculation. The Odoms requested that the carpet be replaced, but, based on the tests of the third-party testing company, LM Rentals refused to do so. About the time they were having the mold problems, the Odoms' daughter was suspended from school. Mrs. Odom attributes the suspension to discrimination by Respondents. Mrs. Odom called, as a witness, the teacher who made the referral which resulted in Mrs. Odom's daughter being suspended. The teacher did not know Ms. Mossow and did not know Mr. Peeples. The teacher, who is also an attorney, was not sure if she had ever represented LM Rentals in the past as an attorney. The suspension was totally unrelated to any mold problems and any alleged discrimination. Mrs. Odom also claims that her son was arrested for disorderly conduct about the time of the mold problem, and she lays the arrest at the door of Respondents. Her rationale for her claim is that the arrest happened at the time they were dealing with the mold issues and that LM Rentals knew people. There is not a scintilla of evidence to connect the arrest of the Odoms' son to any actions by Respondents. In April 2010, during the period in which the mold was an issue, a code enforcement inspector saw a small grill on the Odoms' driveway, which was apparently a code violation. The inspector told the Odoms that the grill needed to be removed. LM Rentals received a letter from the code enforcement department stating that LM Rentals would be fined if the violation was not corrected. Ms. Mossow contacted the Odoms in an attempt to get the grill removed in order to avoid being fined. Mrs. Odom claims that Ms. Mossow and LM Rentals caused the code enforcement inspector to come to the Odoms' home and ask that the grill be removed. Mrs. Odom's claim is without merit. It is unlikely that Ms. Mossow or LM Rentals would request a code enforcement inspector to find a code violation which would result in LM Rentals, as owner of the property, being fined. No evidence was presented to show that Respondents treated non-minorities any differently than the Odoms were treated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Lawrence and Candace Odom's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, William P. Pearson, Jr., is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111 Florida Statutes and Rule 221-6,35. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of William P. Pearson, Jr. and had admitted five exhibits. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Richard Hartog, Investigator, and Douglas A. Shropshire, the Department of Professional Regulation's senior attorney for the prosecution of all Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board cases, and had admitted five exhibits. At close of formal hearing, Petitioner elected to make oral closing argument and to file no post-hearing proposals. Respondent elected to file a transcript of proceedings and written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 10 days of filing transcript. Respondent's proposals are ruled on within the appendix to this recommended order pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs associated with his defense against charges contained in an administrative complaint filed and prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation which was styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industrv Licensing Board v. William P. Pearson, Jr., DOAH Case No. 85-0672. The administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-0672 contained two counts. Count I alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(c) through violation of Section 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1983), which statutory section addresses making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in the practice of the profession of construction. Count II alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1983) by not complying with the specific escrow requirements imposed by the consumer protection Statute, Section 501.1375(2) Florida Statutes and violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), which latter statutory section addresses gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The state agency was therefore not a nominal party only but was an accusing and principal party. Petitioner seeks an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $3,568.75 together with costs of $11.10. Respondent, in its Amended Response to Petitioner's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, did not challenge the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs set forth in Petitioner's affidavit attached and incorporated in his Amended Motion and specifically stipulated to reasonableness and necessity at formal hearing. Accordingly, the foregoing amounts are found to be necessary and reasonable. Pearson Construction Co., Inc.'s domicile during the whole of DOAH Case No. 85-0672's initial prosecution was Charlotte County, Florida. It had no employees other than William P. Pearson, Jr. and his wife, who worked without compensation. William P. Pearson, Jr. was the president and qualifying agent of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. which was a Florida corporation at all times material to the initial prosecution. The combined net worth of William P. Pearson, Jr. and of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. never exceeded two million dollars and presently petitioner Pearson's personal net worth does not exceed two million dollars. In early 1986, prior to initiating this instant fee and costs recovery case, Mr. Pearson failed to update payment of his corporate fees and Pearson Construction Co., Inc. was automatically dissolved by the secretary of State. Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) notified John Vlasek of its intent to investigate his complaint against Petitioner in late July 1984. DPR's investigation was conducted by Investigator Richard Hartog. Mr. Hartog has been employed by the Respondent since November 1982 and has been its investigator since March 1983. He has a degree in criminal justice and 23 years prior experience as a detective with the Police Department of Nassau County, New York. Investigator Hartog was first made aware of vlasek's complaint against Pearson Construction Co., Inc. by way of a memorandum dated July 16, 1984 received directly from the State Attorney's Office for the 20th Judicial Circuit. Attached to the State Attorney's memorandum was a 6 page consumer complaint form signed by John A. Vlasek. Hartog determined that William P. Pearson, Jr. was the qualifying agent for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. and then telephoned DPR's complaint section in Tallahassee, giving the complaint section the basis of the information received from the State Attorney's Office and statutory citations for alleged violations of sections 489.129(1)(m), 455.227(1)(a) and 501.1375 Florida statutes. His purpose was to obtain a complaint number to continue the investigation. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Petitioner William P. Pearson, Jr. regarding the allegations underlying Vlasek's complaint. Upon completion of the investigation the Department's investigator prepared an investigative report. The investigative report includes a narrative summary of the investigator's interview with Pearson. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the investigator's interview of Pearson: Mr. Pearson states he built a good number of homes a year. Last year he built thirty-nine (39) homes. Mr. Pearson was readvised of the allegations made by Mr. Vlasek, a prospective buyer of one of Pearson's spec homes. Mr. Pearson maintains the reason the house was not completed on June 12, 1984, the date originally stipulated in the contract, was the fact Mr. Vlasek was not in a hurry to have the house completed. Mr. Pearson stated he is not aware of the requirements of P.S. 501.1375, therefore, he did not handle the deposit according to the requirement set forth. The money was used to complete the spec house for Vlasek. Mr. Pearson states he received a letter from the First Federal Savings and, Loan of Charlotte County indicating Mr. Vlasek obtained an extension of his loan commitment with the bank. Mr. Malone, who was present, verifies that such a letter was received by Mr. Pearson. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Barbara Lowe, a loan officer for the First Federal Savings and Loan of Charlotte County. The investigator interviewed Ms. Lowe to determine "whether the bank had, in fact, sent a letter to Mr. Pearson indicating that an extension to Mr. Vlasek's 45-day loan had been extended." The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the interview of Ms. Lowe: Barbara Lowe, who states she handled the transaction, states no such letter was mailed to Pearson Construction. It would not be appropriate to grant an extension in this type of action. Mr. Vlasek would be required to enter into a separate agreement for an additional forty-five (45) days thereby nullifying the original commitent. This was not done by Mr. Vlasek, therefore, the original commitment expired 5/31/84. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Tom Hannon, a loan officer with the First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Charlotte County. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following finding: Mr. Hannon contacted this office to relate that the loan commitment obtained by Vlasek was for a period of forty-five (45) days between 4/19/84 and 5/31/84. There is no record a thirty (30) day extension was asked for or granted according to the records. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Jack R. Malone who was a salesman for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation relates that Malone stated the deposit money was not required to be deposited in an escrow account but when referred to section 501.1375 Malone stated money might have been given to an attorney, presumably for escrow, and further Malone related that: Mr. Vlasek became very impatient because he said very little was being done to complete his house. He was concerned because the terms of his loan agreement was a commitment which expired June 1, 1984. The completed investigative report as forwarded by the investigator to the Department's legal section consisted, in part, of the following: a three page narrative summary of the investigator' s findings; a copy of the memorandum and accompanying executed consumer complaint form; a First Federal savings and Loan Association loan transfer commitment to John and Madelyn Vlasek; a copy of section 501.1375, Florida statutes; a copy of the April 1984 contract between Pearson Construction Company and John and Madelyn Vlasek reflecting a completion date altered from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Douglas A. Shropshire was the DPR attorney responsible for reviewing the investigative report with regard to making a recommendation to the probable Cause Panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The complaint against Petitioner was a "case of first impression" in that DPR had not previously investigated a complaint alleging a violation of the escrow requirement of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes. As a result of the complaint against Petitioner, Mr. Shropshire requested that a law clerk prepare a memorandum of law with regard to the relationship between Section 501.1375, Florida Statutes and the regulation of licensed contractors under Chapter 489 Florida Statutes. On or about September 21, 1984 the law clerk provided Mr. Shropshire with a two page memorandum of law exploring the relationship between Chapter 501, Florida Statutes and the regulation of the construction industry. The memorandum reached the general conclusion that licensed contractors were subject to the provisions of Chapter 501 Florida Statutes. In preparing his recommendation to the Probable Cause Panel, Shropshire reviewed both Hartog's investigative report with all attachments and the law clerk's memorandum of law. On January 10, 1985 DPR, through Mr. Shropshire, made a probable cause recommendation to the Construction Industry Licensing Board Probable Cause Panel. Prior to January 10, 1985 DPR had provided each panel member with a copy of the DPR's probable cause package. The probable-cause package as reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel consisted of the following: a cover sheet setting forth the Subject's name, case number and statutory violations; a proposed administrative complaint; a copy of the narrative portion of the Department's investigative report. The Probable Cause Panel did not review a copy of the Vlasek-Pearson contract which provided it was not contingent on financing, which provided for forfeit to Pearson of Vlasek's deposit upon Vlasek's default, and which provided for escrow of Vlasek's deposit pending closing of the transaction. However, this item was reviewed by the DPR attorney before making the probable cause recommendation and the copy of this item reviewed showed that the completion date had been altered, allegedly by Malone. Petitioner stipulated to the correctness of the procedure employed in impaneling the Probable Cause panel. Each panel member had the opportunity to review the probable cause package before the Probable Cause Panel was convened. Each panel member had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the probable cause materials prior to the meeting. The Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel was Mr. Roy Adams. Mr. Adams is a certified general contractor. The other probable cause member was Mr. Joseph Richards. Mr. Richards is a pharmacist and is a public member of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Neither Mr. Richards nor Mr. Adams is an attorney. The Construction Industry Licensing Board is not involved in the investigation or prosecution of a complaint. In making the determination of probable cause the panel members discussed the allegations contained in the complaint with both DPR's prosecuting attorney and their independent advisor from the Department of Legal Affairs. On January 10, 1985 the Probable Cause Panel found probable cause to believe Petitioner violated Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The panel's finding of probable cause included, but was not limited to, the violations alleged by DPR in its recommendation. The Probable Cause Panel directed DPR to file a formal complaint. On January 16, 1985 DPR's Secretary signed a formal administrative complaint charging Petitioner with violating the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes reviewed by the panel plus Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes. Petitioner denied all the allegations in the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On August 20, 1985 a formal hearing was conducted before the undersigned hearing officer. Petitioner interposed the defense that Section 501.1375 Florida Statutes did not apply to him because he had constructed less than 10 houses in the year 1984 despite constructing more than 20 homes per year in most years. Section 501.1375 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Building Contractor" means any person who, for compensation, constructs and sells one-family or two-family residential dwelling units, except for a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. "Developer" means either a building contractor who offers new residential dwelling units for sale or any person who offers a new one-family or two-family dwelling unit for sale except a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. The Recommended Order entered December 20, 1985 found as fact that: On April 12, 1984 John and Madelyn Vlasek contracted with Pearson Construction Company for the purchase of a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. . . .The contract specified a $2,000 escrow deposit on the purchase price of $68,500. On April 12, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearson Construction Company with $200 in cash toward the escrow deposit. On April 13, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearso Construction Company with a check in the amount of $1,800 toward the escrow deposit. The contract specified the deposit was to be held in escrow pending closing of the transaction. . . .The contract referred to above was not contingent on the buyer obtaining financing. However, the deposit was not placed in escrow as specified in the contract and as required under the terms of the contract. Instead, it was used by the Respondent in purchasing lighting fixtures, carpeting, tiling and other accoutrements in colors and styles selected by John R. Vlasek. On April 23, 1984, the Vlaseks executed the loan transfer commitment. . . .After executing the loan transfer commitment, Vlasek realized that the commitment would expire prior to the June 12, 1984 closing date. Vlasek then notified Pearson Construction Company of the discrepancy between the expiration date of the loan commitment and the actual closing date. Upon being informed of the discrepancy, Jack R. Malone agreed to modify the closing date. Malone expressly modified the contract by changing the closing date from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Vlasek subsequently informed the Respondent of the change of the closing date. When informed of the change, Respondent indicated the home would be substantially completed by June 1, 1984. . . .Vlasek was repeatedly assured by Malone and other members of the construction team (not Pearson) that the home would be completed by June 2, 1984. . . .the Vlasek contract was rescinded . . .Pearson Construction Company, Inc. and William P. Pearson constructed a total of 8, possibly 9 houses during the calendar year of 1984. In most previous years he has constructed in excess of 20 houses per year. The findings and conclusions of law of the recommended order are replete with analyses of credibility of witnesses. The conclusions of law discuss such diverse legal concepts as the differences in actual versus apparent authority and ratification of an agent's/employee's misrepresentations by his employer, reasonable reliance thereon, and whether section 501.1375 should be applied annually (10 houses constructed per year) or upon a pattern of annual house construction (8-9 houses in 1984 versus more than 20 houses each previous year). The recommended order determined that DPR had failed to establish Count I (misleading, deceptive or fraudulent representations) by clear and convincing evidence and found only a "minimal" violation of Section 429.129(1)(m) had been established within Count II due to the petitioner's failure to escrow. By Final Order dated March 17, 1986, the Board adopted the findings of fact in toto. The final order rejected the conclusions of law and dismissed the administrative complaint. No evidence was introduced to indicate or otherwise explain why the Board rejected the hearing officer's conclusions of law.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the facts to which the parties stipulated at the outset of the final hearing (Parties' Stipulations)2: The contract referenced in the Parties' Stipulations (Building Contract) was signed by Mr. Stasinos (on behalf of ICC) and Mr. Skiera (on behalf of himself and his wife) on June 29, 2000. The home that ICC agreed to build for the Skieras (Skiera Residence) was described in the Building Contract as a "[c]ustom two-story residence with detached garage and riding cor[r]al for a total of 5,370 square feet." It was to be constructed on a tract of land owned by the Skieras in Boynton, Beach, Florida. The Building Contract provided for the following allowances: $20,000.00 for "electrical"; $17,000.00 for "plumbing"; $15,000 for "HVAC"; a "door hardware allowance" of "$50.00 per [interior] door"; $6,000.00 for a "stacked stone veneer" exterior; an "entry door hardware allowance" of "$100.00 per door"; $15,000.00 for "kitchen cabinetry and vanity"; $8,000.00 for "counter tops and vanity tops"; $9,000.00 for "landscaping," including "trees, shrubs, sod, automatic time clock, [and an] operated irrigation system with rain sensor"; and $7,000 for "driveways, walkways, [and] flatwork." There was no written statement in the Building Contract explaining a consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as then required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. The Building Contract contained a "[p]ayment [d]raw [s]chedule," which provided as follows: Upon execution of contract: 10%- $36,608.00 Thereafter, progress payments based on schedule of values. This "schedule of values" (referred to in the "[p]ayment [d]raw [s]chedule") contained the following "scheduled values" (excluding change orders): 1. Permits $21,600.00 2. Clearing/Grading/Fill $10,800.00 3. Foot'gs. Undgr Plumb, Soil Treatmt $23,000.00 4. Foundation/Slab poured $32,760.00 5. Exterior Walls/Tie Beam $26,600.00 6. Roof Trusses $26,600.00 7. Roof Sheathing/Felt $19,400.00 8. Interior Framing Complete $14,000.00 9. Windows/Exterior Door Frames Set $14,400.00 10. 2nd Plumbing/Tub Set $7,200.00 11. Wiring Rough-In $14,400.00 12. HVAC Ducts Installed $7,200.00 13. Roof Shingles/Tiles Installed $14,400.00 14. Insulation (wall & ceiling) $4,200.00 15. Exterior Trim/Soffits $11,800.00 16. Drywall Hung $14,400.00 17. Drywall Finish $10,800.00 18. Interior Trim/Interior Doors Installed $13,400.00 19. Interior Paint $8,800.00 20. Siding/Stucco $14,400.00 21. Exterior Paint Complete $8,800.00 22. Exterior Doors & Garage Door Install $6,200.00 23. Cabinets/Countertops Installed $10,000.00 24. Plumbing Finish $3,600.00 25. Electrical Finish $5,600.00 26. HVAC-Compressor/A.H. Installed $10,920.00 27. Driveway/Walks Installed $3,600.00 28. Landscaping/Irrigation $7,200.00 There were six separate change orders. They were dated August 20, 2000 (Change Order No. 001), August 29, 2000 (Change Order No. 002), September 26, 2000 (Change Order No. 003), October 15, 2000 (Change Order No. 004), October 15, 2000 (Change Order No. 005), and November 10, 2000 (Change Order No. 006). As of December 21, 2000, ICC had been paid in full for all six change orders, as well as for items 1 through 8 on the "schedule of values." As of February 27, 2001, ICC had received additional monies from the Skieras: payment in full for items 9 through 12 and 15 on the "schedule of values" and partial (50 percent) payment for items 13 and 20 on the "schedule of values." As of April 10, 2001, ICC had been paid a total of $287,966.20 (all from the proceeds of a mortgage loan the Skieras had obtained from Admiralty Bank) for work done on the Skiera Residence. On May 1, 2001, the Skieras paid ICC an additional $16,800.00 for drywall work, bringing the total amount of payments that ICC had received from (or on behalf of) the Skieras, as of that date, to $304,766.20. The Skieras made no further payments to ICC. The "eight valid claims of lien" referenced in the Parties' Stipulations were filed by eight different subcontractors, all of whom had been hired by ICC to work on the Skiera Residence: Boca Concrete Pumping, Inc.; Gulf Stream Lumber Company; L & W Supply Corp., d/b/a Seacoast Supply; Waste Management of Palm Beach; B.T. Glass & Mirror, Inc.; Boca Raton Decorating Center Company; American Stairs; and Broten Garage Door Sales Inc.3 Boca Concrete Pumping was the "very first" subcontractor to work on the construction of the Skiera Residence. It did the "slab work, the foundation" (referenced in item 4 of "schedule of values"). Its lien was recorded on December 6, 2000. The lien was in the amount of $1,001.25, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for unpaid "concrete pumping" that had been furnished between September 8, 2000, and September 22, 2000. A satisfaction of this lien, dated March 8, 2001, was filed March 24, 2001. Gulf Stream Lumber's original lien was recorded February 15, 2001. It was in the amount of $67,872.59, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for unpaid "building material" that had been furnished between August 15, 2000, and January 24, 2001. An amended claim of lien was recorded May 3, 2001, in the amount of $36,530.59 for unpaid "building material" that, according to the lien, had been furnished between August 25, 2000, and March 27, 2001. A satisfaction of the original lien and amended claim of lien, dated November 30, 2001, was filed December 5, 2001. The liens were satisfied, pursuant to the terms of a Settlement Stipulation, upon the Skieras' payment of $39,579.28 to Gulf Stream Lumber. L & W Supply's lien was recorded April 30, 2001. It was in the amount of $4,536.98, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for unpaid "building materials [and] related items" that had been furnished between December 16, 2000, and January 30, 2001. A satisfaction of this lien, dated October 11, 2001, was filed November 7, 2001. The lien was satisfied by the payment of $10.00 "and other good and valuable consideration" (which was the payment of an additional $2,850.00 by check dated October 11, 2001). Waste Management of Palm Beach's lien was recorded May 31, 2001. It was in the amount of $1,665.89, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for unpaid "[w]aste [r]emoval [s]ervices" that had been furnished between August 30, 2000, and April 5, 2001. A satisfaction of this lien, dated October 19, 2001, was filed November 13, 2001. B.T. Glass & Mirror's lien was recorded June 29, 2001. It was in the amount of $3,560.00, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for an unpaid "glass/mirror package" that had been furnished between May 3, 2001, and May 31, 2001. A satisfaction of this lien, dated October 19, 2001, was filed November 13, 2001. The lien was satisfied by the payment of $1,600.00 (by check dated November 10, 2001), plus an agreement to provide "$2,000.00 in gazebo or arbor products from the Hitching Post," the Skieras' family business. Boca Raton Decorating Center's lien was recorded May 19, 2001. It was in the amount of $1,218.79, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for unpaid "paint, sealers [and] sundries" that had been furnished between May 1, 2001, to May 2, 2001. A satisfaction of this lien, dated October 11, 2001, was filed November 7, 2001. American Stairs' lien was recorded August 16, 2001. It was in the amount of $4,188.00, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for unpaid "[s]tairs and [r]ailings" that had been furnished between June 8, 2001, and June 15, 2001. A satisfaction of this lien was executed on October 15, 2001. Broten Garage Door Sales' lien was recorded September 5, 2001. It was in the amount of $3,214.00, and it indicated, on its face, that it was for the unpaid "sale and installation of garage doors and openers," which took place between June 25, 2001, and July 17, 2001. A satisfaction of this lien, dated January 31, 2002, was filed on February 5, 2002. At a meeting "in the early part of August [2001]" attended by Respondent, Mr. Stasinos, the Skieras, and the president of the bank from which the Skieras had borrowed the money to pay for the construction of their residence, Respondent announced that, on behalf of ICC, "he was filing [for] bankruptcy."4 ICC stopped working on the Skiera Residence after this meeting. At the time, the Skiera Residence was approximately 70 to 80 percent completed (and the Skieras had paid ICC a total of $304,766.20, or approximately 80 percent of the total contract price (including change orders) of $378,286.205). In addition to paying $57,316.62 to satisfy the "eight valid claims of lien" referenced in the Parties' Stipulations, the Skieras paid approximately an additional $57,000.00 to other subcontractors who provided goods and/or services "needed to complete the house." The $10,000.00 check referred to in the Parties' Stipulation 14 (that the Skieras received from Andover Construction, Inc.) did not "represent any kind of final settlement" between the Skieras and ICC. The October 4, 2001, Certificate of Occupancy for the Skiera Residence referred to in the Parties' Stipulations indicated, on its face, that ICC was the contractor, notwithstanding that ICC had abandoned the project "in the early part of August [2001]." Respondent has been a Florida-licensed general contractor since July 29, 1987. In his capacity as ICC's licensed qualifier, he has previously (by Final Order filed in DBPR Case Nos. 2001-03283 and 2001-03284 on December 23, 2003) been found guilty of, and disciplined for, violating (in connection with two residential construction projects undertaken by ICC for A. Richard Nernberg) the same subsections of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (Subsections (1)(g), (i), and (m)) that he is accused of violating in the instant case. In these prior disciplinary proceedings, Respondent's license was suspended for two years, and he was fined $6,000.00 and required to pay $958.30 in investigative costs. Administrative complaints were also filed against Respondent in DBPR Case Nos. 94-15958 and 97-17352. Both of these cases were resolved by settlement stipulations in which Respondent "neither admit[ted] [nor] denie[d] the allegations of fact contained in the [a]dministrative [c]omplaint[s]."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and fining him $1,000.00 for this violation; (2) finding Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 489.129(1)(g)1., Florida Statutes, relating to Boca Concrete Pumping's December 6, 2000, $1,001.25 lien, alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and taking the following disciplinary action against him for this violation: suspending his license for four years (with such suspension to run consecutively with his current suspension); (b) fining him $5,000.00; (c) requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,001.25 to the Skieras; and (c) ordering him to reimburse the Department for all reasonable investigative and prosecutorial costs (excluding costs related to attorney time) incurred by the Department; and (3) dismissing all other charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2007.
