The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent signed and sealed negligent drawings for one single-family residence and provided plan review certification for two other projects designed by Respondent in violation of Subsections 471.033(1)(g) and 553.791(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(n).1
Findings Of Fact The Board of Professional Engineers (Board) is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, authorizes Petitioner to provide the Board with administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services. Respondent is licensed in the state as a professional engineer pursuant to license number PE 54476. It is undisputed that Respondent is a private provider within the meaning of Subsection 553.791(1)(g), Florida Statues. On October 29, 2002, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a single-family residence identified in the record as the Barnes residence. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence are deficient. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. The applicable standard of care does not require the relevant drawings to include multiple ridge heights in order to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed with sufficient clarity. It is less than clear and convincing that the ridge heights in the drawings are unequal. Additional ridge height information would have been non-critical information that may have been interpreted as specific construction requirements and lead to confusion, added costs, conflicting interpretations, and potential hazards in buildings. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence insufficiently show heights of the eaves or lintels and sills. The plans can be easily understood by tradesmen and inspectors. The typical wall section at page 4 of the plans addresses eaves, lintels, and sills. The ridge height requirements in Manatee County, Florida (the County), are intended to ensure compliance with maximum height restrictions. The mean heights in the drawings adequately address the maximum local height ordinances. It is less than clear and convincing that the roof entry plan provided insufficient clarity. The roof was constructed according to the local code requirements without apparent exception. The evidence does not support a finding that the roof entry plan, the ridge heights, lintels, eaves, and sills were insufficiently clear to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the wind uplift for roof trusses in the plans was incorrect or unclear. If the wind load calculations were found to be deficient, the specified fittings were sufficient to withstand wind loads that exceeded the calculations of Petitioner's expert by approximately 70 percent. Wind load calculations are intended to ensure a roof will sustain the load and will not blow off of the house. The fittings were sufficient to secure the roof against the projected wind load. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the drawings failed to specify the applicable masonry inspection requirements. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that special masonry inspections are required for single-family residences of two stories or less. A masonry inspection is required for such structures when a building inspector finds a need for such an inspection. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings fail to adequately specify the splice lengths of the bond beam reinforcement for tension, compression, intersections, and corners. The requisite evidence does not support a finding that the plans deviate from the standard of care in the community. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent failed to comply with applicable soil condition requirements. The County did not require soil conditions on plans at the time Respondent drew the plans. From sometime in the 1940s through November 2003, the County permitted engineers to assume soil conditions with a ground load of 2000 pounds per square foot. Respondent drew the plans for the Barnes project in 2002. The testimony of Petitioner's expert does not relate to facts in evidence. The expert did not know County allowances for soil conditions at the time Respondent drew the plans. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the design of the concrete footings cannot be verified from the plans. Nor does the requisite evidence support a finding that the plans do not specify reinforcement of the thickened edge under a load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The plans include two reinforcement specifications for the thickened edge under the load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The specifications include welded wire mesh and reinforced steel bars. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent supplied or submitted the Barnes plans for permit. Without such a finding, Respondent was not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan. A site plan for the Barnes residence exists in the file of the County Building Department (Department). A Department representative confirmed that the site plan is sufficient and that an engineer of record is not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan unless the engineer of record actually submits the plans for a permit. On February 24 and March 7, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for respective projects at 14815 Coker Gully Road, Myakka, Florida (the Coker project), and 705 50th Avenue, Plaza West, Bradenton, Florida (the Yonkers project). Pursuant to Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, Respondent entered into a contract with an entity identified in the record as Griffis Custom Homes (Griffis) to provide either building code plans or inspection services, or both. Prior to the commencement of the two projects in question, the Department expressly permitted an engineer to provide building code inspection services involving buildings designed or constructed by the engineer. Respondent prepared private provider affidavits, obtained additional insurance, had forms made, and prepared to provide inspections services. Respondent immediately ceased his activities when Department officials objected to Respondent's stated intention of providing "private provider" building code inspection services for the Coker and Yonkers projects. The separate owners of the two projects withdrew their applications as "private provider" projects. The Department processed the projects, performed all inspections, and issued a certificate of occupancy for each project. Neither the Department, Petitioner, nor the Board, ever served Respondent with a Notice of Non-compliance. If it were found that Respondent committed the alleged violation, the violation was minor. There is no evidence of any economic or physical harm, or significant threat of harm, to a person or to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. There is no evidence that Respondent has any prior discipline against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 December, 1991.
The Issue Whether respondent on several occasions aided an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting by obtaining permits on respondent's license for contracting jobs performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether respondent committed the statutory violations alleged; and If so, whether respondent's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether some other penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida holding License No. CG C000572. Johnnie T. Thomas is the president of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Mr. Thomas is not a licensed contractor in the State of Florida. Although respondent has used his license to qualify several corporations, the last being Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., respondent never qualified J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Indeed, J. T. Thomas Construction has never been qualified by any licensee. During the time period relevant to this action, J. T. Thomas Construction Company was the name used by Mr. Thomas to engage in the contracting business. On July 25, 1983, J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Hazel N. Jones for the construction of a residence at 11729 Rock Hill Road, Thonotosassa, Florida, in Hillsborough County. Johnnie Thomas signed the contract on behalf of J. T. Thomas Construction Company as "President and Builder." Ms. Jones did not know that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. James Montjoy drew the plans for the house and recommended Thomas as the builder. The total price for the house was $75,500. The house was started in September of 1983, and on January 30, 1984 final payment was made. After moving into the house, Ms. Jones discovered several problems. In June of 1984 an energy check found that the home was not properly insulated; however, this was apparently corrected in May of 1985. Ms. Jones had several other problems with the home and sent a "punch-list" to Mr. Thomas setting forth the items that needed to be corrected. Although Mr. Thomas admitted at the hearing that there were items that should have been corrected on the punch-list, he also admitted that he did not correct them because he disputed other claims of Ms. Jones. The building permit application for Ms. Jones' home was signed by the respondent. On the building permit application, the contractor was listed as Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. The building permit was issued on August 15, 1983. It listed Julius H. Isaac and Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. as the contractor. The building permit was signed by Julius H. Isaac as agent. Ms. Jones never met Mr. Isaac, never saw him and never knew that he was involved in any way in the construction of her home. In late 1984, Ms. Catherine Farragut, the owner of a building located at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida, contracted with J. T. Thomas to have her building remodeled. Ms. Jones recommended Mr. Thomas to Ms. Farragut before Ms. Jones began to experience problems with Mr. Thomas. Ms. Farragut was not aware that Mr. Thomas was not a licensed contractor. The remodeling of the building was completed in early 1985. The permit for the interior remodeling of the offices at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue was issued on July 23, 1984 to Julius Isaac & Association. Ms. Farragut did see Isaac at the job site in the central parking area; however, Mr. Thomas never advised Ms. Farragut that respondent was involved with the project. On August 20, 1985 J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Evelyn S. Williams to construct a residence at 3620 East North Bay Street, Tampa, Florida. The contract price for the home was 66,000 and payments by check were made to Johnnie Thomas in intervals. Construction on the home began in November 1985. Ms. Williams moved into the home in August of 1986. She discovered some problems with the house, and gave Mr. Thomas a list of the items that needed to be corrected. Mr. Thomas corrected all the items but one. Ms. Williams still has a problem with the roof getting moldy due to water retention. A permit was issued by the City of Tampa Building Department on November 20, 1985, for construction at 3620 East North Bay Street. The permit was issued to Julius Isaac and the contractor of record is stated as Julius Isaac d/b/a Julius Isaac & Associates. Ms. Williams never met Mr. Isaac or saw him; however, Ms. Williams did not go to the job site during construction since the mortgage company was supposed to periodically inspect the house during construction. Ms. Williams was not aware that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. On August 28, 1986, J. T. Thomas Construction Company entered into a written contract with Ms. Verlie Nelson to construct a residence at 8105 Jad Drive for a price of $102,560. Ms. Nelson thought that Mr. Thomas was a licensed contractor. She never saw Mr. Isaac at the job site, however, she was rarely there because Sun Coast Federal Credit Union was paid to do the inspections. On October 16, 1986, respondent applied for a building permit for 8105 Jad Drive. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners and Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., was listed as the general contractor for the project. On November 7, 1986, the permit was issued by the Hillsborough County Building Department. Julius H. Isaac was listed as the applicant and contractor. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners of the property at 8105 Jad Drive. Mr. Thomas admitted that J. T. Thomas Construction Company built the homes for Ms. Jones, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Williams, and did the renovation on the building owned by Ms. Farragut. Mr. Thomas received the payments for the projects, hired and paid the subcontractors and supervised construction. He also managed the daily affairs of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. J. T. Thomas Construction Company was formed in 1971 under the name Thomas (J. T.) Construction Company. However, the company, as a corporate entity, was dissolved by proclamation in 1973. J. T. Thomas' brother Leslie was the secretary of the corporation and a licensed contractor. He obtained the building permits for the company until be became ill. Thereafter, respondent obtained the building permits for J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Respondent knew that Mr. Thomas was not licensed and could not get the permits himself. Respondent is not a salaried employee of J. T. Thomas Construction Company, and he received no compensation for his services although he was reimbursed for the actual cost of obtaining the permits. Other than obtaining the permits, respondent's only connection with Mr. Thomas' construction projects was to visit job sites before inspections or go to a site if Mr. Thomas asked for his help with a construction problem. However, there was no competent evidence establishing that respondent ever went to the particular job sites involved in this case. Respondent had no responsibilities in connection with the projects and had no authority to take any actions. In essence, respondent was simply "helping" a long time friend. Respondent has been licensed since 1968, and there was no evidence presented of any prior violations or any prior complaints.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of the act set forth in Section 489.129(e), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5586 Rulings on petitioner's proposed findings of fact by paragraph: 1-8 Accepted generally. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Julius H. Isaac 421 Ella Mae Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil Stephen F. Hanlon, Esquire General Counsel BARNETT, BOLT & KIRKWOOD Department of Professional Post Office Box 3287 Regulation 100 Twiggs Street 130 North Monroe Street Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondent's registered roofers contractors' license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on allegations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint filed herein signed February 21, 1983 alleging that Respondent unlawfully abandoned a construction project; diverted funds or property received for the completion of a construction project; made misleading, deceptive, fraudulent or untrue representation in the practice of contracting; was the subject of disciplinary action by a local licensing board and was guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, all within the moaning of Sections 489.129(1)(i),(h),(k),(m) and sections 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number PC 0034672 in the name of John M. Sneed, Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation, 7650 SG 135 Street, Miami, Florida 33156. At all times material, Respondent was qualifier for Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation under his registered roofing contractor's license. (Petitioner's exhibit 1) On April 22, 1982, Respondent entered a contract with Marcel and Goldy Wiesner to reroof the Wiesner home at 9225 Bay Drive, Surfside, Florida for a contract price of $4,915 less five percent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Wiesners contacted the Respondent and Beall and Associates because of a coupon which Wiesner noticed in the Greater Miami Yellow Pages. The coupon provided for a 5 percent roofing discount on roofing work performed by Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6 and Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner) Under the terms of the contract entered into by the parties, Respondent was to complete the installation of roofing tiles on the Wiesner residence on or before May 30, 1992. The Wiesners had informed the Respondent that they would be leaving on vacation during June of 1982, and therefore wanted the roof- repairs completed prior to their departure for vacation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5 and Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner) On approximately May 3, 1982, Respondent applied for a building permit from the town of Surfside, Florida, for the repairs to the Wiesner roof. A permit, number 18697, was issued by the town of Surfside for the reroofing job on that same date. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Respondent immediately commenced construction on the Wiesner project on May 3, 1982. At that time, Respondent was given $2,457.50, which represented 50 percent of the contract price. On May 6, 1982, the Wiesners paid Respondent $1,253.75 making the total percentage of the contract price paid to date 79 percent inclusive of the 5 percent deduction referred to above. During May of 1982, Respondent abandoned the Wiesners reroofing project and, at that time, the tin capping inspection had been performed and the project was approximately 60 percent completed. (Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner and John Hahn, Town Clerk and Manager, Town of Surfside) Respondent provided the Wiesners no prior notice of his in tent to abandon the reroofing of their residence and did not offer them any reasons for his failure to return to complete the project. (Testimony of Marcel Wiesner) The Wiesners individually, and through their attorney, made numerous attempts to contact Respondent to return to complete the reroofing work to their residence without any success. The Wiesners therefore hired a second roofing contractor to complete the project. During the interim, the Wiesners had to repair the interior of their home which was water-damaged as a result of the Respondent's failure to complete the roofing project the started. On approximately May 23, 1982, Respondent, as qualifier for Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation, contracted with John C. Leisinger to reroof the Leisinger home at 851 Heron Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida. Respondent agreed to install monterey tile on their "villa mission" style home. The contract price was $5,600. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 9 and Testimony of John C. Leisinger) On July 14, 1982, Respondent received $2,800 representing one-half of the contract price to perform the reroofing to the Leisingers' home. On or about July 16, 1982, Respondent received an additional $1,719 from the Leisingers or a total of approximately 81 percent of the contract price. (Testimony of John Leisinger) On or about July 16, 1982, Respondent applied for and received a roofing permit from the City of Miami Springs, Florida, for the reroofing work on the Leisingers' home. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Between July 14 through 16, 1982, Respondent partially performed the roofing work on the Leisingers' residence. After July 16, 1982, Respondent failed to return to the Leisingers' residence to complete the reroofing work despite numerous attempts by the Leisingers to get the Respondent to return. At the time that he left the Leisinger residence, Respondent had not installed the roofing tiles as required but left the roof in an exposed state. (Testimony of John C. Leisinger) Respondent left the Leisinger reroofing project without notice to the Leisingers nor did he later provide them any reason for his failure to return to that project. At that time, Respondent had completed approximately seventy (70%) percent of the work required under the contract. Respondent, however, did advise Mr. Leisinger that he was unable to complete the project at the original contract price because the price of the monterey tiles specified in the contract had increased. In this regard, Mr. Leisinger contacted the tile company that supplied the monterey tiles and was in formed that the price was unchanged during the period that Respondent would have purchased those tiles for the project. Further, Mr. Leisinger later purchased the same tiles specified in the contract at the same price contemplated by the parties. Mr. Leisinger was left with the alternative and was forced to purchase the tiles and complete the roofing project himself when Respondent failed to return. (Testimony of John C. Leisinger) During the course of time when the petitioner investigated a complaint filed by Mr. Leisinger with the Petitioner against the Respondent, Petitioner's Investigator, Bill McDonald, received a memorandum sent to all Building Officials in Metropolitan Dade County informing them that Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency, issued by Metropolitan Dade County, had been suspended by the Metro-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board until such time as Respondent paid fines totalling one-thousand five-hundred dollars. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12 and Testimony of Bill McDonald) Based on information contained in the above memorandum, McDonald initiated a complaint against Respondent with regard to the disciplinary action by the Metro-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. In this regard, on February 11, 1982, the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, Division "A," considered a complaint filed by Peter Di Filippi against the Respondent. The Board found that there was at least a prima facie showing of violations of Chapter 10, Metropolitan Dade County Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) On or about May 17, 1982, the Building and Zoning Department for Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board would hold a hearing to determine whether the Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency as a roofing contractor, issued by Metropolitan Dade County, should be disciplined for various charges. On July 8, 1982, the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board considered several charges against Respondent and found that Respondent was guilty of several charges specified in a Complaint and the Board fined Respondent a total of one-thousand dollars to be paid within thirty days following the close of that hearing. The Board also issued a reprimand to Respondent based on those charges. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) On September 9, 1902, the local Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board considered other charges filed against the Respondent and as a result thereof found Respondent guilty of several charges and imposed a fine of $500 payable within 60 days following the close of the September 9, 1982 hearing. Also, the Board directed that Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency as a roofing contractor he suspended for a period of thirty days. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 21 and 22) On or about February 7, 1903, John Leisinger obtained a Judgment in the amount of $3,665 plus costs and attorneys fees .. against Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation. The Judgment stemmed from the transaction referred to hereinabove between Leisinger and the Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 28 and Testimony of John Leisinger) On or about -May 23, 1983, Marcel Weisner obtained a Judgment in the amount of $10,440 against Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation end Respondent, jointly and severally. That Judgment was obtained based on the transaction referred to hereinabove between the Weisners and Respondent. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 27 and Testimony of Marcel J. Weisner) Respondent's Defense As stated herein, the Respondent did not appear to offer testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be suspended for a period of five years and he be assessed a civil fine of $2000.00 payable to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1984.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
