Findings Of Fact During times material, Respondent was a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC C014700 and was the sole qualifier for Gulfstream Contractors, Incorporated (Gulfstream). Gulfstream entered into a contract with Dr. Paul J. Schwartz, a chiropractor, to repair the roof to Schwartz' office building located at 1565 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The contract between Gulfstream and Schwartz was entered into on July 22, 1985, and for a fee of $1,375.00, Gulfstream contracted to repair Schwartz' roof by tearing off the old gravel roof, install new decking and lead boots, to galvanize the roof and to remove all debris brought about as a result of the contracting activities. Gulfstream guaranteed the roof to be free of defects for a period of ten (10) years. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Gulfstream commenced the repairs to Schwartz' roof without obtaining a construction permit and failed to call for progress inspections as was required by the City of Clearwater. Within one month following Respondent's completion of Schwartz' roof, Schwartz encountered leaks to the interior of his office building resulting in stained carpet, interior walls, and furniture in several of his examining rooms. Schwartz made repeated calls to Gulfstream in an effort to get Gulfstream to honor its ten-year guarantee on the roof. Respondent initially attempted to correct (repair) the roof, although he failed to return to the project after two or three visits during the first two months following completion of the project during July 1985. Thomas Chiplinsky is an inspector for the City of Clearwater whose area of responsibility includes the inspection of roofing projects. As part of his duties, Inspector Chiplinsky inspected Schwartz' roof following a complaint received by the City of Clearwater and found that the roof was installed in July 1985 by Gulfstream and no permit was obtained or inspections called for or made by Respondent. Inspector Chiplinsky observed soft spots in the roof and noted that Respondent failed to install counter flashing. Respondent acknowledges his responsibility as qualifier for Gulfstream. Respondent admits that he neither obtained a permit to perform the roof repairs, nor did he call for inspections as required by the City of Clearwater. Within months after Respondent completed the Schwartz project, the entity, Gulfstream Contractors, was disbanded and therefore no one responded to Schwartz' request that his roof be repaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a $500 fine against Respondent, payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of its Final Order. Respondent's license number CC C014700 be suspended for a period of one (1) year within the further condition that Respondent be allowed a period of 20 days following the entry of the Final Order to revisit the Schwartz project and make the necessary repairs to correct the roof repairs and abide by the terms of his guarantee. In the event that Respondent makes the necessary repairs within 30 days of entry of the Final Order, it is further RECOMMENDED that the period of suspension be suspended. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant 500 North Tampa Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Domingo 4032 41st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 3220
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent, Ruth Ogen, was a licensed roofing contractor, license no. CC CO27471. A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. Respondent is the sole qualifier and licensee associated with the company, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. Respondent is married to Avraham Ogen who presents himself as the president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. On or about November 9, 1986, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. doing business as Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing entered into a contract with Ardee Yuran to replace the entire roof of a commercial structure located at 14951 N.E. 6th Avenue, North Miami Beach (6th Avenue). The contract provided, among other things, that the top row of tiles around the parapet wall would be removed and reinstalled upon completion of the roof. In negotiating the contract described in paragraph 4, Mrs. Yuran was mindful of the work Avraham Ogen had performed at her residence. Mr. Ogen had supervised the reroofing of Mrs. Yuran's residence which had been satisfactorily performed. The residential job had required the removal of the tiles along the parapet wall and Mrs. Yuran expected the same process would be utilized in completing the commercial roof. The purpose intended to be accomplished by removing the tiles was to allow the roofers to extend the roofing materials up the sides of the parapet and over the crest. The roofing material is then sealed to the wall and the tiles replaced. This procedure results in a waterproof barrier so that when rain accumulates on the flat roof (and the water level rises) it cannot seep through the sealed perimeter. During the time Mr. Ogen was negotiating and performing the roof work for the 6th Avenue building, he was also retained to paint the structure (which was to be completed after the roof was finished). There came a time when Mrs. Yuran and Mr. Ogen disagreed regarding aspects of the roof work and the painting that was to be done. Eventually, the parties reached an impasse where neither was willing to concede: Mr. Ogen was not willing to perform the work as specified by Mrs. Yuran, Mrs. Yuran was not willing to pay Mr. Ogen any more on the contracts. At this point, Ruth Ogen, Respondent, had not been involved in the daily work progress made at the site. To make matters worse, a leak developed at the 6th Avenue property which resulted in a waterfall pouring down through the overhang of the building. As a result of the disagreement, both parties retained lawyers and, understandably, the issues escalated. Mrs. Yuran retained three individuals to review the work performed by Mr. Ogen. On March 4, 1987, Walter H. Scott, Scott Roofing & Repair, Inc., determined that water accumulating on the 6th Avenue roof was draining behind flashing which had not been properly sealed to the perimeter walls instead of running through the outlets. Mr. Scott recommended that the flashing be resealed along the wall. Had the tiles been removed and the work been performed as stated in the contract, the leak would have been avoided. A second licensed roofing contractor, Gary Carruth, Falcon Roofing Co., inspected the property on June 23, 1987, and recommended reflashing the walls along the perimeter of the 6th Avenue building. Mr. Carruth observed that the tiles had not been removed along the wall and that the roofing materials had not been properly sealed along the perimeter. James Rodgers, a consulting engineer performed a third inspection of the roof at 6th Avenue on June 25, 1987. According to Mr. Rodgers, several items of the contract work completed by Mr. Ogen were inadequately performed. Mr. Rodgers found that the pitch pans were not installed properly around the air conditioning units and that the flashing along the parapet wall was not properly completed nor performed as described in the contract. Respondent also retained a licensed roofer to review the work at 6th Avenue. Bill Mathews, Bill Mathews Roofing, completed a roof inspection report on November 21, 1988. According to Mr. Mathews, the flashing along the parapet wall required repair because it had been improperly sealed. Mr. Mathews noted that the top row of tile should have been removed so that flashing could have been taken up and over the parapet wall. Mr. Mathews also noted that the flat roof had buckles or "fish mouths" which should have been corrected as the roof was being installed. Mr. Mathews recommended that the flashing be resealed and that the buckles be cut and sealed with membrane and roofing cement. Finally, Mr. Mathews determined that the pitch pans under the air conditioning units should be filled with an asphalt cold process to prevent further cracking and potential leaks. A final inspection report was completed by Robert B. Hilson, Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., on August 18, 1988. Mr. Hilson is a consultant for the Department and made the inspection at the request of its attorney. Mr. Hilson's findings and recommendations mirrored those suggested by Mr. Mathews. The work performed by Mr. Ogen on the 6th Avenue property did not meet the terms of the contract and did not meet performance standards acceptable in the roofing industry. Mr. Ogen failed to properly seal all flashing materials along the parapet wall, failed to correct the buckles or "fish mouths," and failed to meet the contractual obligations (removing the tiles and extending the flashing over the crest). Because of the substandard work, Mrs. Yuran incurred additional expenses and inconvenience. Respondent did not view the 6th Avenue structure either before or during the time that her husband supervised the work performed. Respondent's role with the company was as secretary, bookkeeper, and office manager. Mr. Ogen supervised or performed all work at the 6th Avenue job. Respondent did not supervise Mr. Ogen or the workers under his supervision. "Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing" has not been qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. On or about April 28, 1987, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was requested to perform a roofing inspection at 1180 N.E. 204 Terrace. The subject property was under contract for sale and was ultimately purchased by Rose Zenar. According to the inspection report filed by Mr. Ogen, the roof and roof covering were in satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks. Mr. Ogen signed the inspection report as president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc., state license no. CC CO27471. During the first rain after she had moved into the house, Mrs. Zenar observed water leaking through the ceiling into the kitchen. She immediately called Mr. Ogen who came out, observed the problem, but did not repair the leak. Mr. Ogen did not return Mrs. Zenar's subsequent calls. Ultimately, she contacted James Rodgers to perform a second roof inspection. As a result of Mr. Rodgers' inspection, Mrs. Zenar discovered that the leak was of long duration as it had completely rotted and decayed the roof rafters and sheathing in the area of the leak. Mr. Rodgers took pictures of the area which clearly showed the discolored wood. Evidence of the discoloration was visible from the attic entrance located in the garage adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Ogen's failure to discover the rotted roof was due to an inadequate inspection of the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof rafters. It is the normal practice of qualified roof inspectors to examine the crawl space between the ceiling and roof supports. Respondent did not perform the roof inspection at Mrs. Zenar's home, did not supervise the inspection performed by Mr. Ogen, and did not have a checklist of items to be reviewed by him in making the inspection. The erroneous inspection performed by Mr. Ogen resulted in expenses and inconvenience to Mrs. Zenar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth above and, based upon the penalties recommended by rule, impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $3000.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April , 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction to reflect Mrs. Yuran not Mr. Yuran, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted with the correction that the witness' name was Gary Carruth. With the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph 15 which is rejected as argument or comment, the first five paragraphs of paragraph 15 are accepted. Petitioner is warned not to subparagraph statements of fact or to restate testimony, but to simply set forth the fact deduced from such testimony. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 17 is accepted to the extent that it finds the reroofing work performed on the 6th Avenue building was a poor quality which was not done under the supervision of a qualified, licensed roofing contractor. Further, it was gross negligence not to properly supervise the job. No conclusion is reached as to whether Respondent is able to supervise a job. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as a recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33--none submitted. With regard to paragraph 34, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as conclusion of law, argument, or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 36-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or recitation. The first two sentences of paragraph 40 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as comment, conclusion of law, or argument. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, conclusion of law, or argument. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, speculation, or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by this record. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The following are rulings on case no. 88-1776 as submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted but is irrelevant, immaterial. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction findings Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating licenses for roofing contractors in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent held two licenses; he was a certified roofing contractor, license no. CC CO55580, and a registered roofing contractor, license no. RC 0060386. Respondent filed an application to qualify the company, D.S.S. & Sons, Inc., as a licensed roofing contractor; however, he failed to complete all documents necessary for licensure, and his application was closed for lack of response effective August 3, 1993. Respondent's address of record with the Department is 821 SW Dwyer Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983. D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. is not now, nor has it ever been, licensed to perform roofing construction by the State of Florida. Facts common to all consumers On or about August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County, Florida, resulting in damage to hundreds of roofs. Roof repair or total replacement following the storm was not uncommon. Due to the large amount of damage, and the demand for roofing materials created by the volume of work to be performed, some contractors had difficulty obtaining roofing supplies. Additionally, some contractors had difficulty hiring qualified labor to perform the extensive roofing that was in great demand. The problems with obtaining materials and labor, however, were short term in that most roofing contractors made arrangements to bring in supplies and staff from other areas. In fact, by the time the work was to be performed in connection with these cases, the problems which had plagued the Dade County contractors were subsiding. Additionally, at all times material to these cases, the weather would not have been a factor to justify the delays complained of by these consumers. Rainy weather did not cause any prolonged work delays after the storm. Findings as to Helmly Charles Helmly resides at 11985 SW 98th Lane, Miami, Florida. His home was damaged by Hurricane Andrew and required roof replacement. Mr. Helmly contracted with Respondent to re-roof his home for the sum of $17,940.00. The contract was signed by Respondent's salesman, Felix Fowler, and identified D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. doing business as Darryl Saibic, Roofing Contractor as the licensed entity. Mr. Helmly paid an initial deposit of $5,382.00 in order for the Respondent to begin work on the project. The next payment, an additional $5,382.00, was to be due at the "dry in" stage of the job, with the final payment (the balance) due on completion. One of the contract provisions Mr. Helmly insisted upon was a completion deadline to be stated in the contract. He was expecting visitors and he was anxious to have the home re-roofed before their arrival. He insisted that a guaranteed completion date of March 7, 1993 be noted on the face of the contract. Mr. Helmly complied with all requirements of the payment schedule outlined by the contract. In fact, he remitted $10,764.00 even though the roof had not been at the "dry in" stage. Between January and February, 1993, the Respondent removed the old roof, installed a base sheet, and nailed a single ply roof membrane to the roof. After February, 1993, the Respondent failed to timely complete the Helmly roof. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Helmly roof was no more than $3,588.00. The Respondent did not respond to numerous telephone calls and letters from Helmly, and threatened to place a lien on the Helmly property when Mr. Helmly attempted to cancel the contract in May, 1993. Mr. Helmly went to the Dade County Building Department and complained about roof leaks in June, 1993 (Respondent had still not done any further work). On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Helmly property to repair the roof. The repairs caused the roof to leak more. Respondent did not refund Mr. Helmly's money, did not complete the roof, and showed a gross indifference to the plight which resulted when he failed to timely complete the project. In July, 1993, desperate to have his roof completed, Mr. Helmly offered to purchase the tiles himself if Respondent would have a crew come install the new roof. Respondent agreed to have a crew install the tile within ten days of its arrival. On September 17, 1993, Mr. Helmly took delivery of the new tile, paid for it in full (a cost of $4,803.00) and notified the Respondent so that the installation could begin. Respondent never returned to complete the re-roofing. He failed to honor his verbal agreement to install the tiles. By letter dated October 1, 1993, Respondent offered to reimburse Helmly for the overage if he would hire another contractor to complete the job. On October 19, 1993, Mr. Helmly hired a new contractor who completed the installation of the new roof in early November, 1993. Approximately eight months after the deadline on Respondent's contract, Mr. Helmly had his new roof. Extra expenses totalling $2,936.21 were paid by Mr. Helmly as a result of the Respondent's abandonment of this job. Findings as to Gurdian On January 14, 1993, the Gurdians contracted with Respondent through his agent, Ed Comstock, to repair the roof on their home located at 13301 SW 110 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The contract was executed as D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. d/b/a Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor and called for a total payment of $7,725.00 for the work to be done. The Gurdians made a deposit of $2,300.00 on January 14, 1993 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received a partial release of lien. On February 8, 1993, the Respondent pulled a permit for the Gurdian home but never called for inspections on this project. In February, 1993, all the tiles were removed from the roof and roofing paper was installed. On March 1, 1993, the Gurdians made a second payment of $2,300.00 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received another partial release of lien. The Respondent did not timely complete the Gurdian roof. From June through November, 1993, Respondent sent the Gurdians unsigned notices claiming he would return to their job but did not do so. Numerous excuses were offered as to why the project was not completed; however, none of these had merit. The Gurdians waited until April, 1994 hoping the Respondent would return and complete the work. They drove to Respondent's office and left a message seeking assistance. Finally, Respondent recommended a company called CTI to complete the roof work for the Gurdians. When contacted, CTI told the Gurdians it would cost $7,600.00 to complete their job for which they, not Respondent, would be responsible. The Gurdians then attempted to notify the Respondent at his address of record by certified mail of their continuing problems but the letter was returned to them unopened. In June, 1994, the Gurdians hired another company to finish their roof which was finally complete and passed inspections on July 26, 1994. The Gurdians were required to pay a total of $13,475.00 to have their roof replaced because the Respondent failed to perform under the original contract. Due to the Respondent's abandonment and indifference in connection with this project, the Gurdians were damaged in an amount not less than $4,200.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Gurdians' roof did not exceed $1,545.00. Respondent has not refunded any of the funds paid by the Gurdians. Findings of fact as to Vila Marta Vila resides at 11116 SW 133 Place, Miami, Florida 33186. Like the others discussed above, the Vila home was damaged and required a new roof. On January 13, 1993, Vila signed a contract with Ed Comstock acting on behalf of D.S.S. and Sons, Inc., doing business as Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor, to have her roof repaired for a total contract price of $7,200.00. A down payment of $2,160.00 made payable to the company was made at that time. On February 8, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to re-roof the Vila home. On February 15, 1993, Vila paid an additional $2,160.00 to Respondent. At that time Respondent removed the tiles from the Vila roof and installed one layer of roofing paper over the roof decking. Despite representations from Respondent that new tiles would be delivered in approximately three to four weeks, the Respondent did not install a new roof on the Vila home. In February and March, 1993, the roof was patched three times to stop leaks but no substantive work was performed to install new tiles. Respondent did not return to the Vila home despite numerous requests from the homeowner for the work to be completed. In June, 1993, Respondent represented that the Vila job might be completed if the tiles were sent out COD. When Vila attempted to verify that information, she was told she had paid enough to not have that concern. However, no tiles were ever delivered to her home. In August, 1993, Vila, after Respondent failed to return telephone calls, wrote to Respondent and demanded a refund. She has not received one. Vila ended up paying $7,754.00 to another contractor to have her roof replaced. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Vila project did not exceed $1,440.00 yet he has failed or otherwise refused to refund the difference between that amount and what she paid. Vila has suffered monetary damages in an amount not less than $4,800.00 as a result of Respondent's abandonment of this project. Findings of fact as to Bermudez Mr. and Mrs. Bermudez reside at 8335 SW 147th Place, Miami, Florida. On November 30, 1992, they signed a contract with Respondent in the amount of $6,400.00 to correct extensive leakage on both floors of the Bermudez home. Mrs. Bermudez gave a deposit in the amount of $1,860.00 and was told that the repairs would begin in two weeks and be completed in approximately five weeks. In December 1992, and January, 1993, the Respondent performed some minor patching but no significant work was undertaken to repair the Bermudez home. In January, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to replace the Bermudez roof. Within a week of the permit, Respondent sent an unsigned form letter to the Bermudez advising them that there would be delays. In February and March, 1993, the Respondent's crew stripped the old tile off the Bermudez home and installed batten and roofing paper over the decking. Mrs. Bermudez made deposits totalling $3,720.00 to Respondent in connection with this contract. Despite numerous requests from Mrs. Bermudez, Respondent did not complete the roof. In July, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Bermudez home in connection with a leak but the repair did not resolve the problems and did not substantively finish the roof. As with the other cases, between July and November, 1993, Respondent sent numerous unsigned form letters to Mrs. Bermudez offering false or ridiculous excuses for why the project had not been completed. In January, 1994, Mrs. Bermudez filed a formal complaint against Respondent but he never completed the job nor refunded the deposits. Between March and July, 1994, Respondent represented he would complete the Bermudez job but did not do so. The Bermudez roof was not completed until December 13, 1994. As a result of Respondent's incompetence, inability, or refusal to complete the Bermudez roof, the family lived with a leaking roof for approximately two years and incurred unnecessary expenses. Respondent showed a gross indifference to the plight of the Bermudez family. Respondent could not have timely completed the projects described above during the period July, 1993 to July, 1994, as his workers compensation had expired. The numerous promises to perform the contracts as originally agreed were meaningless.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's licenses, requiring Respondent to make full restitution to the consumers in these cases before being entitled to seek new licensure, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution of these cases as set forth in the affidavits filed in this cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 25th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1079, 95-1080, 95-1081, 95-1082 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 155 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Masters Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Darryl Saibic 821 S.W. Dwyer Road Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring general contractors. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Part and parcel of the Department's duties is the sanctioning of persons who practice general contracting without a license. Respondent is an individual living in Tampa, Florida. Respondent did not appear at final hearing and has not filed any post-hearing motions concerning his failure to appear. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Department makes the following allegations: Respondent was not registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent, doing business as J.D.S. Roofing, contracted with Vivian Virgil to perform certain roofing work, specifically, to remove and replace shingles and related work to reconstruct the roof on Virgil's home. A contract between the parties dated April 21, 2006, was signed by Virgil and Respondent (or his authorized representative). Virgil made two payments to Respondent in the amounts of $2,500.00 (via check number 1037) and $1,564.46 (via check number 1040). She also made a payment of $2,860.54 to The Home Depot to pay for materials ordered by Respondent for Virgil's roofing repairs. Respondent then made the contracted-for repairs and replacement of Virgil's roof pursuant to the contract.2 Virgil, however, was not pleased with the quality of the work. She is unable to get a warranty on the roof because Respondent's work was inferior. Virgil must have another contractor re-do the roof in order to get a warranty. Neither Respondent nor his company, J.D.S. Roofing, is or has ever been licensed by the State of Florida as a contractor. However, Respondent held himself out as a general contractor in his dealings with Virgil.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, James Delaughter, is guilty of the unlicensed practice of contracting and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 April, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for certification as a roofing inspector should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has worked in the construction industry since 1973. He was trained as an electrician, but he has “worked in about every trade” over the years, including roofing. Petitioner is certified by the Board as a building code inspector (all trades), plans examiner (all trades), and building code administrator. Petitioner is not, and never has been, a state or locally certified roofing contractor or a general contractor. Petitioner has worked as a building code inspector and plans examiner for Nassau County since May 2003. He previously worked as a building code inspector for Seminole County and the City of Oviedo, and as a plans examiner for a private inspection and engineering company. Inspecting roofs is part of Petitioner’s job as a building code inspector for Nassau County, but it is not the only trade that he inspects. Unlike larger jurisdictions where inspectors specialize in particular trades, Petitioner and the other building code inspectors in Nassau County are “combination inspectors” responsible for inspecting all aspects of the building. Petitioner typically conducts 80 to 100 inspections per week, but less than 10 percent of those inspections -- approximately six per week -- are roof inspections. Petitioner credibly testified that even though roof inspections are a relatively small portion of his job, he looks at roof design and construction on a daily basis when he is on- site inspecting other aspects of the building and when he is reviewing building plans as a plans examiner. The current and former building official in Nassau County credibly testified that Petitioner “regularly” inspects roofs and that they have had no problems or concerns with his roof inspections. Their testimony concerning the competency of Petitioner’s roof inspection work was corroborated by a building code inspector who works with Petitioner and who has been a certified roofing contractor since 1983. In September 2008, Petitioner submitted an application to the Board for certification as a roofing inspector. The Board considered Petitioner’s application at its regular meeting in October 2008. The Board determined that Petitioner’s application should be denied because he does not have the “four (4) years of roofing experience” required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G19-6.016(3). The Board construes this and other similar experience requirements in its rules to require full-time experience. The Board’s interpretation of the rule is based, at least in part, upon its reasonable and logical expectation that a person who performs a job on a full-time basis gains more knowledge and expertise than a person who performs the job only occasionally. Petitioner does not have four years of full-time roofing experience, and he does not inspect roofs on a full-time basis as a building code inspector. Petitioner does not need to be certified as a roofing inspector to inspect roofs in the course of his work as a building code inspector. Petitioner wants to be certified as a roofing inspector “to protect [himself] in the future from changes in the law” because he is concerned that at some point certification as a roofing inspector may be required in order to inspect roofs. There is no basis in the record for Petitioner’s speculative concern. The Board chairman, Robert McCormick, credibly testified that he was unaware of anything under consideration that would require certification as a roofing inspector in order to inspect roofs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for certification as a roofing inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 2nd day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Usher is not licensed to engage in contracting as a state-registered or state-certified contractor in the State of Florida, and he is not licensed, registered, or certified, pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes, as an electrical contractor. Mr. Usher works under the name of "J" Squared Construction ("J" Squared). Rose Linthicome is the owner of Divine Connections Realty, whose business address was 2108 Third Avenue, Crestview, Florida. As a result of Hurricane Ivan, Ms. Linthicome's building located on Third Avenue sustained damage to the roof. Ms. Linthicome contacted Norcross Construction Company (Norcross) to get a bid for the roof repair. Norcross asked Mr. Usher to prepare a proposal for the work as a subcontractor, which Mr. Usher did. After receiving the proposal from Mr. Usher, Norcross submitted a bid to Ms. Linthicome, but the cost was well beyond the amount which Ms. Linthicome's insurance paid for the damage. Ms. Linthicome could not afford to use Norcross to repair the roof. Mr. Usher approached Ms. Linthicome and told her that he could do the work as "J" Squared for less than the amount bid by Norcross, if Ms. Linthicome would pull the permits as the building owner. Ms. Linthicome agreed for "J" Squared to do the work for labor costs of $26,400.00. Ms. Linthicome was to pay for materials and supplies. The total cost for the new roof system and materials was not to exceed $52,400.00 Mr. Usher prepared the contract for the new roof system. The contract was titled "'J' Squared Subcontract Agreement." In the contract Ms. Linthicome was referred to as the contractor. The contract set forth the work to be performed as follows: "J" Squared is subcontracted to do a complete roof rip out and new roof system installation on the existing structure. This includes the rip out and the new installation of a new roof system: THE RIP OUT INCLUDES: The removal of ceilings, lights, fans, vents, smoke alarms and any other item attached to the ceilings. The removal of the existing plywood, trusses, and debris of the old roof, and Any and all other aspects that are considered reasonable and necessary to be performed in order to remove the roof and prepare the structure for the new roofing system. THE NEW INSTALLATION INCLUDES: The Installation of New Trusses manufactured by Freeport Truss Company, The Installation of New Plywood and felt paper to dry in the new roof system, The Installation of Rat Runs, Blocking, Hardware, Strapping to meet code, The Installation of New 20 Year Architectural shingles, The Installation of New Rain Gutter System, The Building of the Front Porch Cricket and New Ceiling with arched entry, the Installation, building or attachment of any and all aspects of a typical roofing system redo, The Re attachment of all existing ceilings. (Moving the garage ceiling to the inside front room and replacing Garage ceiling with Sheet Rock, The Reinstallation of all fixtures, lights, fans, smoke alarms, etc on the existing new ceilings, The Installation of new communications, network and other plugs and outlets as agreed to on 10/04/05, and Any and all other aspects that are considered reasonable and necessary to be performed in order to pass inspections and for the new roofing system to be considered as complete. Ms. Linthicome did not tell Mr. Usher that she was a licensed contractor, and Mr. Usher's testimony that he thought that Ms. Linthicome was a licensed contractor is not credible. It was never intended that Ms. Linthicome would supervise the installation of the new roof system. It was always the intent of Mr. Usher and Ms. Linthicome that Mr. Usher would directly supervise the work. As the building owner, Ms. Linthicome could pull the building permit, but Mr. Usher could not pull the building permit because he was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Usher ordered the trusses from Freeport Truss Company and requested that Ms. Linthicome write two checks to the Truss Company, one check for $9,000.00 and one check for $6,000.00. Ms. Linthicome also gave Mr. Usher a check made out to "J" Squared for $8,4000.00 for the initial payment for labor. Mr. Usher hired the laborers to work on the project. He intended to subcontract with an electrician to perform the electrical work on the project. Mr. Usher and his crew removed the roof and failed to complete the project. In the investigation and prosecution of this case, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $369.09, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Usher violated Subsections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and assessing investigative costs of $369.09. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 12th day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
