The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent conducted business through an entity known as C. J. Home Improvement Corporation, which was also not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. In 1995, Joseph Pallant was one of the owners and the manager of a commercial building located at 3700 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In January 1995, Mr. Pallant entered into an agreement to lease the building for a term of ten years to a non-profit organization named PWAC, an acronym for People With Aids Coalition. PWAC had an office in the adjacent block and wanted to operate a thrift shop at the subject premises. The roof on the subject building leaked. The parties agreed that Mr. Pallant would pay to replace the roof and that PWAC would thereafter be responsible for maintenance. The officers of PWAC informed Mr. Pallant that they wanted Respondent to do the roofing work. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was unlicensed. It is clear that Mr. Pallant and Respondent knew one another prior to January 1995. Based on Mr. Pallant's testimony, which the undersigned finds credible, it is found that Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was in the building repair business, but that he did not know Respondent was unlicensed. Respondent's assumption that Mr. Pallant knew he was unlicensed is not as credible as Mr. Pallant's direct, unequivocal testimony that he had no such knowledge. After having several conversations with Mr. Pallant by telephone and at the building, Respondent prepared a written proposal on his business form to do the work necessary to replace the roof. The proposal was submitted to PWAC. The proposal described in detail the work that would be done and the materials that would be furnished, the time frame for the work, and the price. The price was set at $6,183.00 plus $400.00 if certain additional work would have to be done on certain drains. PWAC was provided a copy of the proposal that was dated February 25, 1995. Respondent signed this proposal and affixed the corporate seal of his business entity. Under Respondent's signature was the phrase "personally individually guaranteed." At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Pallant was one of the owners of the building and that he would be paying for the roofing work. On February 27, 1995, Respondent and Mr. Pallant met. Respondent gave Mr. Pallant an unsigned copy of the written proposal (dated February 27, 1995, but otherwise identical to the form given PWAC, but dated February 25, 1995). After they discussed the work, Mr. Pallant accepted the proposal and gave Respondent a check made payable to C. J. Home Improvement in the amount of $3,100.00. Respondent accepted this check and deposited the proceeds of the check in his company's bank account. Without the prior knowledge or consent of Mr. Pallant, Respondent attempted to subcontract the roofing job to a licensed roofer named Don Palmier.1 No work was started on the job. In March 1995, Mr. Pallant met with representatives of PWAC and Respondent to discuss the lack of progress. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Palmier refused to proceed with the roofing job2 and Mr. Pallant learned that Respondent was unlicensed and could not do the work. During the course of the meeting PWAC cancelled its lease. Mr. Pallant subsequently filed suit against C. J. Home Improvement for the return of the $3,100.00. Despite obtaining a final judgment for that sum plus costs and fees, the Respondent has not satisfied any portion of the judgment. As of April 23, 1998, the Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $269.62.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein; finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; dismisses Count II of the Administrative Complaint; imposed an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00; and assesses costs against Respondent in the amount of $269.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1998
The Issue Whether Respondent's contractor license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James Cooper, was at all times material to this action licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC0066905. Mr. Cooper's license is currently classified "Inactive, Issued (09/05/97)." Around March 1, 1996, Marshall Moran was contacted by Julia Jones regarding repairs to the leaky roof on her home located at 209 Cresent Drive, DeFuniak Springs Walton County, Florida. Ms. Jones' home was over one hundred years old with a steep metal roof. The roof she wished repaired was over the enclosed sleeping porch of her house. Over the last ten years, she had various contractors attempt to fix the leak in the sleeping porch roof. These attempts occurred, on average, more than one time per year. The leak always returned. Marshall Moran is an unlicensed and unregistered roofing contractor. Mr. Moran has been a roofing contractor since before the licensure requirements for contractors became law. He elected not to become licensed under those statutes. However, he did have the experience and skills necessary to repair Ms. Jones' roof. Marshall Moran discussed the job with Ms. Jones. Mr. Moran recommended the entire section of the roof be rebuilt and described the anticipated repairs. Ms. Jones would not allow the entire section of roof to be repaired. She thought only the small section where the leak was apparent needed repair. Unknown to Ms. Jones and prior to beginning the work, Mr. Moran contacted Respondent to tell him of Ms. Jones' job and to see if Respondent wanted to do the job. Respondent couldn't do the job with his crew but offered to allow Mr. Moran to "work under his license." Respondent was pursuing a large commercial roofing contract around the same time as the events at issue here. He wanted to keep Moran's crew together in order to be able to complete the large commercial job. He held the crew together by enabling Moran to do the construction at Julia Jones' residence in consideration for taking legal responsibility for the Jones' job. Respondent did not hire Mr. Moran as his employee. Respondent knew Mr. Moran was not registered or certified to practice contracting. He also knew Mr. Moran was well qualified to perform the work on the Jones' job. Respondent admits that he knew that he should not pull permits for anyone, but that he did it just this one time in order to keep the crew together. On March 15, 1996, Respondent obtained City of DeFuniak Springs, Florida, building permit number 1379 for the roof repairs to Ms. Jones' residence. On the application for said building permit, Respondent represented himself (doing business as Cooper Roofing and Repair) as the contractor of record on the aforesaid project. Respondent intended to and did eventually take legal responsibility for the Jones' job. However, he did not supervise Mr. Moran or his crew. Additionally, Ms. Jones was never informed of Respondent's involvement. More importantly, Ms. Jones never contracted with Respondent for either Respondent or his company to perform roof repairs on her home. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Moran provided an estimate for repair of the portion of Ms. Jones' roof she felt needed repair. The estimate bears the name of "AAA Metal Works" and "Marshall Moran." AAA Metal Works was Mr. Moran's company. The estimate does not reference either Respondent or his company. The estimated cost to repair Ms. Jones roof was $2,785. Based on the estimate, Ms. Jones entered into a contract with Mr. Moran and AAA Metal Works to perform the repairs to her roof discussed above. Moran and his crew substantially completed the repairs to Ms. Jones' roof in a few days. However, the roof continued to leak after Moran and his crew ended their work. The continuing leak was not due to any incompetence on the part of Respondent or Moran. Ms. Jones paid for the repairs with two checks made out to AAA Metal Works. The checks were in the amounts of $3,500 and $4,350. Respondent did not receive any of the money for the Jones' job. His only expense was the fee for the building permit. All other expenses were paid for by Mr. Moran. At no time during the formation or performance of the contract with Marshall Moran did Julia Jones have any contact with or knowledge of involvement by Respondent. In fact, Respondent only drove by the job site one time. As indicated, the roof continued to leak. Ms. Jones contacted Mr. Moran on approximately 5-6 occasions notifying him of the continued leaks. Mr. Moran would return to Ms. Jones' home and inspect the problems, but was unable to stop the leaks to Jones' satisfaction. It is not clear whether Mr. Moran kept Respondent informed of these continued service calls. Approximately one year after completion of the initial repairs on Ms. Jones' roof, Respondent received a call from Ms. Jones' tenant and friend, Sharon Jenks, who called posing as a potential new client. Ms. Jenks had gotten Respondent's name from the building permit. Ms. Jenks called Respondent because the house was still leaking approximately one year after the repair was done and intervening visits by Marshall Moran had not fixed the problem. Ms. Jenks arranged for Respondent to visit Ms. Jones' home. Respondent did not recognize the house when he arrived and drove past it. When Ms. Jenks showed Respondent the building permit bearing his name, Respondent showed surprise. He returned the next day with Mr. Moran. Respondent, Mr. Moran, Ms. Jenks and Ms. Jones all met regarding the continued leaking. Respondent and Mr. Moran told Ms. Jones that the metal on the roof was "bad" and needed to be replaced to stop the leaks on the "sleeping porch." Understandably, Ms. Jones did not want to deal any further with Mr. Moran or Respondent and would not permit them to make the recommended necessary repairs. Ms. Jones sued both Respondent and Mr. Moran in a civil action styled: Julia R. Jones v. James K. Cooper and Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0040-CC, in the County Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. Following a judge trial, a Final Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent and Mr. Moran on December 9, 1997. Mr. Moran was charged with contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127, Florida Statutes (1995), in State of Florida v. Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0549-CF, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. That charge was dismissed by Circuit Judge Lewis Lindsey on February 3, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board should find Respondent guilty of violating Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes, and impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Willams and Holz, P.A. 458 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LaDon Dewrell, Esquire 207 Florida Place, Southeast Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Jesse Bruce, Respondent herein, is a registered roofing contractor and has been issued license No. RC0022948. On September 2, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract to repair a roof at 3684 NW 29th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, for Ms. Beryl Babb for the sum of $485.00. Respondent admits that he commenced construction under the above-referenced contract without first having obtained a building permit. Respondent was paid in full under the contract by Ms. Babb on September 4, 1981. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, Respondent provided for a two-year warranty on the roof repairs. Within an approximate two-month period following the repairs by Respondent, Ms. Babb made repeated phone calls to Respondent's construction company to report complaints that she was having in that the roof and garage appeared to "leak more than it had leaked prior to the repairs." Ms. Babb made at least six telephone calls to Respondent's construction company to no avail. During November, 1981, Ms. Babb filed a civil complaint in small claims court and during January, 1982, Ms. Babb received a judgment against the Respondent for $300.00. 1/ Respondent ahs been a licensed and registered roofing contractor since October, 1974. Respondent acknowledged that he received complaints from Ms. Babb as was testified herein; however, he states that he was busy during the times in which the complaints were made, an further that he did not want to make repairs inasmuch as Ms. Babb had elected to file a civil complaint against him in small claims court. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he was obliged to return tot he Babb residence to make the repairs inasmuch as the complaints from Ms. Babb came during the two-year period in which the warranty for the roof repairs was in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jesse Bruce 721 NW 20th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging an inadequate performance in work done for a customer, Louise A. Bright. In particular, Respondent is said to have proceeded to do work for Ms. Bright without having obtained a timely permit to commence the work, in violation of local law, by his deliberate action or through improper supervision. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In addition, Respondent is accused of having done business under a name other than the name reflected on his license, as issued by Petitioner, the name which he had done business under having not been qualified with Petitioner. Again, this constitutes alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Finally, Respondent is accused of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct and/or deceit in connection with work based upon his personal activities or his failure to properly supervise, leading to a performance which did not provide a reasonably watertight roof, which roof leaked; the improper installation of window seals, resulting in water draining towards the interior; and misconduct in the competitive-bid process associated with the Bright job. The administrative complaint points out that the Respondent had previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in an unrelated case.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, has the responsibility of prosecuting administrative complaints brought by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The authority for the activities of these entities is announced in Chapters 120, 455 and 49, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules promulgated under the authority of those statutes. At times pertinent to this inquiry, Respondent has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified residential contractor. His license number is CR C0277268. The license he holds is as an individual. Respondent has not served as a qualifying agent for a company known as Stratton Construction Company. Ms. Louise A. Bright of 5143 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, was interested in having remodeling and re-roofing work done at her home at that address under the auspices of the HUD Rehabilitation Program. In this connection, she sought bids from two contractors other than Respondent. The intention of those two contractors in submission of sealed bids to Ms. Bright was to secure their contents from being disclosed to competitors, such as Respondent. Respondent contacted Ms. Bright about bidding on this project. This solicitation of Ms. Bright was not inappropriate. It was inappropriate for Respondent, once he entered into discussions with Ms. Bright at her home, to insist on Ms. Bright revealing the contents of his competitors' bids. Ms. Bright told Respondent that she did not think this was an appropriate arrangement. Respondent replied that it was done all the time. Respondent kept asking Ms. Bright about different items in one competitor's bid quotation. Eventually, Ms. Bright tired of the discussion and laid one of the two proposals on her table and Respondent examined it and began to describe how he thought he could undercut the price of his competitor. As Robert H. Adams, a certified residential contractor licensed by the State of Florida, testified in the hearing, it was an act of misconduct for Respondent to ask for the contents of the sealed bid of the competitor before submitting his own bid. In fact, Respondent did not offer his terms until he had had the opportunity to examine the position of a competitor and the terms of that competitor's bid. On May 28, 1987, Ms. Bright and Respondent entered into a contract to have the remodeling work done at her home and the roof work. The roof work was constituted of shingles in one portion and the installation of materials which approximate a built-up roof in another portion. The price of the contract was $15,140.00. Respondent entered into the contract with Ms. Bright under the name of Stratton Construction Company. Respondent commenced the work sometime around June 8 or 10, 1987. Respondent, under the name of Stratton Construction Company, obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, for purposes of the re- roofing work only. That permit was obtained on June 11, 1987, after the overall work began at the residence. Although it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a permit from the City of Jacksonville to do the remodeling portion of the work, as contemplated by requirements of the City of Jacksonville's Building Code, the remodeling permit was never obtained before commencement of the work, nor at any other time, as the record stands. As the work proceeded, several change orders were executed on May 28, 1987, June 2, 1987 and June 3, 1987. A fourth change order was not allowed. The reason for its rejection was based upon the perception of an official with HUD, Hank Pocopanni, who felt that the cost of the fourth change order was too expensive. The ultimate contract price was $15,130.00. Based upon the progress of the work, 30% and 60% payments on the contract amount were rendered based upon a 40% and 80% completion. At the time of the second draw, the roof had been installed. The roof in question, although needing repair, had not been leaking prior to the work that was done on it. The roofing work was done at the residence by Bailey's Roofing of 2922 West 6th Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32205. The inspections on the quality of the roof work which were done by the HUD and the City of Jacksonville were not detailed inspections. The inspections by the City of Jacksonville were merely to see that the roof had been installed. The more complete inspection of the roof which would have been done by HUD was to be performed at the time of the final inspection. That final inspection never occurred because Ms. Bright and Respondent terminated their relationship as owner and contractor under the contract. Respondent has also placed a claim of lien against Ms. Bright for the balance of the contract money not disbursed. The roof has leaked in a bedroom in the home, as well as in the breakfast room and around one of the chimneys, running down rafters from the chimney. In addition, as Mr. Adams pointed out in his expert opinion testimony, which is accepted, the prefab chimney structure, which had heavy asphalt cement placed upon the top of the cap, was an inappropriate installation because chimneys produce heat and one should not put asphalt cement next to them. Respondent has sufficient expertise to understand the inappropriateness of this form of installation. It is not necessary for him to be a roofing contractor to understand that this was an incorrect choice. Nor does he need to be a roofing contractor to understand, as Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified that the shingles on the roof were improperly installed and the fact that the shingles had been improperly cut because they did not cover the eaves drip completely. A certified residential contractor, such as Respondent, has the necessary expertise to understand the re-roofing by use of shingles. Respondent is also capable of understanding that the installation of flashing material around the chimney at the home was unsightly and improper, as identified by Mr. Adams, whose expertise is accepted and opinion is credited. Mr. Adams also identified the fact of a 48-inch overhang at the rear of the house without vertical support columns or beams and some concern about the stability of that situation. On balance, his opinion does not seem to state with certainty that this, indeed, is a problem. Likewise, his opinion about the part of the roof which is, by nature, more akin to a built-up roof and its potential for physical damage because of problems with its membrane is not credited because he is not found to be an expert in those types of roofs. According to Mr. Adams, the problems with the roof and window seals were representative of incompetence and lack of proper supervision on the part of Respondent. This opinion of Mr. Adams is accepted. Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified the fact that the window seals, which had been installed in this project, did not have an appropriate slope to allow them to divert water away from the windows, resulting in the possibility of water intrusion into the house. This refers to rainwater. His opinion is accepted. Although a copy of a punchlist dated August 25, 1987, which Respondent had and is shown as Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, makes reference to repairs of a roof leak in bedroom 1, on February 2, 1988, Ms. Bright was still having problems with the roof as evidenced by correspondence directed to Stratton Construction Company on that date. Respondent has been disciplined in the past by the imposition of a $100.00 fine in DOAH Case No. 87-2699. This pertained to a contract of August 14, 1986 with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street, Jacksonville, Florida. It was the finding in that case that prior to that situation, Respondent had only built new homes in Florida and was unaware of the necessity to obtain a permit to affect repairs to the interior of the home other than the permit he had obtained. The facts went on to describe how Respondent was aware of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room but only applied for that permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed and he was in dispute with the homeowners. As a consequence, Respondent was found in violation of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and the fine imposed.
Recommendation In accordance with Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, having in mind Respondent's disciplinary history, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which imposes an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2164 Petitioner's facts are responded to as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found, except its suggestion of problems other than those associated with the roof and the window seals, which other problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to problems other than with the roof and the window seals, which problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to comments by Mr. Adams related to the roofing membrane, which is found to be beyond his expertise. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Stuart Stratton 3365 Silver Palm Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32250
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0020923. On may 27, 1982, the Respondent, doing business as T & T Roofing Company, contracted with Jessie Reid, 1021 Abeline Drive, Deltona, Florida, to replace an existing shingle roof for a total contract price of $2,406.20. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as qualifying agency for A. L. Roofing Specialists. At no time has the Respondent qualified T & T Roofing Company. On August 26, 1982, when the Respondent completed work on Jessie Reid's roof, he was paid $2,406.20 which was the entire contract price for this job. The Respondent was to return to the job site to inspect the roof and correct minor remaining problems. However, when the Respondent would not return to the job, even after repeated calls, it was determined that there is a difference in shingle thickness at points on the roof, and the rain runs down over the gutters instead of into them. Further, the hip and ridge caps are of a different material than the major portion of the shingled roof; there are exposed nails; and the gutters are filled with roofing debris. The Respondent has not been responsive to communications and he has refused to make the necessary corrections to Jessie Reid's roof. The Respondent never obtained a permit for the reroofing work done for Jessie Reid at 1021 Abeline Drive, in Deltona. A permit is required to do reroofing work in Deltona, which is within the jurisdiction of Volusia County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Registered Roofing Contractor's license number RC 0020923 held by the Respondent, John W. Thorn, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John W. Thorn Post Office Box 1897 Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Brian D. Legate, should be disciplined on the charges in the Administrative Complaint, PCCLB Complaint No. C98-556. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint charged violations of Section 24(2)(d), (j), (m), and (n) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida (1975), as amended, by: Count I - failure to obtain a building permit before beginning roofing work, contrary to the requirements of Section 104 of the Standard Building Code; Count II - covering rotted roof framing and building a roof that leaked, contrary to the requirements of Section 1509.1.2.1 of the Standard Building Code; and Count III - committing gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Brian D. Legate, is a licensed roofing contractor. He holds license C-4676 (RC0061241). On approximately March 16, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Shutt requested an estimate from Legate for the repair of a leaking roof at their house at 7127 Third Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The leaking portion of the roof was a flat, built-up roof that was over the single-story living room of the house and adjacent to a second story bedroom; the other three sides of the perimeter of the leaking roof consisted of capped parapet walls. The roof and tile covered the flat portion of the roof and extended approximately ten inches up the inside of the parapet walls. The Shutts did not testify. Legate testified that the Shutts could not afford to completely rebuild and seal the parapets, re-roof, and re-tile. Instead, the Shutts wanted Legate to tear off the old roof down to the wood decking and re- roof to try to stop the roof leak; the Shutts planned to have someone else rebuild and seal the parapets and finish the roof with new tiles in about six months. Legate recognized that the Shutts' plan was not ideal; it would be difficult to maintain a watertight roof system until the parapets were rebuilt and sealed and the tiles replaced. Under the Shutts' plan, Legate would have to tack the new roof to the lower part of the parapet walls as best he could and tuck the upper edge of the new roof under the drip edge on the parapet wall to secure it temporarily until the parapet walls were rebuilt and sealed and the new tile installed. But Legate agreed to cooperate with the Shutts and give them an estimate for the work requested. Legate also recognized that it would have been best to install new flashing between the new roof and the parapet walls above the roof. The old metalwork serving as flashing on the existing roof system actually was a metal roof drip edge that was being misused as flashing. Legate recommended new flashing, but the Shutts declined because it would cost an additional $1,500 that they could not afford. On or about March 16, 1998, Legate gave the Shutts an estimate, without any new metalwork, for $4,000, plus $950 for new roof drains. Legate planned to install the roof drain bowls somewhat higher than the top of the new roof so that they would be flush with the ceramic tile when eventually installed over his roof. The Shutts accepted Legate's estimate for the roof work, a contract was signed, and the Shutts paid an inital $1,200 installment on March 19, 1998. Legate began work on the Shutts' roof approximately two weeks later. Legate also has a general contractor license, and he also made a proposal to repair wood and plaster inside the Shutts' house that had been damaged over the years by water leaking from the roof above. The Shutts could not afford this proposal and declined. Legate purposely delayed obtaining a building permit to give the Shutts more time to have the parapet walls rebuilt and the new tile installed under the six-month life of the building permit. As Legate's work proceeding, the Shutts paid an additional $1,200 on April 9, 1998, and another $2,000 on May 4, 1998. At approximately the time Legate invoiced the Shutts for the balance due under their contract, a dispute arose regarding the appearance of the roof drain bowls Legate installed. Legate agreed to remove the offending drain bowl, and order and install a type more to the Shutts' liking. On or about June 2, 1998, Legate applied for a building permit. He also requested that they file the notice of commencement so that he could call for a building inspection. At some point (the evidence is not clear when), Legate also wrote the Shutts by certified mail and enclosed a completed notice of commencement for them to sign and file. By letter dated June 5, 1998, an attorney representing the Shutts demanded that Legate not contact the Shutts again and not do any further work on their property because the work done was "inferior and was not of the type desired." Legate complied with the attorney's demand. He did not know exactly what the problem was but assumed it had something to do with the drain bowls. The Shutts did not file a notice of commencement until approximately June 24, 1998. On or about July 6, 1998, someone other than Legate (the evidence was not clear who, but probably the Shutts or their attorney) called for a building inspection of Legate's work. Legate did not know either that the notice of commencement had been filed or that someone had called for an inspection. For that reason, and also because he had been ordered off the job, Legate was not there on July 7, 1998, when a building inspector from the City of St. Petersburg inspected the roof. The Shutts invited the inspector inside the house where he inspected interior water damage and was able to inspect water- damaged wood laths (used to secure ceiling plaster), roof joists and framing beneath one of the roof drains from the underside. The inspector found the roof to be leaking and covering rotted roof framing. He was concerned that it might be dangerous to attempt to place the additional weight of ceramic tile over the roof, especially for the intended use as additional living space (an outdoor, second-story patio.) The inspector determined that it would be necessary to have an on-site inspection with the contractor and a copy of the roofing manufacturer's specifications for the type of roof system applied before final inspection. The building inspector did not contact Legate directly to inform him of the need for an on-site inspection; instead, he left a notice on the building permit at the premises. The inspector was unaware that Legate had been ordered off the premises and would not see the notice. Legate was not aware that an inspection had taken place and did not contact the building inspector. Not having heard from Legate, the building inspector returned to the premises on July 13, 1998, for final inspection without Legate. He saw essentially the same conditions as before and disapproved the work. Legate also was unaware of this second inspection. He never inquired with the City building department as to whether a notice of commencement had been filed or whether the roof had been inspected. On September 15, 1998, the Shutts had the roof inspected by an independent roofing consultant. The independent inspection confirmed the building inspector's findings and added that damage caused by the roof leaks in the meantime had caused additional damage to the roof itself, as well as to the roof substrate (decking) and framing, to the point that it could have been dangerous to attempt to place the additional weight of ceramic tile over the roof, especially for the intended use as an outdoor, second-story patio. The independent roof consultant testified that water was leaking where the metal drip edge had pulled away from the parapets, and there was a gap between the top of the roof material and parapets. He also testified that the drip edges were old and an improper choice for use as flashing where the roof material met the parapets. However, he could not testify as to when the drip edge pulled away from the parapets and apparently was not aware that, for financial reasons, the Shutts had rejected Legate's recommendation to install new metal flashing. The independent roof consultant testified that water also was leaking at the roof drain bowls because they were set too high, causing improper ponding on the roof in the vicinity of the drain bowls. He also testified that, even if the ceramic tile had been installed promptly after Legate's work, the roof drain bowls still should have been flush to the waterproof roofing material, not to the ceramic tile going in over it. However, Legate and his foreman testified that Legate's plan was acceptable and would have made the finished roof watertight. The evidence was not sufficient to prove Legate incorrect. Legate and his workers replaced some rotted roof decking before replacing the roof. They testified that they did not see any more rotted roof framing or joists. While some additional water damage inside the house was evident on September 15, 1998, including rotted ceiling wood lath and joists, it was not clear from the evidence how much was visible or evident to Legate and his workers from their vantage point working on the roof. It is clear, however, that Legate gave the Shutts an estimate for the repair of interior damage, to the extent visible, and that the Shutts declined the repairs for financial reasons. There was no evidence that the Shutts ever complained to Legate that the new roof was leaking. The last Legate heard from the Shutts was their attorney's letter demanding that he not contact the Shutts and not do any more work on the roof. Legate also was unaware of the building inspections and the independent inspection. Legate testified without contradiction that, if he had been aware of the leaks or had been asked, he certainly would have returned to stop the leaks, at least by temporary means, until the additional work contemplated by the Shutts could be done. Section 104.1.1 of the Standard Building Code (1997) requires a contractor to obtain the required building permit before beginning work. There was testimony that the City of St. Petersburg allows builders to "call in" an application for a building permit (by telephone), begin work, and actually obtain the permit within a day or two. But such a procedure would not allow for a delay of months. Section 1503.1.2.1 of the Standard Building Code (1997) requires that roof coverings "provide weather protection for the building at the roof." (The reference to Section 1509 in the Administrative Complaint apparently was a typographical error.) PCCLB has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action," which state that $750 is the "typical" penalty for the first "major" infraction and that $300 is the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction. "Major" and "minor" infractions are not defined. The Guidelines also provide that the PCCLB shall consider aggravating and mitigating factors and may take any of the following actions: (1) suspension for a time certain (with possible permission to complete any uncompleted contracts); (2) revocation; or (3) an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 per count.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Brian D. Legate, guilty under Count I, fining him $300 under Count I, and dismissing Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Williams Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Brian Legate 5901 40th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33709
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard McDougal, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0050466. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for D & R Roofing Co., at all times pertinent to these proceedings. On July 31, 1989, Arla Jackson signed and accepted Respondent's written proposal to re-roof a house belonging to Jackson, located in Washington County, Florida. Prior to engaging Respondent to re-roof the house, Jackson had only a minimal amount of leakage in a couple of corners inside the house. Under the terms of the written proposal provided by Respondent to Jackson, Respondent agreed to remove the old roof covering from the structure; install a new three ply fiberglass felt covering; install new eave metal around the roof perimeter; extend the roof a short distance at one end; and top coat a utility building on the premises. Further, Respondent agreed to haul away debris resulting from the job. Completion of the roofing project by Respondent and receipt of payment from Jackson in the amount of $3,000 occurred on August 9, 1989. $2,900 of this amount was payment to Respondent for replacing the old roof while the remainder satisfied charges by Respondent for additional work required to extend the roof. Shortly after Respondent's completion of the roof replacement, Jackson began to telephone Respondent, requesting that he come and repair holes in the roof that were leaking water as the result of rain. Respondent came to Jackson's house on at least three occasions to attempt to stop leaks in the roof. He eventually determined that he had stopped the leaks and told Jackson that, as far as he was concerned, there was no roof leakage problem. Jackson's flat roof continued to leak. Eventually, Gus Lee, an unlicensed roofing assistant to H.M. Strickland, a local licensed contractor, agreed to repair her roof and eliminate the leakage problem. Strickland's signature appears with Lee's on written documentation bearing the date of October 1, 1989, and promising a "fine roof with no leaks; and I will stand behind it." Jackson accepted the Strickland offer. Jackson paid approximately $1,925.00 to Lee for work in connection with replacing the roof and painting the interior ceiling of the house. She paid an additional $653.79 for building supplies in connection with the project. Overall, Jackson paid approximately $2,578.79 for labor and materials to re-roof her house and repair the interior ceiling damage resulting from the leakage. This amount was in addition to the amount previously paid to Respondent. On October 20, 1989, Lee, the unlicensed assistant to Strickland and the person who actually undertook the task of re-roofing Jackson's house, removed the previous roofing material placed on Jackson's house by Respondent. Lee observed no fiber glass felt covering material on Jackson's roof at the time he re-roofed the house. Lee's testimony at hearing was credible, candid and direct. Although unlicensed as a contractor, Lee's attested experience supports his testimony regarding what he observed and establishes that Respondent failed to comply with his agreement to Jackson to provide fiber glass felt during the initial roofing of the house and instead used a less expensive material. Lee's testimony, coupled with that of Jackson and Lee's son, also establishs that significant damage had occurred to the interior ceiling of Jackson's house as the result of leakage after completion of work by Respondent. After Lee completed the re-roofing of Jackson's home, inclusive of use of a six ply felt covering on the roof accompanied by pea gravel and sealant, the roof's leakage stopped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $1500 upon Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-4. Adopted, though not verbatim. 5.-8. Subordinate to Hearing Officer's Conclusions. 9.-11. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard McDougal Box 10277 Panama City, FL 32404 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue Whether one or more of the following penalties should be imposed on Sylvia Allen: revocation or suspension of Ms., Allen's practice, imposition of an administrative fine and/or any other relief that the Petitioner deems appropriate?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints against registered roofing contractors in the State of Florida. Sylvia V. Allen is, and has been at all times material hereto, licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida. Ms. Allen holds State of Florida license number RC 0046666. Ms. Allen was at all times material hereto the qualifying agent and the President of Lakemont Construction, Inc. of Park 20 West, 1250 Blountstown Highway, 1236-C, Tallahassee, Florida. In early 1987, Ms. Allen submitted a bid to the Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") for the reroofing and waterproofing of the National Guard Armory building (hereinafter referred to as the "Armory") located in Winter Haven, Florida. The bid submitted by Ms. Allen was for $96,536.00. The Department accepted the bid submitted by Ms. Allen and entered into a contract with her on March 31, 1987. Because the contract price was less than $100,000.00, no bond was required to be posted. On April 20, 1987, a notice to proceed/mobilize was issued by the Department to Ms. Allen. On or about April 29, 1987, Ms. Allen mobilized. Work on the project began on May 11, 1987. The first work performed on the project pursuant to the schedule of work to be performed was the removal of the existing roof and the placement of a temporary roof on the Armory. On May 20, 1987, Ms. Allen submitted a pay request to the architect for the project, Mr. Shafer. This request was forwarded to Thomas Berley, a project director for the Department. Mr. Berley received the request on May 26, 1987. Upon receipt of the request, Mr. Berley notified Mr. Shafer that Ms. Allen needed to provide the Department with a bar chart showing work progress on the project before the pay request could be processed. Efforts were then begun to try to locate Ms. Allen to inform her of this requirement. Mr. Berley was informed by Mr. Shafer that Ms. Allen could not be located. Therefore, Mr. Berley telephoned Ms. Allen's place of business in Tallahassee. Her telephone had been disconnected. Mr. Berley instructed another project director of the Department located in Tallahassee to go the Respondent's office. Mr. Berley was advised that no one was at the office. Ms. Allen's subcontractors were contacted in an effort to reach Ms. Allen. Mr. Berley was informed that the subcontractors could not locate Ms. Allen either and that no contact had been made by them with Ms. Allen since May 26, 1987. Mr. Berley received a copy of a June 2, 1987, letter from Mr. Shafer to Ms. Allen requesting that she contact him. On June 4, 1987, Mr. Berley sent a letter to Ms. Allen advising her of obligations and giving her seven days to indicate why she was not on the job. This letter was sent certified mail and was signed for on June 11, 1987. Work on the project stopped during early June, 1987. A third and final letter seeking to contact Ms. Allen was sent to Ms. Allen but was returned unopened. Because of the failure of Ms. Allen to contact the Department or the project's architect and because of concerns about the ability of the temporary roof to prevent water damage, the contract for reroofing the Armory was terminated at midnight, June 14, 1987. The concerns about the ability of the temporary roof to prevent water damage to the Armory were legitimate concerns. A temporary roof is only intended to keep water out for a short period of time. Work on the project should not have been stopped while the temporary roof was on the Armory. Failure to pay the pay request would not justify Ms. Allen's actions. On June 16, 1987, Ms. Allen contacted Mr. Berley by telephone. Mr. Berley notified Ms. Allen that the Armory contract had been terminated. On June 19, 1987, the Department received a proposal to finish the project using Ms. Allen's subcontractors. The cost of completing the project was $8,000.00-$9,000.00 more than Ms. Allen's bid price. Leaving a temporary roof on the Armory for three weeks was excessive. Once work began on this project, the work should have proceeded continuously until the new roof had been completed. While the temporary roof was on the Armory excessive damage could have occurred resulting in structural damage as well as cosmetic damage. Ms. Allen's actions constituted abandonment of the job. Ms. Allen's actions also constituted incompetence in the practice of contracting. Ms. Allen has previously been issued a letter of guidance from the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Sylvia V. Allen be found guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(k) and (m) , Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Allen be required to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00 to the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX Case Number 88-1997 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4 and 6-7. 5 8-9. 6 10. 7 11. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 12-13. 10 14. 11 15. 12-13 16. 14 6. 15 17. 16 19. 17-18 20. 19 18. 20 19. 21 21. 22 22. 23-24 23. 25 24. 26 Irrelevant. 27 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sylvia V. Allen 110 Dixie Drive, D2 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
