The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Edward Ryan, is a certified building contractor. From late in the year 1979 to February 15, 1982, the Respondent was the sole qualifier for Behr Contracting, Inc., a company located in Coconut Grove and later in Miami, Florida. On July 30, 1981, Annie Allen entered into a contract with Behr Contracting, Inc., for improvements to her house totalling $6,720. This contract bears the signature of Annie Allen, but is not signed by the Respondent as a representative of Behr Contracting, Inc. Except for two references to one occasion, however (Tr.31, Tr.53) , Annie Allen was dealing with persons other than the Respondent (Tr.38, Tr.41, Tr.43, Tr.44, Tr.45, Tr.48). She admitted (Tr.53) that the Respondent's face looks familiar, but she could not state for certain that she was dealing with the Respondent. The work done by Behr Contracting, Inc., on Annie Allen's house was not done to her satisfaction. On March 14, 1981, Odie Williams entered into a contract with Behr Contracting, Inc., for improvements to her house totalling $12,600. The Respondent was not the salesman who solicited this contract, nor was it signed by the Respondent as a representative of Behr Contracting, Inc. Odie Williams first spoke with the Respondent on the telephone in 1982 (Tr.70) after the work on her house had been completed, and after an August 17, 1982, letter from Behr Contracting, Inc., to Odie Williams. In August, 1982, the Respondent was no longer associated with Behr Contracting, Inc. Except for this conversation, Odie Williams was dealing with persons other than the Respondent (Tr.63, Tr.70, Tr.73, Tr.78, Tr.83). The work done by Behr Contracting, Inc., on the house of Odie Williams was not done to her satisfaction. The Respondent admitted that he went to the house of Annie Allen in December of 1981 or in January of 1982 in response to her complaint that a door knob had fallen off her front door. On this occasion Mrs. Allen was not at home. The Respondent contends that there was no requirement for the pulling of a building permit for the work done on the Allen house. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. The Respondent admitted that he had one contact with Odie Williams, which occurred after he had left Behr Contracting, Inc. The Respondent contends that either a building permit was pulled for the work done on the Williams house, or that no permit was required; he cannot recall which was the case. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Edward Ryan, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 4th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 4th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Martin Lemlick, Esquire 900 Bay Drive Suite 110 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 33302 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or other business organization. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered, certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of licensure.1 The Zapata job Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard, Miami, Florida. On August 1, 1996,2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of $8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing, Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996, Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then, nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or about September 5, 1996.3 On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed.4 With the discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without financial loss to the Zapatas.5 Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage Respondent's liability and property damage insurance policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.) The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, the Department offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled $306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Previous disciplinary action On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor] to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately $4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996, Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.
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 the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 May, 1999.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Since March 8, 1985, DPR has licensed respondent Emmett Rex Alaniz, Jr., as a roofing contractor, with registration No. RC 0048059. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At no time has DPR licensed the respondent to do business as A Aaron Roofing Co. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. In February of 1987, doing business as A Aaron Roofing Co., respondent Alaniz signed a written proposal to repair the roof of the house and garage at 140 Eighth Street in Atlantic Beach, Florida, which belong to George Pettway. Mr. Pettway agreed to pay the $1,450 Mr. Alaniz asked and accepted the proposal by signing it. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Work began a day or two after Mr. Pettway and Mr. Alaniz executed the agreement, received in evidence as an attachment to petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. For the most part, Mr. Alaniz turned the job over to laborers whom he supervised briefly mornings. In keeping with the contract, they placed shingles over the existing roof, but the half inch nails they used were not long enough to penetrate the sheathing beneath the existing shingles. The pitch of the house roof was "approximately 2 in 12." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 8. Respondent or his crew used "three tab" or "strip" shingles, despite advice on the packaging in which the shingles arrived that the warranty was void, if the shingles were used on a roof that rose less than three inches for every foot it approached the peak horizontally. Use of the shingles respondent employed on Mr. Pettway's roof also violated code. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7. If solid shingles, the "right" shingles for a roof with as "shallow" a pitch as Mr. Pettway's, had been employed, a "nail over" would still have been doomed to buckle and fail. Even though the roof was watertight before Mr. Alaniz began, it would have been necessary, in order to do the job properly, to remove the old shingles before putting new shingles down. To fasten the bottom row of shingles securely, in the same manner as rows above it, competent roofers applying shingles like those used on Mr. Pettway's house cut off the 5-inch tabs and nail what is left along the eaves, before nailing the first regular row of whole shingles. This makes the thickness of the roof uniform, even along its lower perimeter, and permits sealing the bottom-most shingle edges against the "tar strip" formed by adhesive on the truncated shingles underneath. Instead of cutting off the tabs of the first shingles laid, respondent or his crew simply turned them upside down, laying them with tabs pointed toward the peak. This had two unfortunate consequences: The "tar strip," formed by an inch-wide band running the length of each shingle just above the notches separating the tabs, was some six inches from the edge of the roof, making the perimeter shingles vulnerable to breakage and loss from wind, which could lift the unsealed tabs. In addition, the roof flared near the edge because of a six- inch-wide "shingle berm" in which three thicknesses of shingles, not the two laid elsewhere on the roof, impeded water flowing down the roof. Although they first installed "gravel stop" instead of eaves drip flashing, respondent and his crew eventually used standard metal strips. But they overlapped the flashing in the wrong direction, against the flow of water, failed to crimp the seams, failed to join strips properly at corners, so that it pulled away from the fasciae, and nailed only every two or three feet instead of every twelve inches, as good practice dictates. Flashing was overlooked around a skylight. Only "cold tar" was applied. Respondent Alaniz and the crew working for him left flashing in place that should have been removed and reinstalled once the new shingles had been laid. Pipe flashing was not tucked properly nor was boot flashing done properly. In general, the flashing had the effect, not of waterproofing, but of creating water traps. Laying shingles in a straight line has more than aesthetics to recommend it. The seams between shingles must be tight if the roof is to function as it should. But the rows Mr. Alaniz and his crew laid snaked across the roof willy nilly. Instead of a uniform five inch width, the width of each row varied between three and seven inches. Gaps between adjacent shingles an inch or a half inch wide were common. Only two or three nails penetrated some shingles, each of which should have been fastened with four (longer) nails. In many instances, Mr. Alaniz or his crew misplaced such nails as were driven. In places, shingle fragments were pieced together. Cutting shingles with hawkbill knives, Mr. Alaniz and his crew, no doubt inadvertently, slashed some of the newly laid shingles. The roof had to be redone entirely, in any event. Mr. Alaniz contributed nothing to defray the expense of reroofing, or in any way correct the problems with the roof he and his men put on. Taken as a whole, the work they did was "worse than poor." On a scale of one to ten, it deserved a rating of one half. In every detail the work was done incompetently and irresponsibly. Perhaps that is why respondent never called for a final inspection by the city building inspector, even though the code in force in Atlantic Beach required that he do so.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Construction Industry Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent, Ysidro Cid Fernandez, on the basis of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint which the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, filed against him on November 30, 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ysidro Cid Fernandez, is licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CC-C029602. The Respondent's license was in effect at all times referred to in these Findings of Fact. On or about March 15, 1986, an employee of Sunshine Solar and Roofing, a roofing company for which the Respondent acted as qualifying agent, entered into a contract with Fred Chambers to re-roof a house Chambers owned at 5871 64th Terrace North, Pinellas Park, Florida. The house was a small house, with not more than 1000 square feet of living area, and the contract was to re-roof the entire house for $600 plus tax ($31.50). The shingles to be used were to be 20-year shingles. The contract also provided: "Install on front F/S [far side] 8' long 5" wide T/G [tongue in groove] board." The Respondent's company did the work in April, 1986. Chambers paid the full amount of the contract, $200 down and the balance on or about May 1, 1986. Despite the re-roof, the roof still leaked where it did before the work was done. When Chambers called for warranty repair work, the Respondent refused until Chambers paid what the Respondent said was the cost of extra work the Respondent claimed Chambers had had the Respondent's workers do. The Respondent first came to the opinion that extra work had been done after he received invoices from his supplier indicating that his employees had ordered 1600 square feet of shingles for the job. The Respondent asserted that the contract called for only the front far side of the roof to be replaced. He bases this interpretation of the contract on the language quoted in the last sentence of Finding 2, above. The Respondent claimed that 1600 square feet was twice as much shingle as would be needed to re-roof half of the existing roof. Regardless whether the Respondent's employees ordered too much shingle for the Chambers job, or where the extra shingle might have gone, if not on the Chambers roof, the contract provided for the entire Chambers roof to be replaced for the contract price. The Respondent was not justified in demanding additional money before doing warranty work. The City of Pinellas Park, Florida, the governmental entity with jurisdiction over the Chambers job, required that a building permit be obtained before commencing the Chambers re-roofing construction. The City of Pinellas Park also required inspections of the Chambers re-roofing job. The Respondent claimed to have timely obtained a building permit for the Chambers job and, in testimony at final hearing, detailed an elaborate story about how he went about getting one. But the Respondent's own evidence, in the form of late-filed Respondent's Exhibit 2, establishes that he did not apply for the building permit until December 17, 1987, after receiving notice through the November 30, 1987, Administrative Complaint in this case, that the Department was charging him with failure to obtain a building permit for the job. Not having obtained a building permit, the Respondent did not call for the required inspections for the job. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent was grossly negligent or incompetent in estimating the cost of the Chambers job. First, the evidence did not prove that the job was seriously underestimated; to the contrary, the evidence tended to show that the Respondent's employees ordered more material than needed for the job. (When this came to the Respondent's attention, he unfairly blamed Chambers for having his employees do extra work not called for by the contract.) Second, the Respondent had nothing to do with the cost estimate on the job. The Respondent's price per square foot of roof area was fixed; he depended on his employees to accurately measure the size of the roof being priced. There is no evidence how the Respondent went about training his employees to measure a roof for purposes of a cost estimate. The Respondent has been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board once before. He received a reprimand in August, 1987, for failure to obtain a building permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for one year and fining the Respondent $2,500. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0570 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): Rejected in part (the Respondent's name is not Thomas L. Jackson); otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part; the evidence did not prove that the roof was unfinished or that the roof was done correctly or that the work was done incorrectly, only that it leaked after the work was done. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven by the evidence. (See 3., above.) Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 13014 North Dale Mabry Suite 315 Tampa, Florida 33618 Ysidro Cid Fernandez 2700 North McDill Avenue Suite 204 Post Office Box 4726 Tampa, Florida 33607 Ysidro Cid Fernandez 8109 Rivershore Drive Tampa, Florida 33604 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C003076. This license was suspended on March 4, 1977, for three years, and was reinstated in March of 1980. On March 21, 1980, the Respondent became the qualifier for WWRS Enterprises, Inc. This corporation had been formed in 1978 by the Respondent and his partner, William Rymers, for the purpose of engaging in the general contracting business. Mr. Rymers became president of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and the Respondent acted as secretary, supervisor of construction, and manager of financial matters. Although the Respondent did not hold any direct stock ownership, his share of the corporate stock was registered in his wife's name. The Respondent knew that under the law WWRS Enterprises, Inc., needed to have a qualifying agent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and the Respondent and his partner discussed this subject. Since the Respondent's license was under suspension during 1978 and 1979, it was proposed that a Max Dunaway would become the qualifying agent for WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but the necessary paperwork to register him as qualifying agent for the company was never filed. Thus, until March of 1980, the company was not qualified to engage in general contracting. In November, 1979, the Respondent negotiated a contract on behalf of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., with Wilhelm Hackenberg and his wife, for the construction of an addition to their home in Ormond Beach, Florida. Since the Respondent's license was suspended, Max Dunaway pulled the building permit for the company, but the job was supervised by the Respondent, not Max Dunaway. WWRS Enterprises, Inc., was the contracting company to which at least one subcontractor submitted invoices, Mr. Dunaway's company, Southwide Builders, Inc., was not involved in this transaction. At least four construction jobs were performed by WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but only the Hackenberg job was identified by a precise time-frame during which the company had no qualifying agent. The Respondent does not challenge many of these facts. Instead, he contends that he never held any stock in WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and was only a managing employee of the company, not responsible for its policies. These contentions, however, are not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, and have been discounted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CG C003076 held by the Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21 day of May, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 21st day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire May, 1981. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Neil Wayne Smith 14 Rain Tree Drive Port Orange, Florida 32019
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry within the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the Respondent was licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, license number CG C007009. Additionally, due to the time period from which the Respondent held his license he was "grand- fathered" to perform roofing construction. The Respondent was the qualifying agent of O. Benitez & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation. On November 13, 1997, the Respondent executed a contract with Maricel Alayon to construct a terrace for a home located at 1215 West 82nd Street, Hialeah, Florida. While Ms. Alayon referred to the structure as a "terrace," it was to be a covered (roofed) open porch attached to her home at the rear of the property. The price for the addition was $14,125.00. The contract that was prepared by the Respondent for Ms. Alayon's signature did not contain the Respondent's license number or a written notice of the consumer's rights under the Construction Industry's Recoveries Fund. Ms. Alayon paid the Respondent the full $14,125.00 on or about November 17, 1997. Despite having been paid the full amount, the Respondent did not complete the Alayon project. The work was begun on or about November 27, 1997, but was never finished. Ms. Alayon did not fire the Respondent, did not refuse access to her property, and never refused to pay the Respondent monies owed for the work. Curiously, the Respondent obtained the building permit for the Alayon project on January 27, 1998. The Respondent never called for a final inspection on the job and, as of March 29, 2001, a final passing inspection for the project had not been performed by building officials. In addition to the contract amount, Ms. Alayon paid $3,575.00 for materials that were used in the construction of the porch. The Respondent did not reimburse Ms. Alayon for that amount. In May of 1998, the Respondent began negotiations with Mr. and Mrs. Piloto for the construction of an addition to their home to include an in-ground swimming pool. From the beginning of the talks, Mr. Piloto advised the Respondent that the couple could only invest $38,000 for the remodeling work as that was the amount the bank had approved for the project. The Pilotos wanted to build a bedroom, an expanded bathroom, and a swimming pool at the rear of their home located at 750 West 73rd Place, Hialeah, Florida. Eventually the Respondent telephoned the Pilotos to advise them that they could get what they wanted within the budget set by the bank. The contract executed by the Pilotos called for the remodeling for a price of $37,890.00. The contract, prepared by the Respondent, did not contain the Respondent's license number or a notice of consumer's rights pursuant to the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At all times material to the Piloto project, the Respondent did not hold a valid architect's license. In fact, in December of 1997, the Board of Architecture and Interior Design had fined the Respondent for having practiced architecture with a delinquent license. Nevertheless, the Respondent represented himself as an architect to the Pilotos and charged them for blueprints for the remodeling project. Moreover, the Respondent submitted the signed and sealed plans for the Piloto project to the Building Department in order to obtain a building permit for this project. Such plans were filed on or about August 12, 1998. Pursuant to their agreement with the Respondent, the Pilotos paid the Respondent a total of $26,664.00 for the project. In comparison, the value of the work performed by the Respondent did not exceed $10,000. The Respondent asked the Pilotos to increase the amount for the contract to $50,395.75, but they refused. Despite the fact that he had caused their home to be reduced to a dangerous condition (by virtue of exposed wiring and open walls), the Respondent refused to complete the work on the Piloto project for the contracted amount. Instead, he abandoned the project. The Pilotos did not fire the Respondent. They refused to increase the amount of the contract. The Pilotos did not stop the work or refuse workers access to the property. A lien was placed on the Piloto property by a subcontractor to whom the Respondent owed monies. The Pilotos were required to pay the subcontractor in order to satisfy the lien amount. The Respondent has failed or refused to repay the lien amount. The Respondent grossly under estimated the cost of remodeling the Piloto home. He did so either negligently or intentionally. The Piloto home was compromised by the demolition work done by the Respondent's crew. The Pilotos were faced with paying the additional monies to comply with the Respondent's demand or living with their home in an uninhabitable condition. They chose the latter. On or about May 11, 1999, the Respondent applied for and obtained a building permit to re-roof the home of Sam and Daisy Carpenter. The contract for the work was with Banos Remodeling Services, an unlicensed entity, not the Respondent or his company. The Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary actions filed by the Department. He settled such actions without admitting or denying the allegations against him. As to his architectural license, it is undisputed that at all times material to these cases, the Respondent did not hold a valid architect's license. The Petitioner has incurred expenses and costs in the investigation of and the prosecution of the instant cases against this Respondent. The Respondent provided no credible explanation for the failure to complete the work contracted for regarding the Alayon and Piloto homes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order sustaining the violations outlined by the Conclusions of Law, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00, requiring the Respondent to make restitution to the Pilotos and Ms. Alayon, requiring the Respondent to remit the costs of investigation and prosecution of these cases, and revoking the Respondent's license until all amounts are fully paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ______________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2201 Oscar S. Benitez 3894 Southwest 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165 Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128-1765
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent John G. Gordon, Jr. was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor by License No. RC-0032501, first issued to Respondent, qualifying as an individual in 1978 and continually renewed as such since then. On June 4, 1981, Respondent was called by Ms. Allene S. Gilbert to give her an estimate on re-roofing the two flat portions of her house roof. When he went to the house, he went up on the roof by himself to look and, when he came down, he gave her an estimate of $1,400 to re-roof the two flat sections on either side of the gabled center section. He did not then, or any time thereafter, prior to doing the work, indicate there was anything wrong with the siding which connected down from the gabled roof to the flat roof. After making his inspection and giving the estimate which Ms. Gilbert accepted, he entered into an oral contract with her which, when reduced to unsigned memo form, provided that he would tear off the old roof down to the deck and replace it with a 15-year built up roof consisting of a total of five layers. He also agreed to replace the rock and all metal around the edges of the house. He specifically stated that the work he did, both materials and his workmanship, was guaranteed for 15 years against leaks. Respondent indicates he found that the metal flashing along the side of the house where the flat roof joins the siding was rusted out and he replaced it. He contends that this rust was due to the deteriorated (rotten) condition of the lap siding above the flat roof which allowed water to get in behind the flashing. In any case, during the first rain after the completion of the work, the preexisting leaks in the bedroom which prompted the roof replacement were worse and additional leaks developed inside the house. The leakage was so severe, the bathroom ceiling caved in. Ms. Gilbert called Respondent many times to get him to come out and repair the leaks, but never was able to speak with him personally. Each time she called, she would leave a message with whomever answered the phone, requesting that he come out or call, and was assured that these messages were getting relayed to Respondent, but he never returned any call and, to the best of her knowledge, he never came to her house again. However, she works during the day and would not know if he was there or not. No neighbor told her they saw someone there, and she received no note or other indication that the Respondent had come. Respondent admits that having once responded to her earlier call and seeing that the leaking was caused by the condition of the siding for which he was not responsible and about which he had previously done nothing, he was satisfied that his work was done properly and he did not call back or ever respond to any of Ms. Gilbert's other calls. He contends that the problem was not caused by him or a part of the work he had done. Therefore, he was not responsible for it. Ms. Gilbert contends, after trying to get Respondent to honor his guarantee for six months, she gave up and had someone else to do the job. The leaks are now repaired and the siding which Respondent stated was rotten, though painted once since then, has not been replaced or repaired. Respondent having entered into the contract with Ms. Gilbert, began and completed the entire project without either (1) having an occupational license as required by Section 14-39, Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach; or, (2) securing a permit for the repair as required by Section 106.1, Standard Building Code, incorporated into the Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $250 and that he be placed on probation for six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 9th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John G. Gordon Post Office Box 498 Destine, Florida 32541 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be disciplined because he aided or abetted an uncertified or unregistered person, knowingly combined or conspired with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing his certificate or registration to be used by an uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade Chapter 489; acted in the capacity of a contractor under an unregistered or uncertified name; engaged in fraud, deceit, or gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting as alleged, in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e),(f),(g) and (m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to investigate construction activities in Florida and, where indicated, to file Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material, Respondent, Richard L. Melvin, was licensed as a general contractor, having been issued license number CG C022926. During times material, Respondent did not qualify Jeffrey Gaston or Tropical Exteriors & Services, Inc. (TESI), nor did said entity or contractor's name appear on Respondent's license. During times material, Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI, was never licensed nor qualified to do business as a contractor in Florida. During times material, Respondent was not a licensed roofing contractor. On or about March 31, 1987, Jeffrey Gaston contracted with Deborah and Clinton Weber to repair a roof and renovate a bathroom at their residence for the sum of $5,000.00. Respondent's name, license number, address and telephone number was listed on the Gaston/Weber contract. Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI entered into a contract with Wilfred Butler on January 12, 1987, to replace a back porch at his residence. Respondent's general contractor's license number was listed at the top of the agreement between Gaston-TESI/Butler. Checks drawn by Butler were made payable to Respondent/TESI. Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the Butler project. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Respondent admitted to authorizing Gaston or TESI to use his name and certificate number on contracts. Respondent was aware of approximately 20 contracts and several other permits wherein Gaston/TESI obtained the contracts or permits by using Respondent's name and license number. Respondent admitted receiving approximately $2,000.00 for supervising TESI. Respondent never disassociated himself from Jeffrey Gaston until May 31, 1987. Petitioner introduced ten contracts for work in Pinellas County from December 1986 to May 1987, with Respondent's name and state certification number with Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI listed as the contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitches' home situated at 111 Aurora Avenue North, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent did not supervise the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitch's residence. Respondent, as a general contractor, is responsible for all phases of work for which he contracted for and/or obtained permits. Respondent was aware that Jeffrey Gaston was not a licensed contractor in Florida. Jimmy Jimenez has never been a licensed contractor in Florida. J & J Construction Company was qualified in February 1988, under Respondent's license number, CG C022926. Thereafter, during February 1989, J & J Construction was qualified under Respondent's license number RC 0058448. Respondent did not attempt to qualify J & J Construction until he was cautioned by Petitioner's investigators Steven Pence and Dennis Force, that his construction activities amounted to "aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor." On or about December 11, 1987, Wiley Parks, Jr., entered into a contract with J & J Construction to perform construction work and remodel a home for Parks located at 1722 West Arch Street, Tampa, Florida. In conjunction with that contract, a second contract was submitted by J & J Construction for Mr. Parks, although unbeknownst to him, which utilized Respondent's name and contractor's license number at the top of the agreement. Wiley Parks spent a great deal of his time observing the construction and remodeling work by J & J. Respondent was only seen by Wiley Parks when they met at a local bank to cash a check which represented a draw submitted by Respondent for construction work done at the Arch Street construction project. Respondent obtained a permit for the Parks job on January 6, 1988, which was prior to the time he qualified J & J Construction as the entity through which he would conduct construction business. Respondent, although required to do so, never called for a final inspection on the Parks job. The floor joists at the Parks job were disapproved by the Hillsborough County Building Department and were never repaired by Respondent. Employees of J & J were observed working at the Parks job site on January 4 and 8, 1988. Respondent was, on two occasions, the subject of prior disciplinary action by Petitioner during 1987. On one occasion, probable cause was found on August 12, 1987 and the case was closed by issuing a letter of guidance to Respondent. On the second occasion, probable cause was found on October 7, 1987. Final action was taken on February 11, 1988, whereby an administrative fine of $1,000.00 was imposed against Respondent or, alternatively, a 30-day suspension of his license. Respondent paid the administrative fine within the allotted time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent's general contractor's license number CG C022926 be REVOKED. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1990, 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 26th day of March, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Arthur Signore committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Arthur Signore (Respondent) was licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner) as a certified general contractor. He received his license in 1969, qualifying Deluccia Construction. Respondent was issued license number CG CA01004. Subsequently, in 1976, Respondent qualified Construction By Scott (CBS). He was issued license number CG CB01004. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifier of CBS, and the sole owner and president of CBS. At all times material hereto, Respondent's belief was that Petitioner permitted a general contractor to use his/her license to obtain building permits for construction projects for which the general contractor had no contracts through the business that he/she qualified. Respondent practiced his belief frequently by applying for and obtaining building permits for construction projects for which companies or individuals other than CBS had contracts. Collins Job (Case No. 97-1436) Sometime after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Respondent made an oral agreement with Harold Bader to go into partnership with Bader and form a construction company, with Respondent qualifying the company. Respondent provided his name, his company's name (CBS), and his license number to Bader in order for the qualifying documents to be completed and submitted to the Petitioner. However, the company was not formed and the qualifying documents were never submitted. At no time material hereto was Bader licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Bader was not licensed by the Petitioner. In March 1994, Thomas Sherry of American Building Industries, Inc. (ABI), began negotiating with Maria and Wayne Collins, husband and wife, for the remodeling of their home, located at 7417 SW 140th Court, Miami, Florida. On March 24, 1994, the Collins entered into a contract with ABI for the remodeling of their home at a cost of $12,500. Bader was the owner of ABI. Sherry was a salesperson for Bader. Sherry provided the Collins with a business card which showed, among other things, ABI's name, address and telephone number, and license number. The license number on the business card was Respondent's license number. All business cards were provided to Sherry by Bader. At no time material hereto, did Sherry talk with or meet Respondent. The records of the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department reflect, among other things, Respondent's name, his company's name (CBS) and license number on the building permit application for the construction to the Collins' home. However, the address listed for Respondent and his company was the address for ABI. Further, the said records reflect, among other things, that aforementioned information provided, as to Respondent, was used to obtain the building permit. Respondent did not complete the permit application for the building permit to remodel the Collins' home. The Collins paid $6,875 to ABI. Any and all checks were made payable to ABI. No money for the construction on the Collins' home was paid to or received by Respondent. In May 1994, problems developed on the job site between the Collins and ABI. The work performed by ABI failed numerous inspections. Mr. Collins wanted to talk with Respondent who was listed as the contractor on the permit and requested Bader to contact Respondent. Bader refused, indicating to Mr. Collins that all communication should be with him (Bader). Finally, in August 1994 the Collins fired ABI after more problems had developed. At that time ABI had completed some of the work. On August 29, 1994, Mr. Collins met with Respondent at Respondent's place of business. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Collins had called Respondent numerous times regarding his problems with ABI and Bader and requesting assistance from Respondent. Each time Respondent denied having any knowledge of the work being performed. When Mr. Collins met with Respondent, Mr. Collins discussed the problems that he had experienced with ABI and Bader. Respondent continued to deny knowing anything about the construction project but agreed to send his employees to examine the job and determine what could be done, if anything. The following day two of Respondent's workers came to the Collins' home and examined the work completed and the work remaining. Subsequently, Respondent contacted Mr. Collins. Respondent indicated to Mr. Collins that he could complete the job for $5,000. Mr. Collins refused to pay the additional monies since it would extend the remodeling cost beyond the contracted cost and since he was now directly paying the subcontractors. At no time did Respondent or his business (CBS) have a contract with the Collins. Until being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had no knowledge that Bader used his name, business name and license number to contract with the Collins and to obtain the building permit for the remodeling of their home. However, prior to being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had been contacted by other persons who had contracts with ABI, who had been informed by Bader that Respondent was the contractor for their jobs, who had problems with ABI, and who wanted assistance from Respondent. Furthermore, the building permits for the construction jobs of those persons reflected Respondent and Respondent's company as the contractor. At no time material hereto was Bader or ABI licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Bader nor ABI was licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent was placed on notice of their unlicensed activity after the contacts by the homeowners prior to the contact by the Collins. Even with the knowledge of the homeowners' complaints prior to the Collins' complaints, at no time did Respondent notify Bader to stop using his (Respondent's) name, company's name and license number. Further, at no time did Respondent notify the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department of Bader's misuse of his (Respondent's) name, company's name, and license number or to no longer issue permits to ABI under his (Respondent's) name, company and license. Walsh Job (Case No. 97-1435) In the Fall of 1995, Patrick and Susan Walsh entered into an oral agreement with John Petracelli for an addition to and the remodeling of their home, located at 761 Glen Ridge Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. On October 16, 1995, the Walshes entered into a verbal agreement with Petracelli for an engineer to produce a set of plans at a cost of $2,250 for the construction to their home. The Walshes paid Petracelli the $2,250 on October 16, 1995. On December 7, 1995, the Walshes entered into a written agreement with Petracelli for the construction work on their home at a cost of $84,000. Pursuant to this written agreement, the Walshes paid Petracelli $16,800 on December 7, 1995. Petracelli contacted Respondent and requested Respondent to be the contractor for the construction work on the Walshes' home. Respondent and Petracelli had met one another previously when Petracelli was a salesperson for Bader. Petracelli informed Respondent that he (Petracelli) had already told the Walshes that Respondent was the contractor. To the contrary, Petracelli had not informed the Walshes that Respondent was involved in the construction to their home. Respondent agreed to be the contractor but informed Petracelli that, until a set of plans was approved by the Village of Key Biscayne Building Division (Building Division), he could not provide Petracelli with a cost figure for the construction work. Petracelli informed Respondent that the plans were being prepared, but did not inform Respondent that the Walshes had paid for the preparation of the plans. Respondent agreed further to submit the completed plans to the Building Division for a "dry run" only. After the dry run, Respondent would provide a cost figure for the construction work. A dry run is a process in which a contractor, who has a complicated job which requires an engineer, submits a set of plans, together with an application for a building permit, to the Building Division for approval. The plans may be subject to several modifications requested by the Building Division before they are approved. As a result, the contractor does not know the estimated cost of a job until the plans have gone through the requested modifications, if any, and approved by the Building Division. After the plans are approved by the Building Division, the contractor is notified to come to the Building Division and sign for and obtain the building permit. Pursuant to the agreement between Respondent and Petracelli, on or about December 11, 1995, Respondent completed an application for a building permit for the addition to and the remodeling of the Walshes' home and gave it to Petracelli. The application reflected, among other things, CBS (Respondent's company) as the contractor, and Respondent as the qualifier. Respondent provided the application to Petracelli for the dry run process only. Further, Respondent reiterated to Petracelli that, once the plans were approved by the Building Division, he (Respondent) would meet with the Walshes and agree on a cost for the construction work on their home and that, after agreeing on the cost he (Respondent) would sign for and obtain the building permit for the construction to begin. Respondent was not aware that Petracelli and the Walshes had a signed agreement for the construction work. Petracelli submitted the plans, along with the permit application, to the Building Division for approval. The plans were modified several times to meet the approval of the Building Division, but were never approved. The Building Division considered the plans submitted to be substandard. Since no plans were approved, no building permit was issued. On or about January 3, 1996, the Walshes met at the Building Division with some of the Building Division's officials, Petracelli, and the engineer who prepared the plans. As a result of the meeting, among other things, the Walshes were able to review the permit application and discovered that Respondent, not Petracelli, was licensed and the contractor for the construction work; concluded that the engineer's work was considered so substandard by the Building Division that any modification produced by the engineer would not be approved by the Building Division; and determined that they no longer wanted Petracelli to perform the construction work on their home. Within 24 hours of the meeting, the Walshes telephoned Petracelli and terminated his services. Also, the Walshes requested the return of all of the monies paid to Petracelli by them; however, Petracelli did not return any of their money. At no time material hereto was Petracelli licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Petracelli was not licensed by the Petitioner. At no time material hereto did Respondent or his company (CBS) have a contract with the Walshes. At no time material hereto did Respondent have any communication or contact with the Walshes. Biscayne Kennel Club Job (Case No. 97-2998) The Biscayne Kennel Club (BKC), located at 320 NW 115th Street, Miami Shores, Florida, was a track for greyhound racing. On October 30, 1995, the last race was run at BKC. In February 1996, the BKC sold its Pari-Mutuel license. On or about December 11, 1996, the BKC, by and through its representative, Carl Spitzer, entered into a written contract with Cuyahoga Wrecking Corporation (CWC), by and through its representative, Thomas Schwab, for, among other things, the removal of asbestos and the demolition and removal of BKC's grandstand structure and viewing area. The contract was prepared by Schwab, who had 25 years of experience in the demolition business, with 20 years of that experience in the State of Florida. All contract negotiations were between Schwab and Spitzer. At no time was the President and CEO of BKC, Kay Spitzer, involved in the contract negotiations. As to cost, the contract provided at Article 4 that the cost was $37,500 and that the $37,500 was "dedicated to the removal of the described ACM." Further, Article 4 provided that the "balance of the work to be paid for by the sale of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals by the contractor." In addition, the contract provided in Article 7 that, among other things, all permits were included in the contract price and that BKC and the "contractor" would share "equally all the proceeds of the non-ferrous metals minus whatever costs are incurred bringing it to market." The contract did not restrict or prohibit CWC from engaging the services of any individual or subcontractor to perform the work required in the contract. The grandstand structure and viewing area were one structure. Attached to the roof of the structure was a small building which was used by BKC personnel for viewing the races. The roof was the highest part of the structure, except for the small building. The distance from ground level to the top of the roof was 69 feet and 10 inches; and the top of the small building was approximately 15 feet higher than the top of the roof. CWC contracted with Sal's Abatement to perform the asbestos removal. Schwab was licensed by Dade County, Florida, as a specialty contractor. He was notified that the work for the BKC job was outside the scope of his license and that a contractor, licensed by the Petitioner, was required for the BKC job. Schwab contacted Respondent to be the general contractor. Schwab had worked with Respondent before on other, but smaller, jobs. Respondent agreed to be the general contractor in return for a percentage of the contract. Per the agreement, Respondent would obtain the necessary permits, provide the equipment necessary for the demolition, and supervise the workers on the job. On March 6, 1997, Respondent completed an application for a building permit with Miami Shores Village, Florida, for the demolition of the BKC grandstand. The application reflected Respondent's company (CBS) as the contracting company and Respondent as the qualifier. Carl Spitzer signed the permit application on behalf of BKC. On March 17, 1997, a building permit (permit number 41084) was issued by the Village of Miami Shores for the demolition of BKC's grandstand. On April 29, 1997, the cost of the permit, $566.50, was paid. At no time material hereto was Schwab or CWC licensed by Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Schwab nor CWC were licensed by Petitioner. At no time did a contract exist between Respondent or his company with BKC for the demolition job. Respondent supervised CWC's preparation of the grandstand for demolition. In preparing the grandstand for demolition, Respondent and Schwab met at the site at least 3 times to discuss the demolition and its progress. On May 16, 1997, the grandstand was scheduled to be demolished. On the morning of May 16th, as Schwab was leaving BKC, Respondent arrived. Shortly thereafter, the grandstand accidentally collapsed--the beams supporting the roof of the grandstand failed, and the roof collapsed. Two of CWC's workers were killed and three were seriously injured. After the collapse, BKC contracted with another company, Omega Contracting, to complete the demolition job. The Petitioner submitted documents reflecting that its costs of investigation and prosecution of the complaints against Respondent, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, to be $1,017.25. On May 22, 1997, pursuant to an Emergency Suspension Order, on May 22, 1997, the Petitioner suspended Respondent's license. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing all counts in Case Nos. 97-1435 and 97-1436. Finding that Arthur Signore violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (e), and (j), 489.1265(3), and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Revoking Arthur Signore's certified general contractor's license. Requiring Arthur Signore to pay all reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution associated with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Case No. 97-2998.3 DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 13th day of January, 1998.
