The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, 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 31st day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Denver Sammons, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered air conditioning contractor, Class B, and Respondent qualified Denny's Air Conditioning Service under his license. At the January 8, 1985 meeting of the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians, (Board), the Board heard a complaint by Port Distributors, a local air conditioning supplier, to the effect that Mr. Sammons had submitted two checks to that company in August, 1982, both of which were returned for insufficient funds and that neither had been redeemed. The Board decided to notify the Respondent of the complaint against him and give him an opportunity to respond at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board which was held on March 12,1985. At that Board meeting, at which Respondent was present, Mr. Julius M. Farinhouse, Jr., representative of Port Distributors, outlined its complaint against the Respondent detailing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bad checks and the need by the recipient to secure a judgment against the Respondent for the amount represented by the checks. There was evidence presented to the Board that these checks issued to Port Distributors were not the only checks written by Respondent that were not properly and promptly honored. Respondent testified before the Board regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the checks and contested the seriousness of the offense alleging that when notified of the bad checks, he had reimbursed Port Distributors for the majority of the sum covered by the two dishonored checks, but this repayment was applied toward current accounts rather than in satisfaction of the bad checks, contra to the intention of the Respondent. Having considered both the testimony presented by the complainants and the Respondent, the Board, that same date, March 12, 1985, nevertheless entered a Final Order finding that the passing of bad checks to Port Distributors by the Respondent constituted an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or lack of integrity in the operation of Respondent's contracting business; that he failed to make any effort to pay the outstanding bill owed to Port Distributors; and that this misconduct constituted a failure to comply with the standards of Section 9-7, Broward County Code. As a result, the Board ordered the Respondent's Broward County Certificate of Competency revoked that date. The Order of the Board made provision for Respondent to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Competency but no such application has ever been made. For several years prior to the issuing of the Certificate of Competency by Broward County, Respondent had, under the old procedure, held a Certificate of Competency issued by the City of Hollywood, Florida and had, each year, renewed that Certificate upon the payment of a $30.00 fee. The Certificate issued by the city was renewed effective January 1, 1985 and reflected on its face, that it was good until December 31, 1985. However, when the Broward County Board of Mechanical Technicians began to issue its county-wide Certificate of Competency, all prior city-issued certificates were declared to be null and void. As a result, though Respondent continued to hold his Hollywood certificate, it was ineffective and he should not have been allowed to renew it by the city, since he was, at that time, covered by a county Certificate of Competency. By action of the Board on March 12, 1985, Respondent's Board (County- wide) Certificate of Competency, which was the only valid certificate he held at the time, was revoked. Because of this revocation, Respondent was, thereafter, allowed to work as a journeyman for another Master Technician but could not contract in his own name or for his own business nor could he pull building permits from any county or city building office. Notwithstanding this, on or about August 12, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, with Isabel Parra. This contract was to remove her old heating and cooling system in her residence at 2207 North 46th Avenue in Hollywood and to install a new unit to consist of a three ton gas furnace with air conditioning coil and condenser. Pursuant to the contract, Respondent did, in fact, remove the old unit and install a new one. However, he did not pull a building permit with the county or city building office and on August 26, 1985, officials of the City of Hollywood issued a Notice of Violation to Mrs. Parra reflecting that Denny's Air Conditioning installed a central air conditioning unit without permit and without possessing a valid contractor's license. Mrs. Parra further contended that when she turned on the unit, the noise it made was extremely loud and not to her satisfaction. Evidence introduced by both Petitioner and Respondent, however, indicates that the Respondent installed the new unit exactly as the old unit had been installed. Mrs. Parra testified that she had not heard the old unit in its heating mode and therefore had no idea whether it made as much noise as the new unit did. In any event, she withheld some of the funds that were due Respondent until such time as he agreed to have someone come out and correct the problem. It has been several months since the parties agreed to this and Respondent still has not corrected the problem. He contends that the contractor with whom he arranged to correct Ms. Parra's problem has been unable to get with her since she works during the days and is home only in the evenings. In any event, though not charged as a violation, it would appear that Respondent has failed to follow through on his work and on his commitment to complete an acceptable installation for Mrs. Parra. Petitioner also alleges that on or about June 25, 1985, the Broward County Consumer Protection Board issued a cease and desist order to Respondent for representing that he was qualified to perform contracting work in Broward County without possessing local competency. No evidence was introduced, however, to satisfy or establish this allegation. Because of the dispute between Mrs. Parra and the Respondent, and her dissatisfaction with the quality of his installation, she filed a complaint with the Board and on December 10, 1985, the Board again met and heard her testimony and that of Mr. Sammons. As a result, on December 20, 1985, the Board found that Respondent's contract with Mrs. Parra was based on a representation to her that he was a contractor when in fact the prior action of the Board had denied him this status. The Board further found that he failed to pull a permit for the installation of the unit in Ms. Parra's home and thereafter failed to comply with the warranty given to her under the contract executed by him on August 12, 1985, nor did he provide her with the rebate promised. Based on these Findings of Fact, the Board concluded that the Respondent willfully, deliberately, or negligently disregarded or violated the provisions of the South Florida Building Code; that he contracted to act as a qualifying agent for his business when he was not certified to do so; that he contracted and did work which was not within the description of the class (journeyman) for which he had been certified by the Board; and that he abandoned without legal excuse a construction project in which he was engaged and under contract to complete. As a result, the Board ordered that his journeyman's Certificate of Competency be revoked effective that day. Once the journeyman's certificate was taken away, Respondent was not authorized to act as an air conditioning installer or contractor under any circumstances. Notwithstanding this, on February 20, 1986, Respondent again, acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, entered into a contract with Dr. Eisenstein to install a new two-ton split system in the doctor's home in Hollywood for a total price of $2,530.00. Since Dr. Eisenstein had previously dealt with Respondent on several occasions and found him to be reliable, the doctor responded to Respondent's request for an advance by giving him a $2,000.00 deposit. The contract was not actually finalized until late in March, 1986 and work was to begin in early April. However, on April 1, 1986, Respondent called Dr. Eisenstein and advised him that his truck, in which was stored the equipment for installation into the doctor's home and the money bag which contained the balance of the doctor's downpayment had been illegally repossessed by Respondent's bank the night before. As a result, Mr. Sammons indicated he would not be able to begin the project but assured the doctor that someone else would do so starting at the end of the week. In fact, no work was ever started by the Respondent or anyone else on his behalf. After several days, when Dr. Eisenstein attempted to call Respondent, he found that Respondent's phone had been disconnected and when on April 5, 1986, the date promised by Respondent, no one came to begin work on the project, the doctor began undertook an investigation which led to the ultimate contact of the doctor by the Respondent. To reach Respondent, Dr. Eisenstein had checked with Respondent's business landlord and when Respondent finally called the doctor back, he was irate that the doctor had done so. During that conversation Dr. Eisenstein advised Respondent that he should either repay the money advanced or do the work. In fact, neither was done. During the month of April, 1986, Dr. Eisenstein sent Respondent two letters by certified mail requesting that he either refund the advance payment or do the work promised under the contract. One letter was returned undelivered. The other was apparently delivered. When neither letter resulted in any satisfaction, the doctor, in early June, 1986, sent a letter of complaint to DPR outlining the situation. Respondent tells an incredible tale regarding the facts and circumstances which led up to the dispute with Dr. Eisenstein. Admitting that he was somewhat in debt to his bank, he claims that certain payments that he made to the bank with part of the money advanced by the doctor was used improperly by the bank and applied toward other obligations rather than the debt on his truck. He claims the repossession of the truck was illegal and improper because, by the payment mentioned above, if properly applied, the truck would have been paid off. This story is almost a duplicate of that regarding the excuse for the bad checks to Port Distributors. Respondent further contends that that bank thereafter engaged in a conspiracy against him to bring about his financial ruin; that the bank hired several individuals to assault him and his wife outside their church; that he has received several threats of bodily harm from the bank; and that all of this has resulted in his filing suit against the bank in local court. This story was told by the Respondent under oath. However, Respondent failed to provide any names or documentation to support this with the exception of the name of the bank allegedly involved. When asked where copies of the documentation were that would support his allegations, he responded with, "Oh, they're at home in a file." In short, it would appear that Respondent's story is a gossamer of fantasy which, while possibly believed at this point by Respondent, has very little basis in fact. Respondent also contends, for example, that Dr. Eisenstein requested that he not pull a permit for the work to be done at his house because he did not want city officials for one reason or another to know that the work was being done. This information was not brought out through Dr. Eisenstein, but rather through the testimony of the Respondent. None of these stories were backed up by any document or supporting evidence. Consequently, it is found that while Respondent may well believe what he is saying, his are in fact, incredible. Respondent was disciplined on two separate occasions by the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians and Respondent has not shown that these actions were procedurally violative of due process. Consequently, they are found to have occurred and to be valid. Respondent was not permitted to attack the circumstances leading up to the action by the board and the Hearing Officer declined to relitigate the factual propriety of the Board's two actions. Once having lost his Master Technician's license, Respondent was no longer authorized to pull building permits in Broward County and notwithstanding that, nonetheless did commence work for Mrs. Parra on a job which, under the ordinances of the county, required a permit be pulled. He also failed to live up to the terms of a warranty inherent in his contract with her. The evidence also established that subsequent to the withdrawal of his Journeyman's certificate, he nonetheless entered into a contract for the installation of a system in Dr. Eisenstein's house and accepted a substantial advance payment which he neither returned nor earned when he failed to begin any work on the project. In the opinion of the Petitioner's expert, Respondent's conduct in this instance was totally unprofessional and unethical. In fact, as a professional, if the circumstances occurred as alleged by Respondent, he should have made immediate arrangements to in some way make restitution of the funds to his client or have the work done by someone else. The evidence here shows that Respondent made no effort to make some accommodation to the client. He entered no promissory note (Respondent claims that as a gentleman, he has no need of notes as his word is sufficient); he made no attempt to let the client know what had happened; and in short, it appears that Respondent was out to make a quick buck (the expert's phrase) without attempting to in any way satisfy his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a registered air conditioning contractor be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1987, at 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 5th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Denver Sammons Post Office Box 7437 4614 Madison Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals within this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate sales person and employed as such in association with Today Real Estate, Inc., a real estate corporation trading as Re/Max Today, located at 2451-1 McMullen Booth Road in Clearwater, Florida. On July 16, 1997, James E. Brown and his wife submitted an offer to purchase a house located at 9813 Palmer Drive in New Port Richey. The offer was submitted by the Browns through their real estate agent, Nancy Riley, to the sellers who were represented by Respondent. As a part of the sales package, a home inspection report was completed on July 21, 1997, which indicated that the "air conditioning does not appear to be cooling enough." Thereafter, Respondent contacted Alvarez/Taylor, a plumbing and air conditioning company, to examine the unit and a representative of that company, William Taylor, went to the property on July 25, 1997, to inspect the unit. When he arrived, he found no one there and the house locked. He contacted his dispatcher who advised him to wait, and within a few minutes, Ms. Riley showed up. She let him in the house to do the inspection. The unit was low on freon, but the big problem with the unit that Taylor found was that it was old -- about 13 years old -- and at that age, he contends, units usually lose freon. He made an oral report to Ms. Riley who authorized him in writing to do whatever work was necessary on the unit to get it working properly. He installed the freon but that did not completely correct the problem. He advised Ms. Riley that he felt the unit should be replaced because of its age. She did not seem concerned about it, but she did not authorize the repairman to replace it. When he had done what he could do, short of replacing the unit, she again signed the work order, indicating the work had been done, and he gave her the pink copy of the form. This form showed his recommendation that the unit be replaced. According to Respondent, Ms. Riley called her after the air conditioner repairman had been at the house. She said the unit was working but was an older unit and somewhere down the line would have to be replaced. Respondent also claims that Ms. Riley told her she, Ms. Riley, had called Mrs. Brown and read her the report, and the Browns "were OK with it." Respondent did not see the repairman's report until July 28, 1997. At that time, she verified the repair charge of $140.00, and when she saw the recommendation for replacement on the form, she was upset by it. Respondent claims she had not been told by Ms. Riley that there was a recommendation for replacement, and she wanted to investigate the matter. She called Ms. Riley and left a message that she wanted to talk about it, and, on the recommendation of her own air conditioning repair firm, also called Alvarez/Taylor to ask for details on the recommendation for replacement. The repairman was not available, and she was unable to speak with anyone who was aware of the problem. All she was told was that the unit was old, would need constant repair, and should be replaced. When she asked to speak with the owner, he refused to speak with her. After several unsuccessful attempts to get information from Alvarez/Taylor, still on July 28, 1997, Respondent called Ms. Riley again and was told, she claims, that the situation was not so bad and the replacement recommendation was not immediate; that the Browns knew of the situation and were OK with it; and that the Browns hoped to get another year use out of the existing unit. Respondent claims she told Ms. Riley at that time she intended to remove the recommendation for replacement from the inspection report if she didn't hear back from Alvarez/Taylor, and that Ms. Riley agreed. Ms. Riley disputes this. Thereafter, she removed the recommendation for replacement from the inspection report, and on July 30, 1997, at the closing, Respondent gave the buyers an altered copy of the report of the air conditioning repairman. On this copy, the notation in the place reserved for recommendations that the unit was 13 years old and should be replaced was not present. The closing went forward and was consummated, and the Browns were given a copy of the altered inspection report. Almost a month later, on August 26, 1997, after the closing, Alvarez/Taylor furnished the Browns with a copy of the inspection report dated July 25, 1997 which reflected, in the space reserved for recommendations, that the unit should be replaced. The unit failed, and on September 3, 1997, Alvarez/Taylor replaced the unit due to its age and condition. The replacement cost the Browns $2,315.00. When the Browns started to look into the matter, and enlisted the aid of their agent, Ms. Riley, they also contacted Respondent who told them that she had altered the inspection report because she believed she had the authority to do that as a realtor. Respondent claims she was not trying to hide anything by altering the inspection report, nor was she trying to limit the Browns "or their representatives" access to the unit. She further contends she did not intend for anyone to reply on the altered inspection report. She says she believed everyone who needed to know, Ms. Riley and the Browns, were aware of the actual recommendation for replacement, and she was merely trying to correct the situation since she could not get what she considered to be appropriate information from Alvarez/Taylor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Margaret L. Page, guilty of concealment and breach of trust, imposing a suspension of her license as a real estate salesperson for six months under such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate, and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Development 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 David C. Levenreich, Esquire 406 South Prospect Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Melvin Stewart, t/a Depar Motel, has engaged in acts and/or conduct, as more particularly set forth in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein, which warrants the Petitioner's proposed sanctions of suspending or revoking the Respondent's license to operate a motel or the assessment of a civil penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Melvin Stewart, trading as the Depar Motel, is licensed by the Petitioner and holds license control No. 23-13405H. The Depar Motel is situated at 301 Northwest 62nd Street, Miami, Florida, and is of concrete block and stucco construction. The motel has approximately sixty-three (63) rooms plus a bar and lounge. Rogers Brown is an inspector employed by the Petitioner since approximately 1976. During his tenure, there has been a brief hiatus in his employment during which time he was on leave with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida. During the course of his employment, Inspector Brown made a routine inspection of the Depar Hotel on February 7, 1979, and noted that the Depar Motel was not being properly maintained, for reasons set forth hereinafter for which the Respondent, Melvin Stewart, was cited as violating Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 7C-1 and 7C- 3, Florida Administrative Code. Without reciting herein the numerous alleged violations set forth in the Notice to Show Cause /1 or reciting in toto inspector Brown's testimony, the following is a brief summary of the conditions he found at the Depar Motel during his inspection on February 7, 1979. Inspector Brown found that the fire extinguishers at the Depar Motel were located at travel distances of more than seventy-five (75) feet apart. He found inadequate electrical wiring in several rooms, in that electrical wires were burned and exposed, air conditioning wires were exposed in several apartments, electrical shaving receptacles were exposed, electrical wall sockets did not have adequate cover plates and several rooms had no sockets in the bedrooms and bathrooms. (Apartments 33, 51, 10 and 19.) Inspector Brown found several apartment doors with improper locking devices; were poorly sealed; had loose door frames and broken jalousies in the doors and windows. (Apartments 13, 7, 15, 17, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 52 and 55.) He also found several rooms which had holes in the bathrooms and living room walls. (Apartments 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 33, 39, 49, 52, 55, 57 and 59.) Inspector Brown also found several apartments which had inoperable jalousie windows and doors. (Apartments 4, 5, 11, 15, 24, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 52, 57 and 60.) Inspector Brown found several rooms with clogged plumbing drains and he observed standing water in several plumbing fixtures, (Apartments 7 and 4.) He also found leaking faucets and hot water handles missing in several apartments. (Apartments 4, 16, 40, 52, 55 and 59.) Inspector Brown also found that several apartments lacked screen windows and that the screen windows in several apartments were torn. (Apartments 1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 28, 29, 32, 34, 40, 51 and 60,) He also observed rodent droppings and roaches in several apartments. (TR. 70-73.) Inspector Brown found weeds, trash and debris outside the building. He noted that several apartments had soiled mattresses and in others the mattresses had no covers. (Apartments 4, 6, 30, 32 and 33.) Finally, Inspector Brown testified that the Respondent did not have on file with the Division a form No. 208, which is required of all licensees. 2/ Chapter 7C-3.02, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent did not offer any witnesses to refute the charges set forth herein in the Notice to Show Cause or to counter the credited testimony of Inspector Rogers Brown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: Upon issuance of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants' Final Order herein, the Respondent's license be suspended for a period of one (1) year with the suspension held in abeyance for a period of thirty (30) days, during which time the Respondent be allowed an opportunity to correct the deficiencies cited in the Notice to Show Cause filed herein. In the event that Respondent fails to correct the deficiencies as set forth in the referenced notice during the allowable period, Petitioner shall be authorized to immediately suspend Respondent's license for a period of one (1) year without the necessity for further hearing. Section 509.261(3)(a), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Stephen G. Blume, the Respondent, is a state certified Class A contractor under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He holds license number CA C009753, and he is the qualifying agent for BCH Mechanical, Inc. (BCH), a Florida corporation, in which Blume is the principle stockholder. BCH is a mechanical contractor and concentrates its efforts in commercial construction work, particularly in shopping center construction. BCH subcontracts from owners or general contractors for the installation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning for individual establishments within shopping malls. Prior to February 18, 1983, the Respondent contracted with a general contractor for the Respondent to provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment to approximately 15 stores in the Aventura Mall in Dade County, Florida. The work was of a nature for which the Respondent and BCH were qualified to perform under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On February 18, 1983, the Respondent and his company contracted with Richard E. Hahn, doing business as Temp-Rite Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., to install air conditioning systems in spaces 128, 163, 645, and 677 at the Aventura Mall. See attachment to Respondent's Exhibit 1, and paragraph 3 of the administrative complaint. On February 23, 1983, the Respondent obtained building and mechanical permits to perform heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work on spaces 163, 645, 677, and 128 at the Aventura Mall. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The Respondent did not attempt to list the permits in the name of Hahn at the time of application or subsequently. Richard Hahn did not have a certificate of competency to do air conditioning construction work, and was not qualified in Dade County to obtain a permit to do that work himself. He also was not licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to perform this work. The Respondent selected Hahn by the following process. When he got to the mall, he contacted Robert Shaw Controls, the company that was doing work on the concourse air conditioning systems at the mall. Employees of Robert Shaw told the Respondent of three pipe fitting companies that were then doing work at the mall. All three gave the Respondent bids, and Respondent selected Hahn's company as low bidder. There is no evidence that Blume was a friend of Hahn prior to this contract. Respondent's company specializes in installation of air conditioning systems in shops in commercial malls. Respondent's company employs 30 to 40 people. Most of this is handled by his own employees, without subcontracts. Thus, for most of his work, there is no need for a licensed subcontractor. At the Aventura Mall project, the Respondent determined that he needed to hire a subcontractor affiliated with the pipefitters union for the work on first floor shops. The Respondent did not have a bargaining agreement with the pipefitters union, and thus could not call the Dade County pipefitters' hiring hall to hire a pipefitter as a temporary employee. Instead, Respondent had to subcontract the work to a pipe fitter union member. Respondent determined that he needed pipefitter union affiliation because that union was quite strong in Dade County, and use of nonunion members might have caused labor unrest at the mall work site. It was not to the economic advantage of the Respondent to subcontract the work to Hahn. It would have been more profitable to the Respondent to have followed his usual business practice of doing the air conditioning pipe fitting work using his own nonunion pipefitter employees. The Respondent asked Hahn if he was a licensed contractor for his work, whether he was a union pipe fitter, and whether he carried worker's compensation coverage. The Respondent was told by Hahn that he had a license, that he was a journeyman union pipe fitter, and that he did carry worker's compensation coverage. Following his past practice, the Respondent asked Hahn only for proof of his worker's compensation coverage. The Respondent did nothing to attempt to verify the truth of Hahn's assertion that he was a licensed contractor. The Respondent could have verified the existence of Hahn's license by either asking Hahn to show him his license card or by telephoning the license record officer in Dade County and asking that agency to verify Hahn's license. The Respondent did not do either of these things both of which were relatively easy to do. The Respondent had memorized his own contract license number. William Lessaris was employed by the Respondent and BCH Mechanical, Inc., to provide daily supervision of the project. Lessaris was at the job site daily. Other BCH employees were also on the job site. John D. Arition is Mechanical and Building Inspector and Plans Processor for far the Building and Zoning Department of Dade County, Florida. Arition was called by Lessaris to come to the job site to perform the air conditioning inspection. Arition did not tell BCH Mechanical, Inc., when he would arrive. When Arition arrived on the job site, Hahn was there. Arition asked Hahn for his license to do the work. Hahn told Arition that he did not have a license. Arition ordered Hahn to cease work. Hanh picked up his tools and left the job site. Arition then talked with Lessaris and told him about the problem with Hahn. The work was completed satisfactorily, without defects. Subsequently, Hahn was administratively charged with violating various provisions of Dade County construction law, was found to have committed six violations, was fined a total of $2,700 and had his personal certificate of competency suspended for one year. Blume was asked to appear at the hearing, but could not due to prior scheduled work. There is no evidence that Blume was given adequate notice of the date of the hearing, and it appears that he was given only short notice of the precise date. Blume was not subpoened to appear, and was not at fault in failing to appear. Blume voluntarily supplied Dade County with all documentary evidence requested.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order finding no violations as alleged, and dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 29th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Sizemore, Esquire Suite 838, Plaza On The Mall 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Salvatore Carprino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by not providing a reasonable accommodation, steam cleaning the apartment after the sprinkler head broke, that Petitioner was entitled to, and Respondent was required to provide, and, if so, whether Petitioner should receive damages as a result of Respondent's failure to provide Petitioner with a reasonable accommodation.
Findings Of Fact On December 8, 2009, Amadiz applied to become a tenant at Sunbeach. Amadiz informed Sunbeach at the time of her application that she had lupus. Sunbeach approved Amadiz's application and she became a tenant of unit 417, a studio apartment having approximately 400 square feet of living spaces. The apartment came furnished with a bed, dresser, nightstand, stove refrigerator, and desk. On April 11, 2010, Amadiz arrived home to her apartment at approximately 1:30 a.m., from volunteering at a fundraiser held by Miami Beach Veiled Wine Society. After Amadiz entered her apartment and closed the door, the sprinkler system started and an outpour of brownish water came out of the sprinkler because the cover was not on the sprinkler and the sprinkler head was not in place. The water wet Amadiz. Amadiz left the apartment and went to report the incident to the property manager Miguel Echemendia ("Echemendia"). Although Echemendia and Amadiz had a difficult time communicating with one another because she didn't speak his language (Spanish), Echemendia got dressed and went upstairs with Amadiz to assist her. Enchemendia looked at the water in Amadiz's apartment. He tried to locate the shut off but was not able to find it to cut off the running sprinkler. After about 45 minutes, Amadiz's neighbor helped Echemendia find the sprinkler shut-off and turned it off. Water covered Amadiz's tiled floors in the bathroom, closet, and main living area. After the sprinkler was turned off, Amadiz pumped water out of her apartment for about three hours. Amadiz threw out a lot of personal items the next day while trying to clean up from the water. A friend came over and assisted Amadiz with the clean up. They cleaned the tiled floor with bleach, dried the floors, and discarded wet and damaged goods. Amadiz and her friend were able to dry up most of the water. At about 3:45 p.m. on April 11, 2012, the same day as the sprinkler incident, Amadiz wrote Respondent a letter, which she sent certified, detailing the sprinkler outpour situation of earlier that morning. In the letter, Amadiz informed Sunbeach that she "cleaned the floors to the best of her ability." Amadiz also informed Sunbeach that "as water has seeped under the dresser, the refrigerator and stove, I am unable to complete the process without any assistance" and she requested "complete maintenance review for sprinkler systems, clean up of the areas I noted, fair reparations for the items [listed] damaged." By April 12, 2010, the water under the bed had dried up. However, the dresser had some brown water around it. Amadiz moved the dresser as far as she could and removed the water that she saw and cleaned the floor with bleach. Amadiz was concerned that there might be more water under the dresser that she couldn't get to left over from the sprinkler outpour. Amadiz also had a concerns about water she had discovered when she reached under the stove and refrigerator that she could not reach to clean. Amadiz dried up the areas around the appliances she could reach in the floor area. Amadiz was worried about water residue because the grout in her apartment was brownish, not white, after the outpour of water. Amadiz concluded that a mold-type condition existed even though mold does not colonize on tile floors. The areas that Amadiz couldn't access underneath the stove, refrigerator, and behind the floorboards concerned her. Amadiz neither asked nor sought anyone to help her access any of the areas. And, she was never able to determine if there was water behind the floorboard, stove, and refrigerator. On April 12, 2010, Sunbeach's repairman, Erique Perez ("Perez"), went to unit 417 with Echemendia to evaluate the water damage. He checked both the floors and walls with his hands. He checked underneath the refrigerator and stove by pulling it forward and did not find any water. Perez determined that there was no water damage in the apartment. On April 13, 2010, Amadiz sent Sunbeach a second letter requesting that Sunbeach come "check out the damage of her apartment, provide steam cleaning support or speak with her about the next steps." She also stated in the letter that she had been given antibiotics and a steroid cream for a rash and set up another doctor's appointment. On April 15, 2010, Amadiz called Garcia to follow up on her requests from the letters. Garcia indicated that she would speak to her supervisor and get back in contact with Amadiz the next week. Soon thereafter, code compliance visited Amadiz's apartment. On April 27, 2010, Amadiz sent a third letter to Respondent notifying Sunbeach that she was going to withhold rent if repairs weren't made in seven days and requested the following: Steam cleaning of the unit in which I reside as soiled water residue still remains under the appliances and furniture and within the grout of the tiles in the main living area as well as the bathroom An inspection of the two remaining sprinklers in the unit The rug directly in front of door remains and has begun showing signs of mold and mildew enough in fact that the smell can be ascertained from the elevators. Amadiz further detailed the items for which she wanted to be reimbursed and stated: These addressed issues coupled with my own health issues (on SSA Disability for systemic lupus erythematosus) cited in my previous correspondence lead me to assume the habitability of the unit is of little concern. I have made you aware of the need for antibiotics and steroid creams to offset the effects of the soiled water . . . the presence of mold and mildew within and without the unit creates inhabitable living conditions. Amadiz paid rent up to April 27, 2010, then withheld rent payments per her attorney's advice. On or about May 17, 2010, Amadiz received a three-day eviction notice from Sunbeach. Amadiz responded with a fourth letter dated May 17, 2010, which chronicled her previous letters, requested steam cleaning and inspection, and reparations for lost items, and listed her health issues identically as she had in the letter of April 27, 2010. Amadiz remained in the apartment from April 11, 2010, to June 29, 2010. She vacated the unit 417 on July 3, 2010, pursuant to the final judgment of eviction by Sunbeach entered against her for non-payment of rent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief filed by Judith Amadiz in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2012.
