Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond E. Hirst, Jr., professional engineer, was licensed as such by the State of Florida under license number PE 0017307. Prior to March 22, 1983, the Respondent, for Mech-Mar Engineering Company, Inc., designed a storage bay and mini- warehouse project to be built by Ruth Stein Construction for William M. Kwasniki, to be located on South Babcock Street in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner designed the facility and signed the plans for construction on March 22, 1983. A note clearly marked on the sheet index on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the plan set reflects, "The engineer's services do not include supervision of the construction of this project." The plans consist of three sheets of drawings, each of which is sealed and signed by the Respondent. The first sheet reflects the foundation plan. The second shows the electrical riser and firewall detail, and the third reflects the elevations. On or about April 3, 1983, the contractor, Ruth Stein, submitted these plans to the City of Palm Bay building department. The plans were approved for construction by the office of the chief building official, Paul Olsen, and formed the basis for the issuance of the construction permit. Neither the engineer's specifications nor calculations were submitted and filed with the plans. However, calculations were not required by the City of Palm Bay at that time. Two amendments to the plans were filed by the Respondent on May 31, and August 10, 1983. No revised drawings were submitted, however. The drawings that were submitted by Ms. Stein, but drawn by Respondent, were used to insure that the plans conformed to standard building codes, zoning codes, etc., but were not reviewed by the city for compliance with engineering standards and no engineering analysis was done by the city on these or any other plans at that time. The need to do so was apparently recognized later, however, as such analyses are now done on a routine basis. The plans were also to be used by the city's inspection staff to compare work being done by the contractor with the plans to insure that the work conforms to them. During construction, the building being erected according to Respondent's plans, a concrete block structure, collapsed. This collapse occurred sometime prior to May 20, 1983. After the structure collapsed, the city building office again approved the plans drawn by Respondent for reconstruction. The contractor was told to clean up the site and was then allowed to rebuild. Not only the original plans but the amendments referred to above, including that dated August 10, 1983, called for partitions within the building. After rebuilding, the structure was inspected by the city and a certificate of occupancy was issued in August, 1983. No complaints have been filed regarding this construction since that time. After the collapse, an inspection of the collapse site revealed that in some areas on the west part of the structure, cells of the concrete blocks being used to form the walls had not been filled with concrete as was required by the design submitted by Respondent. In the opinion of Mr. Olsen, this defect was a fault not of the Respondent but of the contractor. No determination was made by the city as to: whether the block walls as designed by Respondent met Standard Building Code (SBC) requirements; whether the walls were supported laterally as required; whether anchorage of the roof trusses to the walls was accomplished; whether Respondent properly, or at all, designed a roof diaphragm for this project; whether the walls were adequate to meet the wind load requirements (the SBC suggests that maximum wind velocity standard is 90 mph.); whether the lentils were adequate; and whether the truss anchorage limits were satisfactory. (According to Mr. Olsen, this decision is left up to the engineer who designs the structure.) The city found, however, that a part of the reason for the collapse of this structure was that the trusses for the roof were set too soon, were not adequately braced, contained questionable materials, and wore questionably fabricated. Though the city was not critical in its analysis of Respondent's performance, the experts retained by Petitioner to evaluate his drawings were. Mr. James O. Power, who has been a registered structural engineer since 1947 did not examine the building site but is aware of the project in question. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Respondent, photos taken of the site, the investigative report, letters and correspondence from Respondent with calculations contained therein, and the Respondent's amendments to the original drawings. On the basis of this evidence, he formed an opinion as to Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project and prepared several letters on the subject dated July 6 and October 21, 1983, and January 30 and September 7, 1984, all of which constitute his opinion as to Respondent's performance. In substance he concluded that Respondent's engineering performance on this project was unsatisfactory showing basic negligence and lack of due care as well as a lack of understanding of the basic engineering requirements for the job. In his opinion, overall, the drawings lack sufficient detail. For example, they, (a) show no interior partitions (partitions were defined in an amendment to the drawing filed after the collapse); (b) show that while the southern wall has few openings, the north wall has many, (this is significant in that because of the lack of partitions, the walls must resist the winds playing upon them as vertical cantilevers); (c) show that the number 5 vertical bars in the fill cells are 12 feet apart, (to serve as reinforced masonry, they should be 4 but no more than 8 feet apart depending on the circumstances); (d) reflect a ceiling height of 14 feet whereas later drawings show a difference in elevation; (e) show that the tie beam is to be constituted of inverted masonry U-beam 16 inches deep filled with concrete and reinforcing steel without providing for any obvious way to insert the concrete within the beam; (f) failed to show with detail the strap makeup or method of connection for the hurricane straps to be used to hold down the roof trusses to the walls, (the drawings show that the strap is to loop over the truss and if the straps do not do so, the connection is weak); (g) reflect that the door height at the openings on the north and south side doors are different than the tie beam height but there is no showing of how the weight of the roof is to be distributed over the door head only 8 inches below the tie-beam (this could contribute to the collapse of the building); and (h) failed to show drawings of trusses by the Respondent. In this regard, the truss company's drawings and specifications are insufficient. Since the Respondent's drawings do not define with particularity how the trusses are to be constructed, the truss fabricator must make assumptions as to the stress and load to be applied. With regard to the pre-engineered and pre-manufactured roof trusses, Mr. Power is of the opinion that the designer, Respondent, should have: (1) stated his criteria for the design of the truss (Respondent did not do this); (2) stated the qualifications of the designer (Respondent did not do this); (3) submitted clear instructions regarding his design (Respondent's are unclear and unsatisfactory). Mr. Power also indicates that in his experience, bracing for the trusses is installed at the building site and that only the basic truss is constructed at the truss company's plant. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the practice in Brevard County is for the building designer, as here, to give the basic specifications needed for the truss, and thereafter, the truss designer, working for the truss company, designs and builds the complete truss for delivery to the site. If Mr. Power's position is to be believed, personal supervision of the designer would be required at the site once the basic truss was delivered. Here, however, Mr. Power operates out of Miami and Petitioner has failed to show that he is familiar with the trade practice in the area involved in this dispute. Respondent's position is somewhat supported by the fact that his plans contain a disclaimer of supervision and no issue was made that this is a forbidden or unaccepted practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that Respondent's design of the trusses in this case was faulty. Mr. Power also identified several "design deficiencies" in Respondent's work. Among these were that there was no requirement for the use of reinforced masonry which is different from concrete and that Respondent's drawings provided no details or standards for the mortar or grout, the substance used to fill the holes in concrete blocks which should have a minimum slump of 8 inches. (If one tried to fill these cells from the top of a 14 foot wall, it is most likely that the cell, the hole within the blocks, would not be filled.) Further, the formulae used by Respondent in his calculations are for solid materials in the walls -- not for cinder block which was the material called for here. On the basis of the above discrepancies, it appeared to Mr. Power that Respondent did not understand the difference between the requirements for construction with concrete block and those for construction with reinforced masonry. In addition, according to Mr. Power, the reinforcing walls inserted in the design by the Respondent after the collapse of the building are of materials not permitted by the SBC. Also the SBC requires that the ratio of length to width of roof diaphragm should be no more than 4. The purpose of this is to provide support to the top of the wall so as to resist loads placed upon it by the force of wind. Here, Respondent's design has not adequately provided this reinforcement, in Mr. Power's judgment, and the design does not meet the SBC requirement. The SBC also requires designs of buildings to be constructed in the Palm Bay area to be able to withstand 90 mph winds. Mr. Power's calculations based on Respondent's plans and drawings show it is questionable that a building built pursuant to Respondent's plans would sustain 90 mph winds. The fact that the chances are only one in fifty that in any given year winds of this speed would be reached is immaterial. As to the filling of the holes (cells) in the concrete block, Mr. Power contends that it is a good practice to show in the drawing a breakout in the block at the bottom of the wall so that the builder can see that the concrete has in fact gone all the way down to the bottom as it should. Here, however, the building code does not require this to be done. Again, considering the Respondent's use of cement instead of grout to fill the cells, the Respondent followed county practice and the SBC does not specifically require the use of grout. Nonetheless, Mr. Power is of the opinion that even though Respondent's drawings indicated that he would not inspect at the site, it was unreasonable for Respondent to expect the cells to be filled since it is well known that many contractors do not inspect to insure that the cells are filled as called for. Mr. Power is also of the opinion that the lintels as described in one of the amendments to the basic drawings, though permissible for use, are inadequate to handle the indicated roof load and the drawings prepared by Respondent did not show the lintel capacity. Mr. Power contends that the SBC requires drawings to show sufficient detail to indicate the intent of the designer to allow the contractor using the drawings to conform to code standards. Admittedly, this is subjective criteria, not an objective one, as to what constitutes sufficient detail. The amendments added to the original designs helped somewhat to correct the deficiencies, but do not make them adequate. Taken as a whole, the drawings are not adequate, in the opinion of Mr. Power, to comply with the SBC. They are not adequate to pass on the designer's intent to the contractor and they are not adequate to show the designer's understanding of design elements. These errors and deficiencies described above are, in the opinion of Mr. Power, significant and not minor. Based on his analysis of the overall drawings and situation, he concluded that Respondent has not demonstrated his capability to handle this particular task which, in the opinion of Mr. power, is relatively simple. Respondent's drawings and the other documents pertinent to the project in issue here including calculations, correspondence, photos, and the investigative report, were also reviewed by Ernest C. Driver, a Florida licensed consultant engineer operating in Cairo, Georgia. Mr. Driver also reviewed Mr. Power's reports and is in complete agreement with his conclusions. He did some calculations on his own and on the basis of them, formed an opinion of Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project. He found that the reinforcing of the cinder block cells on the walls were too widely spaced at 12 foot centers instead of 4 to 8 foot centers. In addition, he did not agree with the engineering conclusions drawn by the Respondent. The calculations performed by Respondent were, in his opinion, improper and as a result, the design is over-stressed by approximately 215 percent. This came about, apparently, because Respondent designed a wall as though there were no doors in it. In addition, the way the tie beam is designed, it is impossible to get the reinforcing concrete into the "U." Further, the hurricane straps required to affix the roof trusses to the tie beam cannot be attached to the beam itself. Also, the design called for concrete block to be installed above the doors. This procedure placed as much as four times the load the lintel should carry. Mr. Driver also found that the diaphragm used by Respondent was of gypsum board which, in his opinion, is not a proper material for diaphragms. Also, according to Mr. Driver's interpretation of Respondent's plan, there is no way that the wind shear force applied to the diaphragm can be transmitted to the side wall and thence down to the earth. This is a definite deficiency and Respondent's drawings and notes are not complete enough to allow a clear determination of what is required as to materials to be used and how the work should be accomplished. Other deficiencies are seen in that the drawings show a 230 foot long building without an expansion joint. In Mr. Driver's opinion, this is far too long for construction without such a joint. In addition, the 26 foot high end wall is not addressed in the design which has no indication of how the roof is to be attached to it. Mr. Driver concurs with Mr. Power's opinion regarding the insufficiency of the plans and specifications offered by Respondent for the roof trusses in that there is no framing plan nor are there specifications identified for the trusses. Shop drawings should have been provided instead of only a cut sheet. While this witness does not know what the current Brevard County practice regarding the design and construction of trusses is, he is convinced that it is as Respondent says it is, to wit: that they are completely fabricated at the shop and delivered completed for installation to the job site, this is a poor practice. Connected to the issue of roof trusses is that regarding the metal hurricane straps which Respondent indicated his plans called for. These metal straps, which can easily be bent by hand are, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, a poor method of affixing the trusses to the tie beam. There are too many things that can go wrong such as hinging, the lack of a firm seating for the strap in the concrete, the bending of the metal, and the pulling of the affixing nails through the holes in the strap thereby resulting in no grip. In addition to his dissatisfaction with the use of concrete to fill the cells in the cinder blocks, Mr. Driver also feels that the use of concrete to fill a continuous 14 foot cell is improper. In his opinion, the drawings should call for a solid block every 4 feet and for weep holes through which compaction can be noted periodically throughout that distance. All of this should be in the engineer's notes. The notes by Respondent do not identify these areas. Even though Respondent's notes called for the 14 feet to be filled, his plans failed to provide methods to insure that complete filling was accomplished. Examination of the pictures of the wall after the collapse reveals that complete filling was not accomplished and this failure on the part of Respondent to provide a reasonably foolproof method of insuring complete compaction cannot be excused and responsibility shifted to the contractor by the mere statement by Respondent on the plans that he would not inspect. Engineering practice is made up of judgment as well as the specific formulae which can be obtained from engineering textbooks. There are assumptions which may be made -- some good and some bad. In the opinion of Mr. Driver, the defects described above indicate that Respondent's assumptions were bad. As a result, his judgment was bad. He feels that, in light of all the evidence, Respondent was negligent, failed to use due care, failed to conform to accepted engineering principles, failed to accomplish drawings sufficiently detailed to instruct the contractor as to exactly what needed to he done, and failed to provide drawings which, if followed exactly as presented, would by themselves, enable a builder to construct a safe structure. Here, based on the drawings prepared and submitted by Respondent, a builder would have to demonstrate a high and exceptional degree of expertise in order to fill in the omitted details required to make the building safe. Acceptable drawing standards are not defined with specificity in the SBC. Much is subjective rather than objective. For example, nothing in the SBC prohibits the use of gypsum board as a horizontal diaphragm, but, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, it is not common practice to use it for such. This goes to the question of judgment. In any event, the code may be erroneous in some particulars and not all answers are contained in it. It is for this reason that the law requires the use of a licensed engineer whose judgment fills in the gaps left by the code. Here all the defects identified in Respondent's drawings are within the province of an engineer. These are the items an engineer is needed for to accomplish. Here, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, there are too many defects and Respondent's work does not conform to any of the standards used in the engineering community as to schooling, information gained from working with other engineers, or the witness's personal experience. In rebuttal to the above, Respondent presented no experts of his own, but testified as to his disagreement with the analyses of Petitioner's experts. The testimony by Mr. Power and Mr. Driver is found to be accurate and descriptive of the defects in Respondent's performance. There are a few exceptions such as where local Brevard County practice differs from the experience of these experts, however, taken as a whole, the evidence clearly indicates Respondent's shortcomings for the most part. The testimony of the experts has established a series of defects in Respondent's performance which he has failed to satisfactorily rebut.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, RAYMOND HIRST, be placed on probation for one year, that he be reprimanded, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1985 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 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymond Hirst 379 Franklyn Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32903 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Board of professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Frank H. Suesz is a licensed general contractor having been issued certificate number CG C020463. On July 21, 1981, the Respondent Suesz submitted an application to the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation to take the certified contractors' examination as a general contractor. On the application, the Respondent Suesz stated that he had four (4) years of construction experience, one (1) year of on-the-job-supervisory experience, and some experience in the construction of buildings in excess of three(3) stories in height. The Respondent's work experience' was verified by Ethel C. Douglas, his mother-in-law and a building owner. Douglas' verification on the Respondent's application was notarized. The experience claimed by the Respondent on his application involved his prior position with Steel Systems Construction Company, a seller and erector of pre-engineered metal buildings. Steel Systems is owned by Richard Spinnenweber, who is also the Respondent's cousin and the complainant in this case. Steel Systems holds the franchise for American Steel Buildings while the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc., has acquired the franchise for Pre-Engineered Steel Buildings. Since the Respondent's resignation from Steel Systems, his relationship with his cousin has been anything but cordial. The Respondent and Spinnenweber have engaged in litigation concerning the termination of their former relationship and are now active business competitors through their respective companies. 1/ The Respondent's company sells and erects pre-engineered, prefabricated steel buildings that are built in a factory, shipped to the job site and erected. One witness for the Petitioner analogized the construction of these buildings to "erector sets". (See Tr. at 43) Since being certified in 1981, the Respondent's company, ABCO Construction, Inc. has successfully completed approximately 40 construction projects including a 45,000 foot roof for Pan Am at Miami International Airport, a 10,000 square foot marina warehouse in Key Largo, and has worked for the U.S. Customs Service and the Air Force. No evidence was presented that any of the Respondent's jobs completed since he became certified, were substandard or present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Permits were pulled on these projects and building inspections were passed when required. Prior to moving to Florida, the Respondent Suesz had varied construction experience which including supervising the construction of building additions, a shipping storage warehouse and a factory for Beckley Perforating Company, which is headquartered in Garwood, New Jersey. This testimony is corroborated by a letter dated May 13, 1982, from Frank P. Marano, President of Beckley, which also noted the Respondent's ". . .unusual competency in all areas of responsibility as to construction, maintenance and expansion." [See Petitioner's Exhibit 3(x).] Additionally, the Respondent has some construction experience in excess of three stories, which dates from his work with his father on apartment buildings located out of state. The extent of the Respondent's experience which dates from the 1940s, is set forth in detail in Respondent's Exhibit 2. Although his position at Steel Systems was primarily sales, the Respondent Suesz also worked in the field when necessary. 2/ While employed by Steel Systems, the Respondent supervised construction of two large dock roofs in 1978 and 1979, plus three buildings in 1980 and 1981 for the Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. By letter dated May 13, 1982, Rosario Strano, company owner, commended the Respondent for his work and stated that he intended ". . .to negotiate with him for all future requirements for buildings, dock roofs, etc." [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(y).] In early 1989, the Respondent Suesz built an addition to the Hialeah factory of Brice-Southern, Inc. His supervision of the project included pouring and finishing the floor slab. Philip H. Brice recommended the Respondent's work via letter dated May 13, 1982, and stated ". . .that he would give him the opportunity to do our future requirements." Petitioner's Exhibit 3(z).] According to Gerald Antel, Trustee, Sunshine Skateway, the Respondent supervised the construction of a $250,000 roller rink. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(aa).] Finally, in late 1980 and 1981, the Respondent supervised construction of a 16,800 square foot building for Woal Wholesale Plumbing Supply, Inc. His work on this project was observed and recommended by Randy S. Woal. [Petitioner's Exhibit 3(bb).]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Frank H. Suesz, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983.
The Issue Based upon the stipulated facts, only one issue, a legal one, must be resolved. The issue is whether Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, is properly applied by the Board which interprets this section to require a minimum of four years of experience as a certified contractor. Having considered the statute and the Board's position in applying the interpretation above, it is concluded that the Board's interpretation is erroneous.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Margaret K. Roberts, was licensed as a Certified Building Contractor October 19, 1984. Petitioner filed an application to take the State Certified General Contractor's Examination on or about December 19, 1984. At the time Petitioner applied to take the Certified General Contractor's Examination, she held Certified Building Contractor's License No. CB C031970 and she had four years of proven experience in the Certified Building Contractor's field, although she had only been certified as a building contractor since October 19, 1984. One may obtain experience in an area of contracting without being certified. Petitioner is not qualified by virtue of holding a baccalaureate degree or experience as a residential contractor. Petitioner was not certified as a building contractor for four years prior to applying for the general contractor's examination. Petitioner's only basis of claimed eligibility to take the General Contractor's Examination is Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the certification examination because of insufficient time as a certified building contractor in accordance with Florida Statutes 489.111(4)(c). Other than the issue of requisite experience as a certified contractor, Petitioner meets all other statutes and Board Rules regarding eligibility for the Certified General Contractor's Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the stipulated facts and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that Section 489.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, be interpreted to include qualifying service in a non-certified capacity and that Petitioner's application to take the building contractor's examination be approved. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maxwell G. Battle, Esquire 8204-A West Waters Avenue Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33615 Arden Siegendorf, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD MARGARET K. ROBERTS, License No. CB-C031970 Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-2240 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C050853 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Reliable Remodelers, a division of Action Bay Marine Company, Inc., and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On March 9, 1993, Joel Broder while representing himself to be vice president of Reliable Remodelers, executed a contract with Louise Rodney and Astrid Lamand wherein Reliable Remodelers agreed to perform certain roofing and carpet work at the residence of Yves and Louise Rodney at 35 N.W. 115 Street, Miami, Florida. The reason Astrid Lamand signed this contract was not established. The work to be done on the Rodney residence was in repair of damages caused by Hurricane Andrew. The costs of these repairs were to be paid by insurance proceeds. The price for this work to be performed by Reliable Remodelers, including materials, was $10,650.00. According to the terms of the contract, $200 was due as a down payment on or about March 9, 1993, and the remainder was due on completion of the work. Ms. Rodney gave Mr. Broder two checks as deposits toward the work to be done. The first was a check in the amount of $200.00 on March 9, 1993, the date the contract was signed. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney on March 9, 1993, to call him when her insurance settlement came in so he could come back for an additional check and thereafter begin work. On April 11, 1993, Ms. Rodney advised Mr. Broder by telephone that she had received her insurance settlement. On April 12, 1993, Ms. Rodney paid to Mr. Broder the second check, which was in the amount of $3,000.00. On April 13, 1993, Mr. Broder told the Rodneys that work would begin on the house in three days. Ms. Rodney made both of these checks payable to Joel Broder personally because Mr. Broder instructed her to do so. Mr. Broder assured her that it was acceptable to make these two deposit checks to him personally because of his position as a vice-president of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder indicated that the final check would be made payable to Reliable Remodelers. Reliable Remodelers never began work on the subject contract. No building permit was ever pulled for the project described in the subject contract. A local building department building permit would have been required for beginning work on the roofing portion of the project described in the subject contract. The Rodneys never received a refund of the $3,200.00 paid to Joel Broder. Louise Rodney was justified in believing Mr. Broder was an authorized representative of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Broder presented a business card and a contract with Reliable Remodelers' name and address and Respondent's general contractor's license number printed on the contract. Mr. Broder was employed by Reliable Remodelers and had the authority to negotiate contracts on its behalf with the public. Richard Levin, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers at the time of the Rodney contract, knew that Mr. Broder was representing Reliable Remodelers in a contract sales capacity at the time of the Rodney contract. Between April 13, 1993, and the end of June 1993 Louise Rodney and her husband, Yves Rodney, repeatedly called Mr. Broder at Reliable Remodelers, but were never able to get Mr. Broder or Reliable Remodelers to start work. When Mr. or Ms. Rodney called the number provided by Mr. Broder, he or she would sometimes get Mr. Broder, sometimes get an answering machine, and sometimes get a lady who answered the phone "Reliable Remodelers." Mr. Broder repeatedly made excuses to the Rodneys about why the job did not begin. Sometime around the end of June or early July, Ms. Rodney called Mr. Broder and demanded a return of her money. Mr. Broder told Ms. Rodney that he could not refund the money until the end of July because he never wrote checks until the middle of the month. Mr. Broder did promise to return the money to Louise Rodney by the end of July 1993. In July 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Metro Dade Building and Zoning Department against Reliable Remodelers and Joel Broder. On July 23, 1993, Ms. Rodney filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation against Joel Broder and Reliable Remodelers. In late August or early September 1993, Mr. Broder contacted Ms. Rodney by telephone about the refund. This telephone contact was after a representative from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation had contacted Mr. Broder about Ms. Rodney's complaint. In that telephone conversation Mr. Broder discussed the possibility of refunding to Ms. Rodney her deposit, but he insisted on keeping $200.00 of the $3,200.00. On or about September 10, 1993, the Respondent executed and sent Louise Rodney a letter on Reliable Remodelers letterhead. A copy of the letter was sent to the Department of Professional Regulation. This letter provided, in part, as follows: You have expressed a desire to be released from our contract dated March 9, 1993, for work in the amount of $10,650.00. We want to make it clear that we have been pro- hibited from fulfilling the terms of our contract by unreasonable and impractical demands by you, the Homeowners, as to how the work should proceed, i.e., demanding that roof tiles be loaded on the roof before it is hot mopped. 1/ Although your request at this time is not in accordance with the cancellation terms of our contract, we feel it would be in the best interest of all parties to grant your request. We do however, require written notification of your intent to cancel. Notarized signatures on this document will suffice. Upon receipt of this executed document we will initiate refund procedures. Your deposit of $3,200.00 will be returned to you within thirty (30) days. This allows us time to recoup binders issued for your job. Of course we have incurred some expenses in the set up for performing our contractual obligation. These, in excess of $400.00, we will overlook. Please endorse and have notarized the statement below and return this document to us promptly. The letter of September 10, 1993, contained a release clause that Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride were to sign and have notarized before any refund was to be forthcoming. Sometime just after September 13, 1994, in the evening, three men came to the Rodney home with a copy of the letter signed by the Respondent on September 10, 1993. One of these three men was Jules Lindsor, a corporate officer of Reliable Remodelers. Mr. Lindsor falsely identified himself to the Rodneys as being Gary S. Sachs. These three men were trying to procure the Rodneys' signature on a release from the subject contract. The Rodneys refused to sign the release because there was no refund present and because they wanted to consult a lawyer before signing. Sometime after September 13, 1993, the Rodneys executed a release and mailed it to Reliable Remodelers. At the time of entering the contract with Reliable Remodelers the Rodney home was leaking from damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. The leaks were finally repaired between April and June 1994 by persons other than Reliable Remodelers. Respondent and Reliable Remodelers ratified the contract that Mr. Broder executed on its behalf. There was no evidence that Respondent or Reliable Remodelers ever repudiated the contract as a Reliable Remodelers contract, that there was any effort to perform the contract, or that there was a tender of a refund of the $3,200.00 paid by Louise Rodney. There was no evidence that Reliable Remodelers had any justifiable excuse for its failure to perform any work pursuant to its contract with Ms. Rodney and Mr. Astride.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, pay restitution to Louise Rodney in the amount of $3,200, and pay costs incurred in the prosecution of this proceeding in the amount to be determined by the Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of November 1994. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 14th day of November 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented the following facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Thomas Hebert, was a licensed contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG- C006542, by the State of Florida, and was the qualifier of Engineering & Environment Research Corp., (EER). On or about July 7, 1987, John M. Aviles entered into a contract with Manuel Rua to do a remodeling job on Mr. Aviles' home located at 3608 Gardenia, Tampa, Florida. The total cost of the remodeling under the contract was $9,926.50. The contract provided that all permits required would be obtained by Mr. Aviles. Prior to entering into the contract, Mr. Rua advised Mr. Aviles that if permits were needed, that Mr. Rua was a silent partner in a construction company and could provide any construction permits required. At all times pertinent hereto Mr. Manuel Rua, was a retired builder, was not licensed in Florida and not employed by EER or Thomas Hebert, individually. Rua proceeded with the construction pursuant to the contract. However, on or about July 20, 1987, the Tampa Building Department halted the job for lack of a building permit, lack of a plumbing permit and lack of an electrical permit. Before the job was shut down, Rua and the other workers had done plumbing and electrical work, replaced walls, done framing, glazing and sheetrock work. At all times pertinent hereto Gerald S. Bartlett was a full-time employee of EER, working at another construction project. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was the owner of and qualifier of EER. Shortly after July 20, 1987, Mr. Rua contacted Mr. Bartlett and told Bartlett that the job was red tagged because of no permit. Rua wanted Bartlett to pull the permit to allow the work to continue. At that time, Bartlett could not personally pull the permit because he was registered in Hillsborough County, but not in the City of Tampa. Bartlett then called the Respondent about the job and described the job to Respondent. Respondent advised Bartlett that EER would help Aviles out by getting the building permit if Bartlett would be responsible for the construction and if Aviles (not EER) paid Bartlett for his time and if Aviles would sign a letter agreeing that EER was responsible only to inspect and consult and further agreeing to hold EER harmless. Bartlett then arranged for the building permit for the Aviles job which was subsequently applied for and issued to EER on July 24, 1987. On July 23, 1987, Rua informed Aviles that arrangements had been made for the permitting and that the permitting would cost an additional $344.00. Rua further advised Aviles that in order for the permitting to go through, Aviles would have to give the building contractor a hold harmless agreement. On July 24, 1987, Aviles paid Rua the sum of $344.00 for the permit, by check. Rua cashed the check and left the cash on the counter at Mr. Aviles' residence which was picked up by Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett and the Respondent shared that money. The only money paid to Bartlett from anyone (including EER) for the Aviles job came from Aviles on that occasion. Respondent did not receive any additional money from the Aviles' job from anyone. On July 25, 1987, Mr. Aviles signed the agreement which indicated that EER had been retained as a consultant to permit, advise and inspect the remodeling being done. The agreement is not signed by anyone from EER nor does it contain the Respondent's contractor's license number. The agreement provides that EER was not financially responsible for any of the work, nor for liability on the job. Prior to July 25, 1987, Mr. Aviles did not have any other agreement with EER. Until October, 1987, Mr. Aviles had never met or spoken with the Respondent, Mr. Bartlett or any other representative of EER. At all times pertinent hereto, no one employed by EER worked on the Aviles remodeling job. Subsequent to the permit being issued, work began again and continued until on or about September 28, 1987. Construction was again halted for lack of electrical and plumbing permits by the City of Tampa. Between July 25, 1987, and September 28, 1987, Rua and his workers did a substantial amount of work in the house. During this period of time, Mr. Bartlett appeared on the job approximately ten times, but Mr. Rua was in charge. Mr. Bartlett never did any work, but did try to supervise on occasion. The Respondent visited the jobsite approximately two times, stopping by after working hours looking through the windows from the outside and, therefore, did not supervise the jobsite. Essentially between July 25, 1987, and September 28, 1987, Mr. Rua and his employees continued doing all the work, just as they did before the permit was pulled by EER. On October 7, 1987, Aviles argued with Rua about the permits and the delay in construction. Rua left the job, removing EER's building permits from the window, along with a concrete permit. Thereafter, Aviles attempted to contact other contractors to complete the work, but was unable to do so since no one wanted to take a partially finished job which had been red tagged. On October 16, 1987, Aviles met Respondent and Bartlett (for the first time) at the jobsite and both assured Aviles that whatever assistance was necessary to complete the job would be provided. Neither the Respondent nor Mr. Bartlett offered to complete the job, but furnished Mr. Aviles a list of subcontractors who would supposedly complete the job. At this point in time, no part of the job had been completed, but most all of the work had been started and was nearly complete. The Respondent at this time advised Mr. Aviles that he would retrieve the permits so that Aviles could continue the remodeling. The permits were subsequently returned and the Respondent offered to allow Mr. Aviles to continue using the Respondent's permit for construction even though neither Respondent nor any of his employees would be on the jobsite. Mr. Aviles subsequently determined that the work performed by Mr. Rua was not acceptable, and thereafter, he had most of the work redone using other subcontractors. The permit applied for by EER indicated it was for non-structural general repairs. The permit issued to EER allowed both structural and non- structural repairs to be done since EER was a general contractor. The work done under the permit issued to EER was both structural and non-structural. Inspections were required and on this job, the general contractor, EER, was required to notify the City when inspections were required. No inspections were ever called for by EER because both Respondent and Bartlett did not think any were required. Under the permit issued, the general contractor, EER, and the Respondent were required to supervise the work. The work done by Rua and the Latyvs, under EER's permit, was required to have been performed by an employee(s) of EER who was paid by EER which did not occur. When EER pulled the building permit, it could not limit its role to supervision only. A licensed building contractor can agree to do supervision only, but not when the contractor pulls the building permit. The Respondent is a very experienced contractor who at all times mentioned herein not only was a certified general contractor, but was a certified roofing contractor, certified mechanical contractor and certified pool contractor in the State of Florida. He has also written portions of the general contractor's examination. The Respondent knew or should have known that there is a difference between a licensed contractor agreeing to supervise a construction job and a licensed contractor pulling the permit for a construction job and then trying to limit his liability to supervision only and not assuming any financial responsibility for the work done.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Assessing the Respondent an administrative penalty of $1,000 for aiding and abetting evasion of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in Section 21E-17.001(13), Florida Administrative Code. Assessing the Respondent an administrative penalty of $1,500 for misconduct in the practice of contracting by failure to supervise, thereby causing monetary harm to the customer. This is in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in Section 21E-17.001(19)(b), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-10. Accepted 11-12. Rejected as irrelevant. 13-36. Accepted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted 4. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence 5-18. Addressed Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's letter with attachments, dated June 1, 1989 is rejected as improper submission of documentary evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Michael Steinberg, Esquire 601 Twiggs Street, Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 =================================================================
