The Issue Whether Respondent abandoned a construction job, and whether Respondent failed to include a statement of consumer's rights in a contract; if so, whether (and what) discipline should be imposed against Respondent's general contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a Florida-licensed general contractor, holding license number CGC 1509917. At all times material to the instant case, IGK held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. Respondent was the licensed primary qualifying agent for IGK. On or about December 20, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to renovate Kevin Barrington's residence, located at 1315 Lenox Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The written contract did not contain a statement explaining a consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners Construction Recovery Fund, as then required by section 489.1425. At hearing, Respondent produced a copy of a statement that explained a consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners Construction Recovery Fund, and testified that he had attached this statement to the written contract. The statement produced by Respondent at hearing was dated December 24, 2011, four days after the contract was executed, and signed only by Respondent. Barrington testified that he never received the statement. The undersigned finds Barrington's testimony credible, and finds that the statement was not contained in the written contract as required by statute. Respondent has never been disciplined for a violation of section 489.1425. The initial contract price for the residential renovation totaled approximately $114,320.00. Several change orders increased the final contract price to approximately $148,603.25. On December 20, 2007, Barrington paid Respondent an initial payment of $46,968.00. Respondent began work on the renovation project in January, 2008. Barrington rented an apartment while the home was under construction. Between December, 2007, and June, 2008, Barrington made several payments to Respondent. By June, 2008, Respondent had received approximately $155,505.81, which was more than the original contract price, and more than the amount agreed to with the additional change orders. By August, 2008, Respondent was struggling financially. IGK experienced a significant decline in business and was forced to lay off employees. On August 23, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent an e-mail, stating, in part: I wanted to summarize our meeting yesterday. I appreciated your honesty, and I believe we came to a resolution that satisfies both our objectives; remodel 1315 Lenox Avenue with high quality standards in a timely manner. Due to unforeseen market conditions, we are not able to continue work within the confines of the existing contract dated 12/20/2007 between IGK and Kenneth Barrington. Therefore, we agreed to the following course of action. . . . If the stated objectives are completed on August 29th to Kenneth Barrington's satisfaction, we decided to terminate the existing contract and have my legal team draft a new contract between IGK and Ken Barrington that outlines the remaining scope of services and payment plan. The payment plan will be arranged as a loan between IGK and Ken Barrington where Ken Barrington will act as Lender and IGK as Borrower, IGK will be responsible to perform the duties outlined in the scope of services and payback monies at a specified date. Loan payments distributed to IGK are intended solely for the purpose of paying for the labor and materials used at 1315 Lenox Ave. On September 17, 2008, Respondent emailed Barrington, stating, in pertinent part: As discussed many times, I am trying to do the right thing and complete your project. However as stated before we are not in complete projects (sic) that were underbid last year. You are well aware that we came in below everyone else. At the time business was good and we could afford to work on a very low mark up. I tried...however and unfortunately the business environment has change (sic) and we can not (sic) do it any longer!!! . . . As it stands, for us to complete the project as mentioned above, we will have to receive a payment in the amount of $20,000.00. You may of course decide to hire to have some one (sic) else finish the project, by (sic) I believe your cost will be in excess of $40-$50k. By September, 2008, approximately 60 percent of the renovation project had been completed. On September 23, 2008, Respondent emailed Barrington stating, in part: Good morning Ken, We are still awaiting your decision in regards to which way your [sic] ant [sic] to go with your project. I do understand and per your advise [sic], that you are trying to hire other contractors to finish your project. However, if you decide to take/hire another contractor, you must apply for a change of contractors [sic]to, either [sic] another contractor or to yourself as a owner/contractor. No one, including yourself can do work, under our permits and/or call for inspections!!! Please refrain from trying to hire my employees to do unlicensed side jobs, they will not, and if they do they lose their jobs and/or be liable for prosecution by the state/county for working without a license and permit. Respondent, having indicated to Barrington that he needed more money to complete the project, and expressing a willingness to complete the renovation project, was clearly awaiting Barrington's decision as to the renegotiation of the contract. Barrington began to interview other contractors in October, 2008. On October 10, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent Change of Contractor forms to sign and have notarized. On October 14, 2008, Respondent signed the forms and had them notarized. Also on October 14, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent a letter, stating, in pertinent part: I, Ken Barrington, property owner of 1315 Lenox Ave [sic], Miami Beach, FL 33139, am notifying you that your services are hereby terminated from our project/permit #s: B08014536, B0801910, B0804552, BE080944, BE082572, BMS0801808. You are being terminated because: You have acknowledged that you are no longer capable of completing the project according to our agreed upon contract. You are no longer authorized to enter my property. On or about November 11, 2008, Barrington entered into a contract with a new contractor, Strategic Engineering, to complete the renovation project. The renovation project was complete by July, 2009, when Barrington was able to move into his home. Respondent and Barrington began to communicate again around this same time. Respondent informed Barrington that Respondent could return to work on the home, but that IGK was filing for bankruptcy. Respondent suggested that a Mutual Release be executed. On September 23, 2009, Barrington and IGK entered into a Mutual Release, intended to effect the elimination of any obligations by either party. Respondent never expressed any intention to abandon the project; rather, Barrington terminated Respondent shortly after Respondent expressed a willingness to complete the project despite his financial difficulties. During the time when Respondent was awaiting Barrington's decision as to the offer to renegotiate the contract price, Barrington elected to terminate Respondent, and did so. Barrington also forbade Respondent from entering the property. Thus, Respondent's separation from the project was caused by Barrington's actions, not by his own volition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) dismissing Counts Two and Three of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of violating section 489.129(1)(i), by failing to comply with section 489.1425, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; (3) fining him $250.00 for having committed this violation; and (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department for investigative and prosecutorial costs related to this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA ENCISO VARN 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 10th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing Company is a roofing contractor registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Smith does not hold any license issued by local construction licensing boards which does not license roofing contractors. Smith admitted that he had commenced construction projects without acquiring the appropriate building permits from the local building officials. Calvin Smith identified a contract, Exhibit 2, which he had entered into with Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing regarding the repair of the roof of his house. This contract called for the replacement of bad wood, which was understood by the parties to refer to rotten wood planking and rafters. Calvin Smith stated that after construction commenced and the old roof had been removed, his house had suffered rain damage although Gary Smith had advised him that the roof had been dried in. Gary Smith explained that he had in fact laid the requisite felt paper on the roof but that a severe wind and rain storm and occurred immediately following which had destroyed the felt paper. Smith stated that a crew was on the job during the storm at all times trying to keep the felt nailed down and maintain the water-tight integrity of the roof. There were no delays following the removal of the roof in replacing the felt and diligently proceeding with the re-roofing. Several days after the storm the roof had been finished, the plywood ceiling of the family room of Calvin Smith's house was partially removed to permit the insulation to be replaced. At this time Calvin Smith discovered rotten wood which Smith felt should have been removed and replaced by Gary Smith pursuant to their contract. Gary Smith stated that he had found one rotten rafter, but that he had advised Calvin Smith of the fact that it was there and that Calvin Smith realized that he was not replacing it. Gary Smith stated that he had removed and replaced all the rotten wood in the roof and that the rotten wood discovered by Calvin Smith was on that portion of the family room roof which was under the eaves of the pre-existing roof of the house where it could only be seen upon removal of the family room ceiling. Gary Smith further testified that subsequent to finding the rotten wood, Calvin Smith had not permitted him to correct the job and that he had not personally seen the rotten wood, pictures of which Calvin Smith had identified. Calvin Smith identified photographs of the interior and exterior of the roof as repaired by Gary Smith. These photographs were received as Exhibits 3 and 8. Exhibits 7 and 8 were photographs of the exterior of the roof. Exhibit 8 is a photograph of a shingle which was not properly installed. Gary Smith admitted that the shingle was not properly installed but stated that it would have been corrected prior to finishing the job. Exhibit 7 is a photograph showing a course of shingles which does not have the proper overlap. Gary Smith explained that this short run of shingles was necessary to even up or balance the runs on both sides of a hip in the roof because the distance from the eave to the top or peak of the hip was not the same on both sides. Gary Smith also pointed out that in both photographs the shingles are laid so that the bottom of the upper course of shingles comes to or overlaps the lower course of shingles to the top of the tab, causing good contact between the shingles and the adhesive strips. Contrary to the assertion of Calvin Smith that the shingles had been laid in such a manner that the adhesive strips did not touch. Calvin Smith had identified Exhibit 6 as photograph of roof flashing on the family room roof which he asserted was improperly installed. Gary Smith stated that the flashing in Exhibit 6 was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and that the roof on the family room had the requisite number of layers of felt and tar as required by the building code. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of the roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he had shown the rotten beam indicated in Exhibit 4 to Calvin Smith and that Calvin Smith had known that he was not replacing the bean because replacement would have required the removal of the family room ceiling as well as the sheeting on the roof over the beam. Gary Smith stated that the wood shown in Exhibit 3 was not rotten but water stained and that the beam was sufficiently solid to hold the weight of the roofing materials on top of it and to nail the new sheeting into. Tommy Thompson, construction inspection supervisor of the City of Jacksonville, inspected the roof of Calvin Smith's home. Thompson found that the shingles had not been lapped properly, that some shingles had been laid so that the ceiling strips would not adhere properly, that rotten rafters and wood had been left, that the correct number of nails had not been placed in the shingles, that metal flashing around the chimney had not been installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, and that one, twelve inch hold had been left in the roof sheeting. Thompson identified the Building Code of the City of Jacksonville and those portions of the code relating to installation of roofing materials. Thompson stated that the items mentioned in the paragraph above constituted violations of the code. Thompson also pointed out that it was a violation of the code to commence construction or repair of a roof without obtaining the requisite building permit. J. R. Bond, Executive Director of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of the City of Jacksonville, stated that the board did not certify roofers. The ordinances of the City of Jacksonville empower the Construction Trades Qualifying Board to hear complaints against state registered but unlicensed contractors. However, the board lacks authority to take direct action against persons who are state registered but unlicensed. The board may only request that the city building official not issue the individual any further building permits. The building official must exercise his own independent authority and judgment in determining whether to suspend an individual's right to obtain building permits. The building official suspended Smith's privilege to obtain permits without a hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Smith's registration as a roofing contractor be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Telephone: 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gary A. Smith Sirmons Roofing Company 3845 Edidin Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 78-1780 GARY A. SMITH d/b/a SIMMONS ROOFING CO., RC 0030047, 3845 Edidin Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32211, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues in this hearing, Respondent was a licensed building contractor, whose license is No. CBC014467. His certification as an individual by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was initially dated August 16, 1979. In February, 1981, he requested his second license be registered qualifying Jeff Webb Homes, Inc.; and in September, 1982, the license was changed from Jeff Webb Homes, Inc., to Intervest Construction, Inc. On April 23, 1981, Anna Ray McClellan contracted with Regency Central, Inc., for the construction and purchase of a single family residence located at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, Volusia County, Florida. David L. Martin is president of Regency Central, Inc., and neither he nor Regency Central, Inc., are or have ever been registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. On June 5, 1981, Respondent applied for a residential construction permit for Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, listing Regency Central, Inc., as the owner of the property, and himself, with License No. CBC014467, as the contractor. Actual contracting for the construction at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, was accomplished by Regency Central, Inc. Three separate addenda to the construction/purchase contract calling for modifications to the specifications of construction were signed, not by Respondent, but by David L. Martin for Regency Central, Inc. Major subcontracts on the construction including plumbing, electrical, and heating and air conditioning, were entered into between the subcontractors and Regency Central, Inc., and not Respondent. Subcontractors looked to Regency Central for payment, and not to Respondent. A claim of lien filed on ,September 9, 1981, for central air conditioning and heating work on the property in question reflects the work was done under contract with Regency Central, Inc., David L. Martin, President. During construction of the house, Ms. McClellan visited the construction site several times a week at different hours of the day. She recalls seeing Respondent in the area only twice, the first time being the day the contract for purchase was signed, and the second being the day the slab was poured. Her dealings at the site were with the supervisor, Dan Haley, who indicated to her that he worked for Regency Central, Inc. Respondent was interviewed by Philip T. Hundemann, an investigator for the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, in late March, 1982, at Respondent's home. During the course of the interview, Respondent admitted that he met David L. Martin when Martin rented office space in a building that Respondent had constructed and owned. During the course of conversations, Martin suggested to Respondent that he, Martin, had ninety-nine lots available for building and that if Respondent would pull the construction permit for the Lot 5 project, he would get a contract from Martin to build on the other ninety- nine lots. Respondent admitted that he did not supervise the contract, that he did pull the permit, and that he was in violation of the law and had prostituted his license. His defense was, at that time, that he was hungry to get a big construction contract with Martin. Though after he pulled the permits his agreement was to work on the site for the rate of ten dollars per day with the supervisor, Mr. Haley, he was there only infrequently. Respondent now modifies the admissions made previously to Mr. Hundemann. He now states he was heavily involved with the construction project on a daily basis either in his office or on the construction site, not only as a contractor, but also as sales broker. While he admits what he did was in violation of the law and was foolish, he did not intend to break the law. Respondent's involvement with Ms. McClellan's project was not as contractor as indicated in the permit he pulled. He had very little contact with that project until Martin abandoned the project and left the area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's, Dominic D'Alexander's, license as a certified building contractor be suspended for one year, but that, upon the payment of a $500 administrative fine, the execution of the suspension be deferred for a period of three years, with provision for automatic recission. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dominic D'Alexander Post Office Box 4580 South Daytona, Florida 32021 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the two Administrative Complaints filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0010134. Michael P. Freeman (a/k/a Dennis Freeman) was at no time material to the allegations considered herein a registered, certified, or otherwise licensed individual on record with CILB in Florida. In July 1983, Respondent and Dennis Freeman agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of home construction in Florida to be known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. (D & S). The officers of this corporation were to be: President S. A. Stone (Respondent) Vice President Dennis Freeman Sec. Treas. Kristina Freeman The letter from Respondent to his attorney, drafted and written by Ms. Via, but signed by Respondent, requesting that the corporation be established, provided that Freeman was to be responsible for all materials, maintenance, labor, bills, etc., and Respondent was to be responsible only for the "quality of work." This letter served as an agreement between Freeman and Stone which was to be separate and apart from the Articles of Incorporation. Respondent was to receive a 7% commission on "all labor done or any type of construction by Mr. Freeman or D & S Homebuilders . . .", and through his Exchange Realty office, was to receive a 5% commission on all sales of property from the corporation or Mr. Freeman. D & S was organized as a corporation until November 21, 1984, when it was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report. Though the corporation was formed and a Corporate Charter issued, and this action was taken at the request of the Respondent, the corporation was formed in the attorney's name. Neither Respondent nor the Freemans ever officially took over as officers or directors. In short, the corporation while legally born, never breathed. At no time during its life and during the period relative to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint herein, did the Respondent qualify the corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In addition to sending the letter to the attorney requesting that the corporation be established, Mr. Stone, on November 1, 1983, entered into a handwritten agreement with Mr. Freeman, also drawn by Ms. Via, which called for the use of his license: for Freeman to pay Respondent an additional $500.00 for the use of the license on each job over $5,0000.00 and for Freeman to "be solely responsible for anything that might arise against S. A. Stone's license." The first payment was to be made on December 1, 1983, and the agreement was to last through November 1, 1984. Stone never got any financial benefit from his relationship with Freeman. The agreement mentioned above was entered into at the behest of the then Chief of Police in Chiefland, Mr. Underwood, who requested that Respondent do anything he could to keep Freeman, who was then under investigation for other misconduct in the area. Mr. Underwood corroborates this. Pursuant to this request, when Respondent suggested an arrangement with Freeman, Freeman insisted that the agreement be in writing. Stone contends that at no time did he ever intend for the agreement to be permanent nor did he ever intend to make any money out of it. He says he knew it was illegal and he entered it solely because of the request from the police. He contends, and there is no evidence to contradict his contention, that at no time did he ever receive any money from Freeman as a result of this agreement nor from the formation of D & S. On July 26, 1983, Respondent executed an authorization for Dennis Freeman to act as his authorized agent to pull permits on his behalf at the Levy County Building Department. No mention was made on this form of D & S Homebuilders, Inc. The form was prepared by Mrs. Nancy Gilbert, the administrative assistant to Mr. Davis, the Levy County Building Official. At the time in question, Mr. Stone had introduced Mr. Freeman, his agent, to pull permits and Ms. Gilbert prepared the document to do what Mr. Stone wanted. The document is written in plural terms for repeated uses. Mr. Stone contends that his intention at the time was for it to be used for a single operation and that he failed to notice the erroneous pluralism, but other evidence of record disproves this contention. While it is not the policy of the Building Office to prepare these authorizations for contractors, it is a normal practice in Levy County and other counties throughout the State to allow agents to pull permits on the license of their prime contractor or employer as was done here. There is no evidence that the Bell job, which was for the most part accomplished by Respondent, was not satisfactory. Here, the work progressed smoothly and was properly completed, but based on his dissatisfaction with Freeman's performance during this job, he indicated to Freeman that there would be no further relationship between them. Nonetheless, the authorization was not revoked and Stone signed the permit application for the Reagan house as seen below. Without that authorization, the Building Office would not have allowed Freeman to obtain any of the building permits utilized for the other construction projects referenced in the Administrative Complaint. In July 1983, the Fumeas entered into a handwritten contract with Freeman, drafted by Kristina Freeman for the construction of a house for Bertha Reagan, Mrs. Fumea's mother. The contract had a price of $24,000.00. The Fumeas were to receive $10,000.00 for their land on which the house was to be built and Freeman was to receive a $14,000.00 loan from Mrs. Reagan for materials to build the house in question. When the house was sold, the initial $24,000.00 was to be returned to Mrs. Reagan. Any profit was to be divided 40% to Mrs. Reagan, 40% to the Freemans, and 20% to the Fumeas. The contract also called for the construction of a second house upon completion of the first. By check, dated June 9, 1983, Mrs. Reagan provided Freeman with the $14,000.00 to be secured by a second mortgage on the property executed by both Freemans in favor of Bertha Reagan. Thereafter, on August 24, 1983, Respondent, acting for D & S and S. A. Stone and Dennis Freeman, applied for a construction permit to build a residence for Mrs. Reagan as called for. In support of that application, Mr. Stone also furnished an affidavit to the effect that he was the qualifying contractor for residential building for D & S in Levy County. That same day, a building permit was issued to D & S, S. A. Stone, and Dennis Freeman for construction of the house in question. Somewhat later, in August or September, 1983, Freeman began construction of the house. During their negotiations, Freeman had indicated that Respondent was his associate. Nonetheless, it was Freeman who did all the work but in September or October 1983, he quit work on the project. At that point the foundation, the floor, and the 2 x 4 framing was in. No roof, no plumbing, and no electrical work had been installed. Mr. Fumea kept calling Freeman who repeatedly promised to finish work on the property by December 1983, but never did. The house was finally completed by another builder, David Allen, in 1984, for $21,000.00 additional. Allen was unable to complete the work started by Freeman and had to tear it down. Only the original footing was utilized. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Fumea ever dealt with or saw Stone, nor at any time during the period of difficulty with the construction was any attempt made to contact him. The reasoning was that even though Freeman had indicated Stone was the "S" in D & S before the work started, they did not believe Stone had anything to do with the contract. The Fumea's knowledge of Respondent's relationship with D & S was based solely on Freeman's representations. They never dealt with Stone, never saw him at the job, nor did they complain to him when the work was not completed even though Chiefland is a small town and it would be easy to contact him. Somewhat later, on September 7, 1983, Michael (Dennis) and Kristina Freeman entered into a contract with Herman R. and Verenia A. Matthews for the construction of a home in Levy County for a contract price of approximately $21,061.45 which included $17,061.45 which was then owed to the Matthews by Freeman. Freeman was to build them a house on a lot they owned across from their residence for an investment. The $17,641.00 was made up of several loans by the Matthews to Freeman. At this time, the Matthews did not know of D & S. The loans in question had been granted on the basis of a personal friendship between the Matthews and Freeman. At the time, the Matthews were in Michigan and the loans were not secured nor was interest involved. In addition to the $17,061.45 already advanced, the Matthews were to pay an additional $4,000.00 and any sums received from the cutting of timber on the property was to also be paid to Freeman. On or about October 12, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Matthews' house. Attached to the application was an undated, unnotarized affidavit signed by Michael Freeman indicating he was qualifying contractor for D & S. Pursuant to the application, that same day, a building permit for the construction in question, was issued. Actually, construction had started without the benefit of a permit in early September, 1983. On September 9, 1983, the Matthews gave Freeman a $1,000.00 check with second and third payments of $1,000.00 each being paid on September 22, 1983. On October 17, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Freeman a check for $7,000.00 of which $1,000.00 was the remaining amount due on the $4,000.00 balance and $6,000.00 was an unsecured loan. This loan was repaid immediately with an exchange check, post-dated to October 24, 1983, in the amount of $6,000.00 drawn on the account of D & S by Michael Freeman. When the Matthews ultimately deposited the check, however, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds and the $6,000.00 loan was never repaid. The Matthews first found out about D & S Homebuilders, Inc. when the Freemans in late August or September, 1983, indicated they had incorporated. Mrs. Matthews had never met the Respondent nor been aware that Respondent might be involved in the construction. Freeman had represented himself as a licensed contractor and had told the Matthews that he had rented space in Respondent's office. At no time, however, did he say that Respondent was involved in the business. On November 14, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave a check in the amount of $7,000.00 to Kristina Freeman, as a loan to D & S since she had been told that the company was haying trouble paying its bills. This loan was never repaid. By this time, the Matthews knew well that Freeman was in financial difficulties and did not have any money, so they did not ask for their loan back. In addition, on December 2, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Michael Freeman a check for $850.00 as a loan for payroll and on December 12, 1983, gave him a check for an additional $200.00 as a loan to assist him to buy property on which he was to build a house for Mr. Piperski. Neither of these latter two loans were ever repaid. The house to be built for the Matthews was never completed by Freeman or D & S. Work stopped sometime in November 1983. After Freeman went to jail in January 1984, Mrs. Matthews had it finished by someone else. The home was completed by this second contractor in April 1984 and the Matthews now live in it. In addition to the amounts set out above, the Matthews also paid an additional $7,034.00 for materials and $6,590.00 for labor to complete the property. On top of this, they also paid $1,200.00 to RocLen Refrigeration for a dishonored check issued by Kris Freeman on the D & S account in January 1984 for the heating and air conditioning system. They also paid off a claim of lien in the amount of approximately $3,600.00 filed by McCoy Building Supply Center for building materials ordered by D & S for the property; approximately $240.00 to Arrington Tru-Value Hardware for miscellaneous building materials ordered by D & S for the property; and approximately $875.00 to satisfy a claim of lien filed by Keller Building Products of Ocala, based on a contract with D & S for miscellaneous building materials on the property. Mrs. Matthews did not contact Respondent about the house because as far as she was concerned, he had nothing to do with it. Freeman had told her that D & S was owned by Freeman and his wife, most of the checks she gave to D & S were made out to Freeman and endorsed by either Freeman or his wife. All cash paid into the D & S account was done through dealings with one or the other of the Freemans, and she never dealt at all with Stone. On November 25, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, submitted a proposal to Charles Treis for the construction of a home on property in Chiefland, Florida, for a price of $14,000.00 plus a travel trailer valued at $3,000.00. On the same day, Freeman and Treis entered a standard form agreement for the construction of this home by D & S for the amount stated, payments to be made of $5,000.00 as of signing $5,000.00 upon "rough in," and $4,000.00 plus the travel trailer upon completion of specified work. Construction was to begin on November 28, 1983, and was to be completed within 60 days. The contractor was to complete the house except for painting and staining, heating and air conditioning, floor covering, and appliances. Interior trim and doors were to be supplied by the contractor for, installation by the owner. That same day, Mr. Treis gave a check in the amount of $5,000.00 to Michael Freeman as the first payment on account in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract was amended on January 10, 1984 when Freeman agreed to install floor covering, build cabinets for the kitchen, install interior trim and doors, and paint and stain. the interior and exterior. He was also to supply wood ceiling in the living room area and kitchen and in return therefor, was to be paid $2,000.00 plus a travel trailer. On December 20, 1983, Michael Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Treis house and that same day a building permit was issued to D & S. On January 6, 1984, Mr. Treis gave two checks to Mr. Freeman, one for $1,000.00 and one for $6,000.00 additional draws against the contract price. In mid-January 1984, after the foundation was poured and the interior and exterior walls were partially erected, D & S ceased all construction activity because Freeman had been arrested and jailed in Marion County. At this point, the roof had not been installed nor were doors and windows in place. No one from D & S ever returned to complete his own construction. On January 16, 1984, Mr. Treis paid Suwannee Valley Precast Company in the amount of $540.00 for a 900 gallon septic tank ordered by Mike Freeman at D & S. This bill was supposed to have been paid out of the first draw Treis gave Freeman but was not. To avoid a lien being filed against his property, Mr. Treis paid off the amount in question. Mr. Treis also paid $710.33 to Sunshine Concrete and Building Supply for materials ordered by D & S and $189.00 to Lindsey Brothers Construction for labor for laying the foundation walls, also procured by Freeman for D & S. In addition, Mr. Treis paid Harcan Lumber the amount of $4,500.00 for bad checks that Michael Freeman had written in payment for materials to go into the Treis property. As a result of all these additional debts, Mr. Treis was required to sell the property to pay off the creditors not paid by D & S. Mr. Stone was not present at any time during the transactions described regarding Mr. Treis, and Freeman made no mention of him. In fact, Mr. Treis did not know anything about Mr. Stone. It was only after Mr. Treis found out that Freeman was in jail that he had any contact with Stone. Toward the end of January 1984, when he found out that the "S" in D & S was Respondent, Treis and a friend went to Stone's office to find out what Stone intended to do about the property. Stone indicated he was not responsible for anything that Freeman did and that he would not honor the contract that had been entered into with D & S. At some time prior to November 26, 1983, in response to an advertisement placed in the Chiefland newspaper by D & S, Howard Robinson contacted Freeman to obtain an estimate for the construction of a home in Levy County. During the contract negotiations, Freeman provided Robinson with a D & S business card which bears only Freeman's name. Robinson is a resident of Largo but owns property in Levy County. On November 26, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, entered into a contract with D & S which was signed by Michael Freeman, for the construction of a home for the price of $16,900.00. Payments were to be made one-third upon acceptance of the contract, one-third upon "rough-in" inspection, and one a third upon completion. The owner was to install floor coverings, heating and air-conditioning and appliances, and the contractor was to provide a one year warranty on construction. Construction was to begin by November 29 and the house was to be completed within 60 days. Three days later on November 29, 1983, Mrs. Robinson issued a check in the amount of $5,633.33 to D & S Homebuilders, Inc. as the first payment for the construction of their home. This check was endorsed by Michael Freeman for D & S. It should be noted here that, as previously, the business card given to Mr. Robinson by Freeman at the time of their first meeting reflects only Freeman's name, not that of Respondent. After the contract was executed, Mr. Robinson returned to Largo and did not come back to Levy County until January 1984. On December 22, 1983, Mr. Freeman came to Largo to see the Robinsons for purpose of securing the second draw. At that time, he indicated the foundation and slab had been poured and that walls erected and the roof trusses were to be installed the following day. Based on these representations, Mrs. Robinson issued another check for $5,633.33 to Freeman for the second draw under the contract even though the second draw was not due until after erection of the roof trusses. As inducement to pay prior to the time called for in the contract, Freeman agreed to amend the contract to provide air conditioning and heating, furnish the floor covering, and build a 10 x 12 foot pump house. After paying these additional sums, Mr. Robinson found out that construction on his house had not been started even though Freeman had indicated that it had. Therefore, in January 1984, Mr. Robinson made his first trip back to Chiefland since the signing of the contract to visit the construction site and discovered that the only work accomplished had been the digging of a footer. On or about January 10, 1984, Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a building permit to construct the property in question and this permit was issued that same day. The only construction accomplished on Robinson's property was an oversized footer, approximately three feet wide and four or five feet deep, out of which the steel company had already taken the steel originally installed. Even after this however, Mr. Robinson did not contact Respondent because his dealings had always been with Freeman and he had never seen nor talked to Stone. Neither Stone or any of his agents or employees has ever contacted Mr. Robinson concerning either completing the construction or repaying the money paid under the contract. The only thing Mr. Robinson has ever been reimbursed with was a $300.00 payment from the County when Mr. Freeman was on a work- release program while in jail. In November 1983, Mitchell Piperski saw an ad in the paper for a home built by Mr. Freeman. This ad was in the name of D & S Builders and Mr. Piperski contacted Freeman at the phone number in the ad. Freeman thereafter came to Piperski's house and they discussed the possible construction of a home for the Piperskis. As a result of these discussions, Mr. Piperski, on December 19, 1983, entered into a contract with D & S signed by Michael and Kris Freeman for the construction of a home in Chiefland for a contract price of $16,500.00. Since Mr. Piperski did not have a lot on which to build the house, Freeman took him a see a lot which he said he, Freeman, owned. The lot in question was a five acre corner and when Piperski said he did not need so much land, Freeman said he would keep one half. Since, however, the two parties could not agree on the property, Piperski purchased a lot from someone else. A short time thereafter, the Freemans came to the Piperskis and indicated they would be in financial difficulty if the Piperskis did not buy their property and as a result, the Piperskis agreed to allow Freeman to build the house on the property which, by warranty deed on December 19, 1983, Freeman conveyed to the Piperskis. At closing Freeman was paid $5,000.00 called for upon acceptance of the contract, and $12,500.00 for the lot. During the negotiations, Freeman had told Mr. Piperski that there were three people involved in D & S. These three were Freeman, his wife, Kris, and someone else, undisclosed, who was in the real estate business. Mr. Piperski had known Stone from the lodge to which they both belonged but he had no idea that Stone was the "S" in D & S. No work on the construction of the Piperski house was ever accomplished. When Piperski called the building department, he was told that Freeman could no longer build homes because Mr. Stone had pulled the authorization for him to use Stone's license. This disclosure was made to Mr. Piperski on January 8, 1984. Prior to that date and all through the negotiations, he had no idea that Stone was involved in the transaction. That afternoon, Mr. Piperski went to a lawyer about the situation and the lawyer called Stone. When Piperski asked Stone for his $5,000.00 back, Mr. Stone said he would allow Freeman to use his license to complete the house. Notwithstanding this promise by Stone, Freeman never made any effort to secure a permit to begin construction. Mr; Piperski did not contact Stone again after that one instance because he felt Stone knew what the situation was and what had to be done. Stone, on the other hand, did not contact Piperski either, nor did Freeman, and at no time was Piperski reimbursed the $5,000.00 deposit he made under the terms of the contract. On January 9, 1984, Stone wrote to Mr. A1 Simmons, the attorney who formed the corporation known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. In this letter Stone recalled that Simmons had formed the corporation in which Freeman was President, his wife was Secretary/Treasurer, and he, Respondent, was Vice-President. Stone also cited that there was a communications gap between Freeman and himself and as a result, asked how he could be removed as an officer of the corporation. Stone indicated that he was "going to notify the County that I am no longer going to authorize the use of my license as D & S Homes." At the bottom of the letter, he states that it constitutes official notification to Freeman and to Mr. Davis, the building official, that his license is no longer to be used under D & S Homes. By this letter, Mr. Stone recognized that as of January 9, 1984, he was still a part of D & S Homes and was aware of the use of his license by D & S under the authorization given earlier in the year. It has already been found that in November 1983, Stone and Freeman entered into an agreement for Freeman to pay Stone for the use of his license by D & S Homes. It is also noted, however, that on January 5, 1984, approximately two months later, Mr. Stone wrote to Freeman indicating his dissatisfaction with the way Freeman was managing the company and because of Freeman's failure to communicate with Stone in response to inquiry. In this letter, he makes it very clear to Freeman that if Freeman does not keep in touch, he will terminate the relationship that he has with D & S. By so doing, Stone puts to rest any question that he was still a part of D & S and agreed to Freeman's using his license for construction by that firm as late as January 5, 1984 - well after the contracts described above were entered into by Freeman. D & S had a checking account with the Bank of Florida in Chiefland on which both Respondent and Freeman were authorized to write checks. In October 1983, Mr. Freeman drafted a check to Exchange Realty, which is owned by Respondent, in the amount of $500.00 which bears the notion, "commission on burnout." This check was deposited to the account of Exchange Realty. The handwriting on the endorsement appears to be that of Penny Via as does the name of the payee. On October 24, 1983, Mr. Stone wrote a check, apparently on a counter check payable to Exchange Realty in the amount of $500.00. Again, this check is endorsed for deposit to the account of Exchange Realty and not only the endorsement but also the check itself, with the exception of the signature, appears to be drawn in the handwriting of Ms. Via. While offered to show Respondent's receipt of benefit from his association with D & S, this evidence does not do so. Respondent knew of this account, nonetheless, and agreed to be a signatory on it so that he could work on the account when Freeman was out of town. After a short period, however, he took his name off the account though he cannot remember when that was. Respondent's contention that he had little if any connection with the actual construction work accomplished by Freeman under the D & S banner is supported by the testimony of Earl Jones, a plumber, who did the plumbing work on some of the houses constructed by Freeman during the Summer of 1983. Jones was hired by Freeman who, at the time, advised him that he was a general contractor and owned the business. Freeman admitted that he was a friend of the Respondent but during the whole period of his association with D & S, Jones never dealt with Stone and he feels that his employer was Freeman, not Stone. During the period of their association, Jones had no contact at all with Respondent. All bills for services rendered were sent directly to Freeman. Andrew Sension, an electrical contractor, met Freeman when Freeman solicited bids for the drawing of house plans. Thereafter, Sension drew five house plans for Freeman through D & S and also did some electrical work. At that time, Freeman indicated that he and his wife owned D & S and throughout their relationship, Sension assumed that Freeman was licensed. He has, however, worked for Respondent but never any project where Freeman and Respondent were involved together. To his knowledge, Respondent had a good reputation in the County as a contractor. Respondent has lived in Chiefland for approximately 15 years and is licensed as a contractor in both Florida and Virginia where he operated as a general contractor for 10 or 11 years before coming to Florida. In addition, he worked as a contractor in Ft. Lauderdale for 5 or 6 years and in all his construction history, never had any disciplinary action taken against him. Stone met Freeman some time in the middle of 1983 when Freeman came to his real estate office to buy a lot to build on. Later on, Freeman came back and said his brother an attorney, had suggested he contact Stone to form a corporation to build homes. At the time, Freeman, whose real name was Michael, was using the name Dennis Freeman, actually the name of his brother. When Stone checked Freeman's reputation out with the credit bureau, he checked the name, Dennis Freeman, and found that there was no adverse comments recorded. He did not know at the time that he was checking the record of a different individual. Nonetheless, satisfied with the results of his inquiry, and willing to go into the proposition suggested by Freeman, the parties made an appointment with attorney Simmons to form a corporation. Stone contends, and Simmons concurs, that though the corporation was formed, it never became operative because while formed in the name of Simmons for incorporation purposes, the transfer of authority to the true officers, Stone, Freeman, and Freeman's wife, was never accomplished. Were this all there were to it, there would be little difficulty in accepting Stone's exculpatory rationale. The fact remains, however, that his conduct and communications with his attorney in January 1984, several months after the corporation was formed, clearly reveals that though the official transfer of names never took place, he was well aware that D & S was active, that Freeman was building homes under the D & S banner, and that Freeman was using his, Stone's license, to do so with Stone's permission. The letter of January 9, 1984, to the lawyer clearly defeats Stone's contention that he felt the authorization for Freeman to pull permits was a one time proposition. If that were the case, he would not have indicated in these later communications that he was aware of what was going on and wished it stopped as of that time. There is no doubt that Respondent never met Mrs. Reagan, the Fumeas, the Matthews, the Robinsons, Mr. Treis, or the Piperskis in the capacity of a contractor. None of the people ever indicated that they dealt with Stone. Respondent admits that his contractor's license was withdrawn by the County but contends that this action was taken at a meeting to which he was not invited and did not attend. He did pot know of the action taken, he claims, until he read it in the newspaper. There is no evidence to contradict this. He firmly believes that his problem with the County is the direct result of the fact that he failed to contribute Mr. Davis' church when asked-to do so at the time he executed the general authorization for Freeman to use his license. Whether Mr. Davis is the complainant and the cause of the disciplinary action being taken here is immaterial however, and in any case, there is no evidence to support Respondent's contention. As for Freeman, on January 30, 1984, he entered a guilty plea to one count of a third degree felony by failing to redeliver and one count of a third degree felony by forgery and committing grand theft. Thereafter, he was found guilty of the charges and placed on probation for two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-1468 be dismissed. It is further recommended that based on the violations established in DOAH Case No. 85-0690, Respondent's license as a registered general contractor be suspended for six months and that thereafter Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 16th day of January, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED W. Douglas Beason, Esquire 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire 1 East Silver Springs Blvd. Ocala, Florida 32670 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2, Jacksonville, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by parties to this case. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 2 · Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 1 through 3 are irrelevant. Sentence 4 is accepted as to it relates to the letter being prepared by the building department but rejected as to this being done at Respondent's request. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 1O. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the first sentence which is irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the last sentence which implied Freeman signed as affiant when in fact he signed as a witness. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and misleading. There is no indication in the record that Respondent knew of this contract or that any demand for reimbursement was made upon him. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 and 22, except for sentences 3 & 4, which are rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and inaccurate. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35, except that November 6 in the proposal should be November 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 and 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Accepted but not adopted as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted n Finding of Fact 45 and 46, except that it was the building office that advised Piperski that Freeman did not have a permit, not Respondent. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Sentence 1 through 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 4 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 5 and 6 adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Sentences 3 through 5 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Findings of Fact 26- 29. Sentence 3 rejected as not being a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Mrs. Reagan did not sign the contract. Mrs. Fumea did. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 4 adopted in general. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 17, 35 and 41. Sentence 3 rejected by contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Sentence 5 is ejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that he failed to show the proper concern for the use of his licenses. Rejected as irrelevant to the issues herein. 8 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted as a general fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52-55.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George E. Feld, held certified general contractor license number CG C021801 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Feld has been a licensed contractor in Florida since June 1982. He has qualified George E. Feld and Associates, Inc. under his license and operates the business at 2131 Northeast 205th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. After submitting the low bid, on or about March 1, 1985 George Feld and Associates, Inc. entered into a contract with the City of Tamarac to construct a 5,500 square foot recreation building for the City. The negotiated contract price was $195,950. The contract called for commencement of the project within ten days after the contract was signed and completion by July 27, 1985. Sometime prior to March 20, 1985, Feld met one David P. McCall and Marvin Weiss at a motel in North Miami. McCall was interested in doing work on the Tamarac project. He gave Feld a business card with the name "Arrow Head Development Corporation, Inc." printed on it, and which stated the firm was "state certified" and "licensed" as a general contractor. Feld also noted that Weiss held a general contractor's license, and he assumed that McCall and Weiss were working together. Relying on McCall's card, and later representations by McCall, but without checking with petitioner's office to verify if McCall or Arrow Head were licensed or qualified, Feld agreed to subcontract out the shell and sewer work on the Tamarac project to Arrow Head. To this end, Feld and Arrow Head entered into two contracts on March 20, 1985, for Arrow Head to perform the shell and sewer work. On June 21, 1985 McCall submitted a written "proposal" to Feld for the shell work on the job. The proposal had the following words and numbers typed on its face: "State License Number: #CGC 05961." It was not disclosed whose license number this was. Although McCall denied typing this document (because he does not personally know how to type), he did not deny that it was placed on the document at his direction or with his knowledge. It was not until sometime later that Feld learned that Arrow Head was not qualified by any licensee. Because of his mistaken belief that Arrow Head was qualified, Feld had never qualified that firm. Even so, there was no evidence that Feld intended to allow an unqualified firm to perform the work. Work proceeded on a timely basis as required by the contract. Feld visited the job site daily, and supervised all activities, including those performed by McCall. He routinely inspected the work, verified that it was being done according to specifications, and made corrections where needed. The job specifications called for trusses that were over forty feet in length. Because of this, and pursuant to the South Florida Building Code (Code), it was necessary for the City to hire an engineer to oversee their installation. The City hired one George Fink as engineer to supervise this phase of the project. However, Fink's responsibility was limited to just that, and once the installation was completed, Feld resumed responsibility for the remainder of the job. Trusses are a manufactured roof member and may vary in length, height and pitch. In this case, they were designed in the form of a cathedral roof, and were in excess of forty-seven feet in length. Further, because of the building's design, there were a number of trusses to be installed. The installation of the trusses was begun around 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 27, 1985 and finished by 2:00 p.m. that same day. As required by the Code, Fink was present and supervised the installation of the trusses on the top of the shell. He confirmed at hearing that they were properly installed. The problem herein arose early that day when Fink had noticed that the building plans did not provide for lateral bracing of the trusses. However, according to Fink, this was not unusual since plans do not normally provide for lateral bracing. Even so, Fink told an unnamed person who "appeared to be the fellow running the erection crew" that lateral bracing should be added to the center and two side core members and that the four trusses on each end needed additional bracing. Fink also suggested to this unnamed individual that sheathing be added "as soon as possible" to the top and outside of the trusses to give added stability and protect them from wind damage and the like. In this regard, at hearing Fink conceded that it was "reasonable" for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Fink thought sheathing to be particularly necessary on this job since the trusses were high pitched," "long in length," and there were "no gables or anything in between to ... add any other support." By the end of the work day, the crew had placed the proper bracing on the trusses. However, no sheathing was applied. According to Fink, who was accepted as an expert in this proceeding, a prudent and competent contractor would be aware of the need for sheathing and added bracing because of the potential hazard of high winds caused by late afternoon thunderstorms in South Florida. By failing to place sheathing on the roof, Fink opined that Feld was grossly negligent and incompetent in the practice of construction on the Tamarac project. Sometime on late Sunday night or early Monday morning, most of the trusses on the roof collapsed. Some fell on an electrical wire running to the building. However, no injuries occurred. Only five trusses on the north side of the building remained in place. The City of Tamarac then filed a complaint with petitioner against Feld. The cause of the collapse was not disclosed, and even Fink was unable to state that the lack of sheathing was the cause of the accident. There was no evidence that strong winds or thunderstorms occurred on the night the trusses fell, or that bad weather was predicted when the work day ended on Friday afternoon. Feld acknowledged that no sheathing was placed on the trusses. He attributed this to the fact that the construction crew stopped work at 3:30 on Friday afternoon, and did not return to the job site until the following Monday morning. He intended to install the sheathing the following Monday but by then it was too late. This was in accord with the standard enunciated by Fink that it was not unreasonable for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Feld also stated that he was well aware of the need for bracing and sheathing on trusses by virtue of his long experience in the construction business. Feld hinted, but did not prove, that McCall may have been responsible for the accident because of bad blood between the two. In any event, he doubted that wind would have caused the trusses in question to fall. Finally, Feld pointed out that, even though city inspectors were present, no one had come to him on Friday afternoon and said the trusses might collapse over the weekend without sheathing. Feld is a graduate of the University of Buenos Aires with a degree in architecture, and has been engaged in the construction/architecture business for twenty-two years. He presently is an instructor of construction at Miami-Dade Community College. There is no evidence he has ever been the subject of a disciplinary action by the Board on any other occasion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint against George E. Feld be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1987.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by obtaining licensure by fraud or misrepresentation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure of certified general contractors. The Respondent Lawrence I. Paul, III, ("Respondent") is a licensed general contractor, holding State of Florida licenses GC C046485 and CG CA46485. On or about December 12, 1988, the Respondent submitted his application to the Department of Professional Regulation seeking leave to take the examination for certification as a general contractor. The Respondent subsequently took and passed the certified general contractors examination. In his application, the Respondent states that he is qualified to take the examination by virtue of having four years of proven experience as a workman or foreman of which at least one year was as a foreman. On the experience verification form submitted to the DPR as part of his application the Respondent states that from January, 1977 to January, 1980, he had been employed as a construction workman and that from January 1980 to January 1981 he had been employed as a construction foreman. The application includes an experience verification form executed by the Respondent and Paula Wisnik, a New York licensed architect. The form indicates that the Respondent had experience in steel erection form work, masonry walls, concrete slabs, footings, site work, excavation, rebar, trusses, and floor and ceiling joists, in single family residences, strip stores and high rise condominiums ten stories and higher. The experience verification form executed by Ms. Wisnik and the Respondent states as follows: I have read the CANDIDATE INFORMATION BOOKLET and reviewed the experience requirements and understand that any false information provided on this form may subject the person(s) signing below to disciplinary action and possible loss of license. I understand that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE does NOT mean that I am relying on a statement from the applicant that he has met the requirements. Ms. Wisnik has no direct knowledge of the Applicant's experience or of the applicant personally. Her knowledge was based upon information provided to her by Peter Wendt, another licensed architect. The Respondent originally sought to have Mr. Wendt complete the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt forwarded the form to Ms. Wisnik and she subsequently signed the document. Mr. Wendt has no direct personal knowledge of the Respondent's experience as set forth on the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt did not meet the Respondent until the Respondent's move to Florida, which occurred subsequent to the period of employment identified in the application. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that at the time the application was completed, the Respondent did not have the claimed four years of proven experience as construction worker or foreman. The Respondent's application states that first he became employed in the construction trade in January, 1977. In fact, he became employed full time in late December, 1978, with Paul Brothers, Inc., a family owned fire restoration business in Philadelphia. He worked primarily as a salesman and estimator with Paul Brothers until June, 1982, a period of approximately three and one-half years. Although there were periods when the Respondent worked on- site, it was not his primary responsibility throughout the employment period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order revoking the licensure of Lawrence I. Paul, III, as a certified general contractor, license numbers GC C046485 and CG CA46485. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0193 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. The proposed finding is modified to reflect that the Respondent did not hold the licenses prior to examination. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, illogical and unsupported by evidence. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert G. Harris, Esq. Senior Attorney Dept. of Professional Regulation 2295 Victoria Avenue #263 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Timothy J. Murty, Esq. 1633 Periwinkle Way, Suite A Sanibel, Florida 33957 Wellington H. Meffert, II Chief Construction Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, License Number CB C043621, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on July 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified Building Contractor, having been issued license number CB C043621, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as an individual. At no time pertinent to this proceeding was Respondent the licensed qualifying agent for Merrill Homes. On or about June 17, 1992, Kathy Rose and Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, executed a Letter of Intent to build a house for the Roses in the Heathrow Woods subdivision in Seminole County, Florida. At the time the Letter of Intent was signed, Kathy Rose gave Respondent a check for $2,500.00 as a partial deposit. Subsection D of the Letter of Intent provided that "[s]hould the Buyers not proceed with construction of the residence, the Builder will refund the Buyers' deposit less any expenses incurred on the Buyers' behalf by the builder." On or about June 25, 1992, Respondent stopped by the Rose residence and picked up a second check for $2,500.00 made out to Merrill Homes by Jeff Rose as the second half of the Rose's $5,000.00 deposit. On or about August 10, 1992, Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, and Jeff and Kathy Rose executed a contract to build a house in the Heathrow Woods subdivision as described in the Letter of Intent. The contract executed between Respondent and the Roses did not list Respondent's state contractor's license number. Respondent provided the Roses with a set of drawings of the proposed house, but did not provide the Roses with any other goods or services. Performance by Respondent under the contract was contingent upon the sale of the Roses' existing house. From the time the contract was signed until about October or November 1993, the Roses were unable to sell their existing house. Therefore, no work as performed by Respondent under the contract except for the production of the drawings of the house. In October or November 1993, Heathrow Realty contacted the Roses and informed them that someone was interested in the lot that they had placed a down payment on in Heathrow Woods Subdivision. Since their existing house had not sold in over a year, the Roses decided to release their option on the lot in Heathrow Woods and to cancel the contract with Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Kathy Rose contacted Respondent in November 1993 and informed him that they had released the lot. They requested that their deposit be returned from Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Respondent informed Kathy Rose that he would have their deposit refunded sometime after the first of December 1993. Having heard nothing from Respondent, the Roses had their attorney send a letter, dated December 30, 1993, to Respondent demanding a refund of their deposit. In January 1994, Kathy Rose once again contacted Respondent via telephone. At that time, Respondent informed Ms. Rose that their refund would only be $500.00, the balance of their deposit having been used for the house plans Respondent had provided. Respondent also informed Ms. Rose that he would mail an accounting to her. Respondent has not provided the Roses with an accounting, refunded all or any part of their deposit, or had any contact with them whatsoever since January, 1994. Examination of the plans, supplied to the Roses by Respondent, indicated that they were not really house plans per se, but rather hand-drawn sketches of a floor plan. The plans have no value with respect to their use in building the house depicted and could not be used to obtain a building permit in Seminole County. The plans Respondent supplied the Roses are valued somewhere between one and two hundred dollars. As a Certified Building Contractor, Respondent knew the actual value of the plans he supplied to the Roses. Respondent knowingly attempted to deceive the Roses by making false statements as to the value of the plans in order to deprive the Roses of a substantial portion of their down payment that they were entitled to have refunded to them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order, as follows: Dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint. Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(c), (g), (j), (m) and (n), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1992). Suspending Respondent's license as a Certified Building Contractor for a period of three months, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500,and requiring, as a condition of reinstatement, restitution to Jeff and Cathy Rose in the amount of $4,800, and such other reasonable and necessary conditions as the Board may require. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, 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 13th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0669 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-19, 21-24. Rejected as subsumed : paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Senior Construction Attorney G. W. Harrell, Esquire Lead Construction Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Alan Merrill 813 Largo Court Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioners' claim for monies from the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund is subject to adjudication pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, how much should Petitioners be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On or about October 1, 1997, Petitioners entered into a contract in which they agreed to pay Respondent Norman Levinsky's company, Broward Roofing, Inc., $3,700.00 to place a "new shingle roof" on Petitioners' residence and perform other related roofing work. The contract provided Petitioners with a ten-year "labor warranty" and a 30-year shingle warranty. After the contracted work was completed and Petitioners paid Broward Roofing, Inc., the $3,700.00 called for by the contract, the newly-installed roof started leaking. Broward Roofing, Inc., refused to make the necessary repairs. Petitioners paid other contractors to perform the repair work. On November 17, 1998, Petitioner filed an application seeking to recover from the Florida Construction Industries Recovery Fund (which has since been renamed the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund) $1,025.00 that they had paid for repairs to the "new shingle roof" Broward Roofing, Inc., had recently installed, contending that they were deserving of such an award inasmuch as "[t]he roofer [Broward Roofing, Inc.] [had] refused to fix [their] new roof that was leaking and [had] totally ignored [their] 10 year warranty." Their application was filed on a Board-produced Construction Industries Recovery Fund Claim Form (Form), at the end of which was printed the following: In addition to your complete written statement, we are requesting documentation of your contractual relationship with the contractor and evidence supporting your claim. Certified copies of the following list of documents are required to assist us in determining your eligibility for recovery. I have attached the following: (these documents are required for proper processing of your claim. Failure to provide required documentation will delay processing and could result in your claim being denied due to incompleteness.) Court certified copy of the Civil Judgment, and/or Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board directing restitution be paid. Copy of contract between you and the contractor. Copies of applicable bonds, sureties, guarantees, warranties, letters of credit and/or policies of insurance. Court certified copies of levy and execution documents. Proof of all efforts/inability to collect restitution judgment. No claims will be processed until 45 days after the date of entry of the Civil Judgment and/or Final Restitution Order. On the completed Form that Petitioners filed, only the spaces next to "Copy of contract between you and the contractor" and "Copies of applicable bonds, sureties, guarantees, warranties, letters of credit and/or policies of insurance" were checked. On May 4, 1999, the Broward County Central Examining Board of Construction Trades filed an Administrative Complaint against "Norman Levinsky d/b/a Broward Roofing, Inc.," which read as follows: Count I At all times material hereto RESPONDENT was a roofing contractor holding Broward County Certificate of Competency #95-7726-R- R. On or about September 16, 1997, RESPONDENT entered into a contract to re- roof Complainant's home located at 10551 N.W. 21st Court, Sunrise, Florida. RESPONDENT obtained a building permit. The work was completed on March 10, 1998 and the roof began to leak on June 1, 1998. RESPONDENT failed to properly supervise to ensure that the tie in with flat roof was properly completed. His failure to ensure such a proper tie in resulted in leaks. Wherefore, it is charged that the RESPONDENT violated Subsection 9-14(b)(11) of the Broward County Code of Ordinances by failing to properly supervise a project commenced pursuant to a building permit. Count II Paragraphs 1 and 2 are included as if restated herein. Complainant paid RESPONDENT the total contract price of $3,700.00. RESPONDENT completed the work. RESPONDENT gave Complainant a 10 year labor warranty. RESPONDENT failed and refused to honor his warranty. Complainant had to pay additional amount of $1,025.00 for a new contractor to repair the work of RESPONDENT. Wherefore, it is charged that the RESPONDENT violated Subsection 9-14(b)(5)c of the Broward County Code of Ordinances by committing mismanagement which causes financial harm to a customer because the customer had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price. Count III Above paragraphs are included as if restated herein. RESPONDENT failed to honor the warranty and complete the project in a workmanlike manner for a period in excess of 90 consecutive days. Wherefore, it is charged that the RESPONDENT violated Subsection 9-14(b)(8) of the Broward County Code of Ordinances by abandoning a construction project in which RESPONDENT was under contract as a contractor. It is determined that the above stated charges are grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to Chapter 9, Sections 9-14, 9-28 and 9-46, Broward County Code of Ordinances and Section 6.11, Broward County Charter. Broward County has the authority to certify and discipline local contractors pursuant to Section 489.131, Florida Statutes. Following a hearing on the Administrative Complaint held May 25, 1999, the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades, on June 16, 1999, issued an Order, which read as follows: A Disciplinary Proceeding was held on May 25, 1999, before the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades (the "Board"), in accordance with Section 9-14, Broward County Code of Ordinances (the "Code"). Service of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent was made by certified mail. The Respondent being duly advised was not present at the hearing. The Board heard the sworn testimony of William Grubb and Marlene Grubb. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED: The allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint are found to be true and adopted and incorporated herein by reference as findings of fact. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint are approved and adopted and incorporated herein. Upon these findings, it is therefore ORDERED: That Respondent's Certificate of Competency is hereby revoked. That the Respondent make restitution to the Complainants in the amount of $3,700.00. Prior to the RESPONDENT being allowed to reinstate his certificate of competency or being allowed to sit for any exam administered by a Broward County Central Examining Board, or receiving any license from a Broward County Central Examining Board, RESPONDENT must appear before the Board and prove that the restitution amount has been paid in full. The board's order may be appealed by Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of the order of the board as provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. FURTHER, the Broward County Central Examining Board of Construction Trades makes RECOMMENDATION to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to impose on the state registration, the following penalty: 1. Revoke state registration and require the RESPONDENT to make restitution to the Complainants in the amount of $3,700.00. In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 489.131(7)(c) and (d), the disciplined contractor, the complainant, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation may challenge the local jurisdiction enforcement body's recommended penalty for Board action to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. A challenge shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the recommended penalty to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board in Jacksonville, Florida. If challenged, there is a presumptive finding of probable cause and the case may proceed before the State Board without the need for a probable cause hearing. Failure of the disciplined contractor, the complainant, or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to challenge the local jurisdiction's recommended penalty within the time period set forth in this subsection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing before the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. A waiver of the right to a hearing before the State Board shall be deemed an admission of the violation, and the penalty recommended shall become a final order according to procedures developed by State Board rule without further State Board action. Pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, the Parties are hereby notified that they may appeal the Final Order of the State Board by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792, and by filing the filing fee and one copy of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the effective date of said Order. On or sometime after September 1, 1999, Petitioners filed an affidavit prepared by Petitioner Marlene Grubb, which read as follows: I, Marlene A. Grubb, hereby certify that I have completed a reasonable search and inquiry in accordance with the instructions provided by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and have not found property or assets to satisfy my Board Order[1] in whole or part. Legal Names The Department of State revealed that the company Broward Roofing Inc. was administratively dissolved on 9/10/98. The C[IL]B verified the contractor[']s name and license number as: Norman Levinsky d/b/a Broward Roofing Inc. RC0047656. Real Property My search included property in the names: Norman Levinsky and Broward Roofing Inc. in Broward County, Florida. Norman Levinsky had no real property and Broward Roofing Inc. is delinquent on property taxes for over two years. Boats and Motor Vehicles There were no vehicles or boats in the motor vehicle data bank registered to Norman Levinsky or Broward Roofing Inc. Aircraft The FAA in Oklahoma City, Ms. Jeannie Vannest stated that there is no registration listed for Norman Levinsky or Broward Roofing Inc. On March 25, 2004, the Board rendered a Final Order Approving Recommended Order of Disciplinary Action by Local Enforcement Body, which approved the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades' June 16, 1999, Order and read as follows: THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") pursuant to Section 489.131(7), Florida Statutes, for a determination of whether to accept the proposed recommended penalty by the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades (a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference). Neither the Petitioner, the Respondent nor the Complainant filed a challenge to the local enforcement body's recommended penalty to the Board. Upon consideration of the local enforcement body's Administrative Complaint, the minutes from the meetings on January 21, 1999, and May 25, 1999, and the Final Order of Disciplinary Action and its proposed recommended penalty to the Board in this matter and being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The proposed recommended penalty is hereby approved and adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference. In accordance with the recommended penalty, Respondent's state registration (RC 0047656) is hereby REVOKED. Respondent shall pay restitution in the amount of $3,700 to William and Marlene Grubb. Respondent will adhere to and abide by all of the terms and conditions of the recommended penalty. Failure to abide by the terms of this Order may result in further action by the Board. This Order shall be placed in and become a part of Respondent's official records. A change in the Respondent's licensure status, including the suspension, revocation, voluntary relinquishment, or delinquency of license, does not relieve the Respondent of his obligation to pay any fines, costs, interest or restitution imposed in this and previous orders. Pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, the Parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0792, and by filing the filing fee and one copy of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order. This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of Department of Business and Professional Regulation. This was the "Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board directing restitution be paid," that, according to the Form Petitioners used to submit their claim for monies from the Florida Construction Industries Recovery Fund, was "required for proper processing of [their] claim." On June 10, 2004, more than five and a half years after Petitioners had filed their claim application, the Board met to determine the merits of their claim pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. Although given due notice of the Board meeting, neither Petitioners, nor Mr. Levinsky, made an appearance, either in person or through a representative, at the meeting. "[U]pon consideration of the documentation and testimony submitted," the Board determined that Petitioners' claim for $1,025.00 should be "approved." On July 29, 2004, the Board rendered (that is, filed with the agency clerk) a written order to this effect, which read as follows: THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industries Recovery Fund Committee and Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") pursuant to sections 120.57(2) and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003) as well as rule 61G4-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, on June 10, 2004, in Coral Gables, Florida, for consideration of a claim for restitution from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund (the "Recovery Fund"). William [a]nd Marlene Grubb ("Claimants") and Norman Levinsky ("Licensee") were duly notified of the proceedings. At the proceedings before the committee and the Board, Claimants were not present, and were not represented by counsel. Licensee was not present, and was not represented by counsel. Upon consideration of the documentation and testimony submitted, it is ORDERED: Claimants satisfied all requirements for payment from the Recovery Fund. The Recovery Fund Claim was filed on November 17, 1998. The application was timely filed. The contractor was paid $3,700.00. Claimants were awarded restitution from the Construction Industry Licensing Board on March 24, 2004, in the amount of $3,700.00, pursuant to a Final Order Approving Recommended Order of Disciplinary Action by Local Enforcement Body. The Board adopted and approved the Broward County Central Examining Board of Building Construction Trades recommendation, which found: Contractor held a current and active license at all times material to the transaction; The construction contract is dated September 18, 1997; The work was completed on March 10, 1998, and the roof began leaking June 1, 1998; Contractor failed to honor the warranty on the roof; As a result, Claimants paid an additional $1,025.00 for repair work; Contractor violated subsection 9- 14(b)(5)c of the Broward County Ordinances by committing mismanagement, which caused financial harm to a consumer because the consumer had to pay more for the contractual job than the original contract price. The contractor engaged in activity that appears [to] violate section 489.129(1)(g)2, Florida Statutes (2003). There is an asset search in the file that shows no assets are available from which claimant can satisfy the judgment. Pursuant to section 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), the maximum amount that the Recovery Fund can pay on a single claim is $25,000.00. Thus, the claim for restitution from the Recovery Fund is APPROVED in the amount of $1,025.00. In accordance with rule 61G4-21.005, Florida Administrative Code, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation is directed to pay the claim from the Recovery Fund after forty-five days from the date upon which the Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. Pursuant to section 489.143(6), Florida Statutes (2003), upon payment of the claim from the Recovery Fund, Licensee's licensure to practice contracting is AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED without any further administrative action. Pursuant to section 489.143(2), Florida Statutes (2003), upon receipt by Claimant under section 489.143(1), Florida Statutes (2003) of payment from the Recovery Fund, Claimant shall assign his or her additional right, title, and interest in the judgment or restitution order, to the extent of such payment, to the Board, and thereupon the Board shall be subrogated to the right, title, and interest of the Claimant; and any amount subsequently recovered on the award, judgment or restitution order by the Board, to the extent of the right, title, and interest of the Board therein, shall be for the purpose of reimbursing the Recovery Fund. This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2004. Appended to the order was the following Notice of Right of Appeal: You are hereby notified that mediation is not available in this matter. Pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, you may seek review of the above by filing a request for hearing with the Executive Director of the Board at 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of this Order. Upon request, you will receive an informal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In the alternative, you may request a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if there are material facts in dispute; if you request a formal hearing, the petition must contain the information required by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, including specification of the facts which are in dispute. If you request a hearing, you have the right to be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative to take testimony. On August 12, 2004, Petitioners filed a Request for Hearing, complaining that they "should be awarded at least $3,475.00" to be adequately compensated for all of the repairs they had to make to their roof as a result of Broward Roofing, Inc.'s failure to meet its responsibilities. On August 30, 2004, the Board referred the matter to DOAH "for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a formal hearing" pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue an order dismissing Petitioners' Request for Hearing challenging the Board's order, rendered July 29, 2004, disposing of their claim for monies from the Fund, but allowing them, if they so desire, to request that that order be vacated and re-rendered so that they will have the opportunity to file a timely appeal in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ STUART M. LERNER 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, 2004.
The Issue Whether Jose Ramone Garcia obtained a building permit for the purpose of aiding an uncertified or unregistered person to evade the provisions of Part 2, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Jose Ramone Garcia holds a license as a general contractor issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and is licensed as doing business as Gabros Construction. Jose Ramone Garcia, on or about April 26, 1974, obtained a building permit No. 74-1006 issued by Collier County Building Department to build a home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. The home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida, was built by Roger Dulaney, an unlicensed person, who had contracted verbally to build said home with Mr. William E. Young, the owner of the real property. Jose Ramone Garcia obtained the building permit No. 74-1006 with money given to him by Roger Dulaney, but Jose Ramone Garcia did not receive any compensation for his assistance to Roger Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with William E. Young to build the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with any of the subcontractors or materialmen for services or goods used in the construction of the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia was frequently at the construction site at 378 Seabee Avenue and did oversee the construction which Dulaney directed. Garcia did insure that all construction work done was in accordance with the specifications and plans and the building code of Collier County. All work on the home at 378 Seabee Avenue was inspected and approved by the building authorities of Collier County. With several minor adjustments, the construction was acceptable to the owners. The major problem involved with the house constructed at 378 Seabee Avenue involved the contract price of the home arrived at between Dulaney and Young. Garcia did not negotiate the contract of the construction of the house at 378 Seabee Avenue and had no knowledge of the contract price. The dispute between Dulaney and Young resulted in court action between these parties which resulted in a judgment by the court in the favor of Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia has been unable to obtain a building permit as a contractor in Collier County since the filing of the Administrative Complaint in January, 1976. Garcia currently resides in Collier County.
Recommendation Because the licensing privilege of Garcia has already been effectively suspended for 14 months, which is a substantial period of suspension, the Hearing Officer does not feel that a further suspension would be of any benefit. The Hearing Officer would recommend that a civil penalty of $500 be assessed against Garcia based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire Jacobs, Sinoff, Edwards, Alford & Burgess Post Office Drawer I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Jose Ramone Garcia 9341 S. W. 38th Street Miami, Florida J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
