Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a registered roofing contractor with license number RC-0021643 and was acting as the qualifying agent for Poe Roof Company, Inc. The City of Coral Gables has adopted the South Florida Building Code which requires that a contractor obtain a building permit prior to commencing roof construction or repair. However, no permits is required when such work does not exceed $300 in value. If a roofing contractor fails to apply for a building permit the City is unable to conduct required inspections and is unaware of ongoing construction unless it is discovered by the City's code enforcement section. A Notice of Violation is issued when unpermitted construction activity is discovered, and the contractor is asked to "dry the roof in" to avoid the possibility of damage due to bad weather. All work is then stopped and the contractor must apply for a permit. On July 28, 1983 Poe Roof Company, Inc., submitted a proposal to reroof St. Mark's Lutheran Church which was accepted in March 1984 and work was begun. Construction was completed in June, 1984. Respondent did not apply for a permit for this job prior to the work commencing, and therefore required inspections were not made by the City. Respondent subsequently did apply for a permit on June 4, 1984. When a complaint from the church was received by the City about the work being performed, the City required Respondent to cut a "roof plug" so that it could be determined if the roof was being properly installed. No defects in the roof installation were discovered. The Church's representative had complained that Respondent did not properly supervise the installation and that the wrong roof tiles were used. The evidence presented does not establish that the wrong tiles were used, but it is evident that Respondent visited the job site infrequently, if at all. An investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation interviewed Respondent on July 5, 1984 and testified that Respondent admitted that he had never visited the job but simply supervised the reroofing from his office. The City of Coral Gables issued Notices of Violation against Poe Roof Company, Inc. on May 2, May 21 and July 11, 1984 for performing other roof work and repairs without the required permit. In these instances the value of each job exceeded $300, Respondent had not applied for a permit prior to the issuance of the Notice of Violation, and he was therefore assessed a double fee when he did submit applications on June 4, 1984 for the jobs associated with the Notices issued on May 2 and 21. He was also assessed a $100 fine by the City as a result of the Notice of Violation issued on July 11, 1984 for which he subsequently applied for a permit on September 26, 1984. In November, 1983 Respondent submitted a change of status application to the Construction Industry Licensing Board to change his license from inactive to active. Although he was designated as the applicants the license number for Roger Miller, owner of Poe Roof Company was shown on the application as well as on the check that accompanied the application. As a result of this error, Respondent's license was not changed to active status until July 9, 1984 when he was issued a 60 day temporary license to serve as qualifier for Poe Roof Company. Thus, when the work at St. Mark's Lutheran Church was taking place and two Notices of Violation were being issued on May 2 and 21, Respondent did not have an active license. His license was inactive when he subsequently applied for permits for these three jobs on June 4, 1984. Respondent knew his license was inactive since in defense he contends the City would not have issued permits to him if he had timely applied for them because he did not have an active license. The parties were given an opportunity to submit posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that a Final Order issue imposing an administrative fine of $750 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 10th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce M. Cease, Esquire 2720 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Joseph Barrass is a registered roofing contractor holding State of Florida license number RC0026890. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Respondent began doing business as a registered roofing contractor through his corporation, J. B. Roofing and Repairs, Inc., about six years ago. This corporation was dissolved and he continued as a roofing contractor through a corporation known as Roofing Services, Inc. He next did business through a third corporation, C. B. Roofing, Inc. Most recently he has done business as C. B. Roofing, a sole proprietorship. Respondent failed to register any of these entities with Petitioner, and is still licensed under his original fictitious name, J. B. Roofing and Repairs. Respondent contracted with Green Glades Construction Co. in early 1979, to install roofs on some 28 new houses. A dispute arose between the parties regarding several unfinished and leaking roofs. Respondent contends he refused to complete the roofs at issue due to nonpayment in accordance with the oral contract. He also argues that he was unable to repair the leaks while the roofs were wet, as demanded by Green Glades. The dispute was settled through civil proceedings. Another matter which culminated in civil action concerned the installation and repair of a patio roof pursuant to an oral contract between Respondent and Marvin Berkowitz, at the latter's Coral Springs residence. Berkowitz complained that Respondent failed to correct a leak in this roof as required by their agreement. Respondent claims the leak was the result of an improperly installed ceiling fan and the flat roof design demanded by Berkowitz. Respondent completed the job and received final payment on October 9, 1979. However, the roof leaked and Berkowitz thereafter contacted Respondent on numerous occasions requesting repairs. It was not until Berkowitz retained counsel and threatened legal action that Respondent made any effort to repair the leak. He returned on February 14, 1980, and did limited repair work. The roof continued to leak and Berkowitz sought damages through civil action. The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not the ceiling fan had been removed when Respondent returned in February, 1980. Berkowitz testified that it had been removed, and Respondent testified that it had not. The evidence is also in conflict with respect to the caveats and/or assurances Respondent gave Berkowitz regarding this installation. The recollections of both witnesses were self-serving and their testimony was generally lacking in credibility. The City of Coral Springs' building code requires a contractor to obtain a permit prior to roof installation. Respondent knew he was required to obtain such a permit for the Berkowitz project, but failed to do so.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.119, 489.129(1)(g) and 489.129(1)(j), F.S., in failing to register his business entities and contracting without requisite qualification. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., for wilful disregard of the Coral Springs building code pertaining to building permits. It is further RECOMMENDED: That all other charges against Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 17th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, John Arena, was a certified residential contractor, the qualifying agent for Classic Industries, Inc. and held license number CR C021139 from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The President and sole owner of Classic was Anthony Manganelli. Mr. Manganelli was also the manager of Classic and the principal from whom Mr. Arena received his information about the contracts entered into by Classic. On or about July 30, 1988, someone contacted Ms. Solange Gaston of Hollywood, Florida, by telephone, and asked her if her roof needed repair. The solicitor represented himself as an associate of Classic and offered to come out and inspect her roof. Ms. Gaston, believing her roof was in disrepair, agreed to have the inspection completed and entered into a contract with Mr. Carlo Mangano, representing himself as an agent of Classic, to do the repair. With Ms. Gaston's agreement, the tile on her roof was replaced with shingle roofing and certain other repairs were attempted. A letter to Petitioner from the Chief Permit Processor of the City of Hollywood, Florida indicates that no roofing permit was issued for Ms. Gaston's address. The roof was leaking prior to the repair and continues to leak. Ms. Gaston paid the complete contract price of $3,500 to Classic, but has been unable to locate Mr. Mangano or to have her roof repair completed. In her attempts to achieve satisfaction, Ms. Gaston contacted Classic and asked to speak with someone in charge. She was under the impression that she was speaking with Mr. Arena; however, she never spoke to Mr. Arena. In fact, Mr. Arena was not aware of the contract with Ms. Gaston until the instant complaint was filed against him. Mr. Arena does not know Mr. Mangano. When Mr. Arena became aware of the problem, he attempted to contact Mr. Manganelli, but was told that Mr. Manganelli had moved. Ultimately, Mr. Arena located Mr. Manganelli at a new address. According to Mr. Arena, Mr. Manganelli produced a copy of what appeared to be a contract with Ms. Gaston which has the signature of Carlo Mangano on it, but it is marked indicating that Ms. Gaston's credit was turned down. Mr. Manganelli told Mr. Arena that Classic had not undertaken the job due to the refusal of credit. With that representation, Mr. Arena was under the impression that the work had not been done, as was the custom of dealing for Classic when credit was denied. The two papers purporting to be contracts, one which Ms. Gaston acknowledged as being the one which she signed and the other being the one which Mr. Arena obtained from Mr. Manganelli as the actual contract between Ms. Gaston and Classic through Mr. Mangano, appear to be altered. Although both documents contain the same information, including the date, parties, addresses, work to be completed and price quoted, the portion of the copy indicating the price is written in Arabic numerals on Mr. Arena's copy and by words on Ms. Gaston's copy. Mr. Arena's copy also has the indication that credit was turned down on it, although the cancelled checks paid to Classic by Ms. Gaston were received into evidence. It was Mr. Arena's arrangement with Mr. Manganelli that Mr. Arena was to be informed of every contract into which Classic entered. In this way, Mr. Arena knew which sites he was to supervise. Since he was not advised about the roofing job for Ms. Gaston, he made no attempt to supervise it and after he became aware that the credit for the job had been disallowed, he was under the reasonable impression that the job was not done by Classic. Further, he did not know Mr. Mangano, nor did he believe that Mr. Mangano had the authority to bind Classic. Mr. Arena believes that Mr. Mangano may have obtained a blank contract form of Classic and misrepresented himself to Ms. Gaston as an agent for Classic. Petitioner asserted, however, that Mr. Arena, nevertheless, was responsible for the job and that Classic did perform the job. Neither Mr. Manganelli nor Mr. Mangano were present or testified at the hearing. Given Mr. Arena's demeanor at the hearing and the conflicting and altered state of the alleged contract forms, Mr. Arena's testimony is deemed credible, and the proof failed to demonstrate clearly that Classic actually attempted to repair Ms. Gaston's roof or that Mr. Arena was responsible for the attempted repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this case against Respondent, John Arena. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June, 1990. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 341 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John D. Arena 5961 Southwest 13th Street Plantation, Florida 33317 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Miguel Diaz-Perna, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating construction industry licensees. At all times material to the allegations of these complaints, the Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, license number CGC026702. Respondent's license is held in his individual name. The company known as M.D.P. General Contractor, Inc., is not registered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a contractor. M.D.P. General Contractor, Inc., has not been qualified to practice contracting in the State of Florida. On November 18, 1992, an individual named Gum Lee contracted with Respondent who was doing business under the entity name M.D.P. General Contractor, Inc., for the roof of his hurricane-damaged home. While the contract identified Respondent as the president of the corporate entity and represented it to be a certified state general contractor, the contract did not bear Respondent's individual license number. Respondent's price for re-roofing the Gum Lee residence was $13,000. Gum Lee paid Respondent the full $13,000. Respondent began work at the Gum Lee resident in November 1992. Subsequently, in April 1993 Respondent, again doing business as M.D.P. Contractor, Inc., entered into a second agreement with Gum Lee to make an addition to the residence. This second contract also did not bear Respondent's license number. The contract price for this addition was to be $20,000. Subsequently, Respondent obtained a permit from the Metro-Dade Building Department for work at the Gum Lee residence. In July, 1993, Respondent executed an affidavit that all materialmen and subcontractors had been paid for labor and materials supplied to the Gum Lee projects. In fact, Respondent had failed to pay at least one company, Coma Cast Corporation, in the amount of $3,808.44. Coma Cast Corporation placed a valid lien on the Gum Lee property. Neither Respondent nor M.D.P. Contractor, Inc., satisfied the lien within 75 days. Moreover, as of the date of hearing, Respondent had not satisfied the lien. Despite having paid Respondent for the work and materials at his home, in order to satisfy the lien, Gum Lee was required to remit an additional $6,026.01 to Coma Cast. In November, 1992, Li Kam Ming and Wan Chang Lu contracted with Respondent, doing business as M.D.P. Contractor, Inc., for the roof of their home. This contract, like the proposal form used by Respondent in all instances in this cause, did not contain Respondent's license number. The contract price for the work for this project was $11,600 for which Respondent was paid in full. Respondent pulled a Metro-Dade Building Department permit for the Ming/Lu project on or about December 18, 1992. Respondent's individual license as a general contractor does not entitle him to perform roofing contracting in Florida. Respondent represented himself to Ming and Lu as a licensed roofing contractor. In November 1993, Coma Cast Corporation placed a valid lien against the Ming/Lu home in the amount of $2,872.86. This amount was due for materials furnished to this project and which were unpaid by Respondent or M.D.P. Contractor, Inc. Despite notice of the lien, Respondent failed to satisfy it within 75 days. On August 30, 1994, the property owners satisfied the lien by remitting $4,900. Following mediation in circuit court, Respondent was ordered to pay Ming and Lu the sum of $5,400 to resolve this matter, but he has failed or otherwise refused to do so. In February, 1993, Respondent contracted with Ethel Odwin for repairs at her hurricane-damaged home in Miami. As in the other cases, Respondent entered into this agreement as M.D.P. Contractor, Inc. No license number was included in the proposal form. A second project (and agreement for same) at the Odwin home was entered into by Respondent on October 11, 1993. This project required repairs to the swimming pool at the residence. The total contract price for both projects at the Odwin home was $46,664, of which Mrs. Odwin paid Respondent $44,917.40. Respondent pulled a Metro-Dade Building Department permit for work at the Odwin home, but did not obtain a permit for the swimming pool repair. At no time material to the allegations of this case has Respondent been licensed or certified to perform swimming pool contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent did not subcontract the swimming pool work to be performed at the Odwin residence. Respondent did not complete all work at the Odwin home and, in fact, as a percentage of the work completed, received more funds than he was entitled to under the parties' agreement. Mrs. Odwin was required to expend an additional $8,000 in order to complete the work at the home after Respondent abandoned the projects in February 1994. Respondent's excuse that his gravely ill son distracted him during the time frames of these cases cannot explain why he has failed to attend to the financial responsibilities of his business subsequent to his son's death.
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 revoking Respondent's license, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000, and requiring financial restitution to the extent that same does not contravene federal bankruptcy law. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John O. Williams, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams & Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Miguel Diaz-Perna 14631 Southwest 148th Street Circle Miami, Florida 33189
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Section 4-67 of the Building Regulations, Supplement Number 44, Pasco County Ordinances were in effect and said regulation is the applicable local law. During the applicable time period, the Respondent, ROBERT G. FELLENZ, SR., was registered by the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and held license number RC0027998. Mr. Fellenz is the qualifying agent for Fellenz Roofing Co., Inc. On or about March 24, 1987, the Respondent, FELLENZ entered into a contract with James J. Hoover to re-roof a portion of his residence located at 822 Crestfield Avenue, Holiday, Pasco County, Florida. On April 1, 1987, the Respondent went to the building department in Pasco County to acquire the necessary permit to begin the Hoover project. During the processing of the permit, the Respondent learned that a stop order had been placed on the job. His work crew had disobeyed his direct orders and began work before the permit was obtained. While the Respondent was in the process of having the stop order removed, he learned that his liability insurance had expired. Proof of liability insurance coverage was needed by the Respondent in order for the building permit to be issued by Pasco County on the Hoover project. The Respondent contacted his customer, Mr. Hoover, and explained that he had an insurance coverage problem which he needed to straighten out before work could continue on the roof, and before he could obtain the building permit. Mr. Hoover was not home on the day the re-roofing project was begun and completed by the Respondent. On April 3, 1987, the Respondent obtained liability insurance coverage which went into effect on that date. He began and completed the Hoover re- roofing project on that date. On April 6, 1987, the building department issued the building permit on the Hoover project. A final inspection was never called for by the Respondent. The Respondent has previously been found to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 69097 Construction Industry Licensing Board.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, abandoned the construction project of his customer, Otto Kipar at a time when he had received 98 percent of the contract price and completed approximately 75 percent of the job, and whether or not such abandonment constituted a violation of Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, against the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, d/b/a Suwannee Roofing Company. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida empowered to administer and regulate those individuals who hold various licenses with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Charles E. Sullivan, d/b/a Suwannee Roofing Company holds a registered roofing contractor's license and the number is RC 18162. In May 16, 1977, Otto Kipar, a resident of Suwannee County, Florida, entered into a contract for the Respondent to perform certain roofing work and associated to the roofing. The terms and conditions of this contract may be founded in the Petitioner's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. The price of the contract was in the amount of $2,500, to be paid by Mr. Kipar in an installment of $2,450 when the roofing was finished and a $50 balance when the chimney was flashed. Among other things, the contract called for the setting of the trusses on the roof, sheeting the roof with plywood, running facia boards, putting up the jack molding and putting on roofing shingles. The work was to be done by Suwannee Roofing, which is owned by the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, and all of the materials were to be furnished by Mr. Kipar, with the exception of the shingles and the staples necessary to nail the shingles into the plywood sheeting. The Respondent's employees went to the job site and started to install the roof. On June 24, 1977, Berl Wilson, a building inspector for Suwannee County, Florida, went to the job site and inspected the roof. He determined that the work on the roof was 50 percent completed. He found the trusses up and the sheeting and shingles installed. However, he felt that the roof construction was unsatisfactory and that the roof would eventually fall in. He immediately tried to contact Mr. Sullivan, the Respondent, and was able to speak to him on June 27, 1978. At that point, Mr. Sullivan indicated that he would work the matter out with the owner, Mr. Kipar. In August, 1977, the Respondent hired some individuals to go to the job site and make adjustments to the roof, so that it would structurally meet the necessary building standards of Suwannee County, Florida, and comply with his contract with Mr. Kipar, as to that element. At the behest of Mr. Kipar, the building inspector Wilson returned to the job site in August or September 1977, and discovered that the roof was not shingled over 25 percent to 35 percent of the roof area. In that particular part of the roof, only the felt paper was installed on the sheeting. This caused the roof to fail to meet the Southern Building Code, in terms of requirements of that code. It was also in violation of the contract conditions which called for the Respondent to install the shingles over the entire roof, not just part of it. When confronted with the fact of the incompleted roof, the Respondent told Wilson that he had spent over $600 in trying to make the necessary adjustment to the trusses and that he felt no obligation to spend any other money on the Kipar job. Therefore, the job was left unfinished and when Mr. Wilson saw the job site on March 22, 1978, he found it in the same state as had been indicated in August/September 1977, in that the roof was still 25 percent to 35 percent without shingles. The Respondent and his employees did not return to the job site to complete the roofing and Mr. Kipar had to make those arrangements himself. This abandonment on the part of the Respondent came, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Kipar, in accordance with the contract had paid the Respondent $2,450 on May 30, 1977, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence. In summary, the Respondent was paid 98 percent of the amount of the contract, which constituted the full amount of payment with exception of $50 for flashing the chimney, and the Respondent abandoned the job when 25 percent to 35 percent of the shingles remained to be installed. This abandonment constitutes cause for disciplinary action in accordance with Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes, which states: ... (h) Abandonment of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project is to be considered abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates said project without notification to the prospective owner and without just cause. Abandonment has been demonstrated here because the Respondent did not work on the roof after the period of August/ September, 1977, and as stated before the roof was missing 25 percent to 35 percent of the necessary shingles at that time. In addition, the Respondent failed to notify the owner of this abandonment and the abandonment was without just cause.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Occupation Regulations, Florida Construction Licensing Board, suspend the Respondent's, Charles E. Sullivan's roofing contractor's license, RC18I62, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles E. Sullivan Suwannee Roofing Company Post Office Box 999 Live Oak, Florida 32060 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, (1992 Supp.). Specifically, the Respondent has been charged in a four-count Administrative Complaint with violations of paragraphs (k), (m), (n) and (p) of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007303, by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. On September 18, 1992, the Respondent, doing business as an individual, contracted with Charles and Elba Williams (hereinafter referred to as "Customers") to reroof their dwelling and shed at 15205 SW 78 Place, Miami, Florida, for the price of Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventeen dollars ($15,117.00). On October 1, 1992, the aforementioned contract was amended to provide for the payment of half of the second draw before the second stage of the project was completed, and to provide for the payment of an additional Three Hundred and Fifty One dollars ($351.00) in materials. On November 5, 1992, the aforementioned contract was amended to provide the Customers with a credit on the contract of One Thousand, Six Hundred Thirty Six dollars and Sixty Four cents ($1,636.64) for their purchase of roof shingles. The revised contract price was Sixteen Thousand and Fifty Eight dollars ($16,058.00). The Customers paid the Respondent Twelve Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Seven dollars and Ninety cents ($12,277.90) toward the contract. After receiving a credit on the balance due on the contract, the Customers owed Two Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two dollars and Thirty Two cents ($2,142.32) to the Respondent. On September 23, 1992, the Respondent obtained roofing permit number 92-110050 for the Customers' project from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. The Respondent worked on the Customers' roof from September 23, 1992, through November 15, 1992, when the installation of the shingles was completed. On November 19, 1992, the Respondent failed a final inspection performed on the Customers' roof by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department because the Respondent failed to supply Dade County with product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent he had installed. On November 24, 1992, the Respondent again failed a final inspection performed on the Customers' roof by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for the same reason as on November 19, 1992. The Respondent never obtained a passing final inspection on the Customers' roof from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. On November 24, 1992, the Customers sent the Respondent a Certified letter, Return Receipt requested, informing the Respondent that the roof could not pass final inspection until Dade County was provided with the product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent he had installed. On December 4, 1992, the Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for failure to provide product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent that had been installed on the Customers' roof. On December 4, 1992, the Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for failure to remove construction debris from the Customers' property. The Respondent did not comply with either Dade County Notice of Violation and did not supply the Dade County Building and Zoning Department with the product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent that had been installed on the Customers' roof. The Customers were left with a roof that did not comply with Dade County Code. On March 26, 1993, the Customers paid a Forty Five dollar ($45.00) renewal fee to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and had the roofing permit renewed and reissued in their own names. On March 4, 1993, the Customers paid another contractor, Mark Mitchell, Two Hundred dollars ($200.00) to remove the ridge vent and close the hole in the roof left by the removal of the ridge vent. On March 27, 1993, after the ridge vent had been removed, the Customers paid a Special Investigator, Ken Nash, Fifty dollars ($50.00) to perform a final inspection of the roof. On March 31, 1993, Ken Nash performed a final inspection of the roof and the roof passed inspection. The Customers paid Steve Wooten Thirty dollars ($30.00) to remove construction debris left on their property by the Respondent and to bring their property in compliance with the Notice of Violation issued on December 4, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charges alleged in Counts I, II, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($250.00) for the violation charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 3rd day of May, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 780 Miami, Florida 33156 Mr. Al C. Hufeld Post Office Box 681064 Orlando, Florida 32868-1064 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's engineering license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Michael V. Carr, P.E. is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE0026675. He has been engaged in the practice of engineering for more than 15 years. Mr. Carr's area of expertise is in civil and structural engineering. He is not experienced in electrical or mechanical engineering. In 1989, Mr. Carr was employed as a full-time engineer and construction project manager by a local development and construction company. He also operated, on a part-time basis, an engineering business. The purpose of his part-time business was to offer engineering services to people who are experienced in the construction industry or are working with someone who is experienced in the construction industry and have to varying degrees developed their own plans. Respondent also would serve as the construction manager on those projects. During 1989, Respondent performed engineering services on four buildings owned by four different owners. All four buildings, involved relatively simple construction. Three of the buildings, Dr. Zummarraga's office, the Raulerson/Liberty National building, and Bay Podiatry Center, were designs comparable to residential structures. The Eleventh Street Office Park, while a larger structure, was a shell building and a simple structure, as well. Respondent was not retained to provide engineering for the construction of the interior of the Eleventh Street Office Park. In regards to all four buildings, the Respondent was not retained to provide plumbing, electrical or mechanical engineering services. Those items were left to the respective trades involved in the construction of the project. The limited plans submitted for the plumbing, electrical and mechanical aspects of the four buildings met the standard of practice in the Bay County area and were sufficiently complete for the various trades to perform its respective part of each project. Moreover, the simplicity of the construction plans for these four buildings meant that standard construction methods are provided in the Standard Building Code and/or are known in the industry. Such standard construction methods include detail on roof systems, spacing and connections, as well as live load requirements. Therefore, not as much detail needed to be provided on the plans for these projects. It was standard engineering practice in the Bay County area not to include such detail if it was adequately covered in the building code. In each instance, the owners of the buildings contacted Respondent to perform limited engineering services and to act as the construction manager on each project. Except for Mr. Raulerson, each owner had, prior to the time Respondent was hired, worked out some rough plans with a person qualified to create such plans and had a general idea of what type of building they wanted. Mr. Raulerson had drafted a fairly complete set of building plans. The goal of each owner of the four projects was to obtain a set of plans from what the owner already had developed which would at least minimally meet the local building code requirements sufficiently to allow a building permit to be issued for the construction project. In each instance, the Respondent's plans were submitted to the local building code enforcement agency which reviewed and accepted the plans. A building permit was issued for each building project. During the construction of each building, Respondent provided engineering inspections on each project. The plans submitted to the Bay County building department were not as-built plans and were never intended to be 100% complete plans since several of the owners had not made final decisions on a number of details such as roof line or plumbing facilities. 1/ Such open-ended plans were justified by the specific circumstances of each case and the professional judgment of Respondent, especially since Respondent acted as the project manager of the construction project. For purposes of clarity the facts and circumstances surrounding each building and any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to each building will be outlined individually. No alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, were established by the evidence unless it is specifically noted below. Zummarraga Building The plans for the Zummarraga building were signed and sealed by Respondent on October 24, 1989. Dr. Zummarraga had contacted Rich Koehnemann of Koehnemann Construction Company to build an office building for him. Mr. Koehnemann sent the doctor to Jeff Robinson, a draftsman in the Bay County area, to work up a draft of the office plans the doctor desired. The doctor or Mr. Koehnemann gave Mr. Robinson a rough sketch of the office building. Mr. Robinson informed the doctor that a structural engineer would have to be involved since the County would require the plans to have the signature and seal of an architect or engineer in order to obtain a building permit. At that point, Respondent was retained to help develop a set of plans for Dr. Zummarraga. Mr. Carr was hired to draft plans for an office building. He was not hired by Dr. Zummarraga to design a building for a specific site. Therefore, no substantial site information, site work, grading or contouring details were provided on the plans for the Zummarraga project. By passing drafts of plans back and fort, a set of plans was devised by Mr. Robinson under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to the plans for the Zummarraga project. Later, after the structure's plans were finalized, the contractor determined that a detention pond would have to be designed for the site and a DER permit obtained for the pond. Respondent was retained to design a detention pond for the site and worked with DER to meet its extensive permitting requirements for such a pond. See Chapter 17-4, 17-25 and 17-512, Florida Administrative Code. That design was submitted to DER and a permit was issued for the detention pond. The original unsealed set of plans was amended for the building department. The specific details of the more rigid DER requirements, such as site work, grading and contouring, were not included on the plans filed with the building department and the owner did not contract with Respondent to include redundant detail on the building department's plans. Essentially, the building department's plans reflected the location of the detention pond and the area of the wetlands on the property which were subject to DER jurisdiction. Additionally, the plans contained some specifications which guided the contractor on pond requirements and in grading and contouring the site. These notes in conjunction with the DER permit requirements were sufficient to accomplish the building of the detention pond. Therefore, the desire of the owner and the avoidance of unnecessarily redundant detail between the DER permit and the building department's plans justified the lack of any extensive site work detail on the building department's set of plans for the Zummarraga project. The plans devised by Mr. Carr did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering work he performed. 2/ Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside of his field. In every instance, the plans of Dr. Zummarraga's office building were of sufficient detail to meet the building department's requirements for the issuance of a building permit, to allow the contractor to construct the project according to the Standard Building Code and to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the building department. Obviously, on these facts, the plans met the standard of practice in the community for the engineering services Respondent was hired to perform. Moreover, the lack of code related, electrical or mechanical details was justified under the facts and circumstances of the Zummarraga project and it was well within the professional judgment of the Respondent to omit such details given the standards of practice in the Bay County area. Raulerson/Liberty National Building The plans for the Raulerson/Liberty National building were signed and sealed by Respondent on July 31, 1989. Mr. Raulerson is an experienced developer in the Bay County area and acts as a general contractor on his own projects. Prior to hiring Respondent, Mr. Raulerson had been working with a local draftsman and Liberty National's architect to create a set of plans for the construction of Liberty National's office building in Bay County. Mr. Raulerson contacted Respondent on the advice of Bayne Collins, a local architect. Mr. Collins advised Mr. Raulerson that his plans were complete and all he needed was an engineer to check the wind loads. 3/ Mr. Raulerson gave Respondent the plans he had developed in conjunction with Liberty National's architect. Mr. Raulerson asked Mr. Carr to go through the plans and do a structural analysis to make sure that wind load requirements were met, that the building was structurally sound and that the building met the requirements for issuance of a building permit. Mr. Carr reviewed the plans and determined that they were an excellent set of plans for a very simple, sound and over-designed structure. He calculated the wind loads for the building and completed a structural analysis of the building. He also made one minor correction to the plans. Mr. Carr thought it ridiculous to put Mr. Raulerson to the expense of copying the Liberty National plans and essentially adopted the plans as his own. In this case, the fact that the plans were not drawn under Respondent's supervision is immaterial since the specific circumstances of the project did not call for such supervision in that the plans were drafted by experienced individuals. The plans were under Respondent's control at the point in time he was hired by Mr. Raulerson and the plans submitted to him for his review and approval, disapproval or amendment. Since copying the plans would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and Respondent did in fact exercise control over the plans by reviewing them before he affixed his seal to them, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to construction plans. The Raulerson/Liberty National plans did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. Anything in the plans which may be construed as "architectural work" was requested and specified by the owner to be in the plans. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside his field. The plans did contain a roofing plan which called for pre-engineered trusses. The detail on the plan simply read "pre-engineered trusses." The plans did not contain any requirements relating to who was to design the pre- engineered trusses or requirements for structural submittals on the trusses. In the Bay county area "pre-engineered trusses" means trusses from Fagans, the local truss manufacturer. It is common knowledge, that Fagan's has a licensed engineer on staff who designs all of its pre-engineered trusses from the plans submitted to him. The pre-engineered trusses all have pre-construction documentation available. Also, submittals for the trusses accompany the trusses at the time of their delivery. With such knowledge, it is unnecessary to specify any more information or requirements regarding the truss manufacture on the Liberty National plans. Similarly it was unnecessary to detail that submittals be given to the engineer since such submittals accompanied the trusses. The absence of any more detail was justified by the specific circumstances of the Liberty National project and well within the professional judgment of the Respondent given the nature of the pre-engineered truss market in the Bay County area and the fact that Respondent was the construction manager on the project. As indicated, Respondent also acted as the construction project manager and would visit the construction site about once a week. At the point in time Mr. Raulerson was going to order the trusses, he decided to change the pitch of the roof, Mr. Raulerson did not advise Mr. Carr of his decision. Mr. Carr discovered Mr. Raulerson's change when he visited the construction site. Fortunately, Respondent had the project file with him. With the project file information and the submittals from the truss manufacturer, Respondent checked the load conditions for the changed pitch. No structural concerns were presented due to the change in pitch of the roof. The Liberty National plans were not amended because Mr. Raulerson did not contract for them to be amended. The plans were not required to be amended under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not commit any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to his actions outlined above. Bay Podiatry Center The plans for the Bay Podiatry Center were signed and sealed by Respondent. However, the date the plans were signed and sealed was not included on the plans. It was inadvertently omitted by Respondent. The absence of the date is a de-minimis violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statues, and does not justify the imposition of any formal penalties. However, Respondent should be given a letter of guidance for the violation. Respondent was not brought into the Bay Podiatry Center project until the final draft of the plans was to be done. Up until that time, Dr. Wilkerson, the owner of the project, had worked up preliminary drafts of the project in conjunction with his contractor and a local draftsman. They had developed a building with an attached carport. Mr. Carr did work directly with the draftsman on the final plan. Therefore, the plans were created under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Since Respondent supervised and controlled the finalization of the project's plans at the crucial time and since the people involved in drafting the plans did not need more supervision and control, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. There was no clear and convincing evidence which demonstrated that Respondent performed any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. At the time Dr. Wilkerson desired to begin construction and obtain a building permit, he had not decided on a final roofing system. Therefore, the final plans called for the use of pre-engineered trusses and did not have a great amount of detail on a roof framing plan. There was some detail provided on the page of the plans detailing the wall section of the building. This page provided sufficient detail for a competent contractor to construct the building according to code. In fact, the building was so constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building upon its completion. Again the trusses would come from Fagans. Petitioner did in fact review submittals from Fagan's truss engineer for the pre-engineered trusses used on the Bay Podiatry Center. Included in those submittals was a roofing plan in which the trusses were numbered to fit the sequence shown in the roofing plan. Respondent made sure the trusses and roof system were structurally sound. However, the owner did not contract with Respondent to amend the building department's plans. Chapter 471, Florida Statutes does not require such an amendment. Given the truss market in the Bay County area, the knowledge of Respondent regarding that market, the fact that a decision regarding a roof line had not been made when the plans were sealed, and that it was appropriate to leave such a decision for later in the construction process, no further detail was required in specifying the roof system for this project. No clear and convincing evidence was presented that demonstrated Respondent was negligent in his specifications on the roof system. The only exception to the above was that Respondent did not specify the material of the trusses over the carport. Such information is not supplied by the Code and therefore must be supplied by the engineer. The oversight was caught by the contractor when he was preparing to order the trusses. The contractor contacted Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr determined what the appropriate truss material should be and informed the contractor. The inadequacy of the plans was resolved in less than ten minutes. The omission of such a detail is negligent on the part of Respondent and is a violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. However, on these facts, the omission of the detail is minor. Most of the light, plumbing and mechanical fixtures were prelocated by the owner prior to the time Respondent was hired. Respondent did not purport to draft plumbing, electrical or mechanical plans in detail in the final plan. Except in one respect, the detail was sufficient to guide the respective trades in the performance of their work and no more detail was required. The only exception was that Respondent approved a special detail of the hub drain/trap primer which was not in accordance to code. Since Respondent provided a special detail which did not meet the code requirements and which was not demonstrated to be justified by the circumstances of the Bay Podiatry project, he is guilty of negligence in the drawing of the Bay Podiatry plans in that aspect. Given the fact that this is a very small error in a larger project and that the drain was put in according to code during the construction of the building, Respondent's violation is a minor one. Finally, the draftsman, without instructions from Respondent, put some plumbing and mechanical notes in the plans which clearly did not relate to the project. Respondent did not catch the inclusion of the notes and sealed the plans with the superfluous notes in them. However, it was obvious that the notes did not relate to the project and the trades involved ignored them. The notes did not cause any problems during the construction and were not shown to be inimical to the public health and safety. Therefore, while the inclusion of the notes was sloppy work, there was no negligence shown on the part of Respondent. Eleventh Street Office Park The plans for the Eleventh Street Office Park were signed and sealed by Respondent on January 31, 1989 The Eleventh Street Office Park project demonstrates best the dynamism involved in an evolving construction project. Often, as with the Eleventh Street project, an owner is not sure of the best method or design (usually determined by lowest cost) to utilize prior to construction or whether he wants to go forward with the expense of construction of a building given certain designs. On the Eleventh Street project three plans were developed, beginning with a three story structure with structural steel and precast walls, and ending with a large, one story, cement block structure on a cement slab. All the plans were for a shell building and did not include any floor plan. Preliminary rough drawings were completed by a draftsman who was hired by the project's owner. Respondent reviewed these rough drafts and over the course of several weeks made numerous structural changes. After the plans were re-drawn to Respondent's satisfaction, he submitted them to the building department in order to obtain a building permit. There is no question that the plans for the Eleventh Street project were drawn under Respondent's direct supervision and control. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. The plans submitted to the building department were not intended to be complete. For instance, the owner had not decided where to locate the restrooms in the building. However, the owner, for unspecified reasons, wanted to proceed with obtaining a building permit. With that decision open, the detail for the plumbing aspects of the plan were not intended to be complete or to match as to specifics. Such limited detail was intended only to place the building department and the contractor on notice that some consideration had to be given to the upcoming plumbing. The same considerations applied to the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plans. All of the evidence concerning deficiencies in the electrical design of the Eleventh Street Office Park was based on Petitioner's expert's review of a single sheet of plans obtained from the building Department. This sheet is mysterious as to its origins and relationship to the Eleventh Street project. The sheet was not prepared by Respondent, did not bear his seal, lacked the fire department's approval which was present on other pages of the project's plans, and was a different size paper than those sealed by Respondent. There was no substantial evidence which demonstrated Respondent had prepared this sheet or that the sheet reflected the electrical plans used in the Eleventh Street project. The absence of extensive detail or the provision of extraneous notes on the electrical, mechanical and plumbing aspects of the plans were justified by the fact that the owner of the project had not made up his mind in regards to those details, such decisions could be determined later in the construction process, the Eleventh Street project was a shell building and there was sufficient detail for the licensed trades to perform their tasks when the time came and the decisions were made. The incompleteness of these plans in that regard was clearly justified by the specific circumstances of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. As with the Bay Podiatry project, the only exception to the above was that the hub drain/trap primer detail was not in accordance with the building code. For the reasons stated in regards to the Bay Podiatry project, the provision of the hub drain detail constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Again the violation is a minor one. Similarly, as with the other three projects, no substantial evidence was presented that Respondent performed any architectural services in relation to the Eleventh Street project which were not incidental to the engineering services he performed. There was a great deal of debate among the experts as to the adequacy of the structural aspects of the Eleventh Street Office Park and whether they met the standards of practice for engineers. Most of the debate centered on how much detail needed to be placed on the plans and whether the detail provided was sufficient for a contractor to build a safe building. The better evidence demonstrated that the amount of detail on the plans was sufficient to enable a contractor to build a safe building. The detail which was not contained on the plans was contained in the building code and did not need to be included on the plans. Such a practice comports with the standard of practice in the Bay County area and is a specific circumstance of a project which would enable a professional engineer to exercise his judgment and not include such detail. 4/ Moreover, although the calculations were not contained on the plans, Respondent did, in fact, determine the structural soundness of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The only exception to the above is that Respondent was negligent in specifying the type of mortar to be used in the concrete walls. In essence Respondent specified three different types of mortars. These mortars significantly differed as to each mortar's respective strength. Use of an improper mortar in the concrete walls can effect the strength of the wall and cause them to be unsafe. This inconsistency in detail or specifications differs from the inconsistency in details or specifications where such details or specifications obviously do not apply to the project or where such details or specifications have no contrary reference in the plans. The latter two cases while showing sloppy work are not necessarily indicative of negligence and depend greatly on the surrounding facts and circumstances before a finding of negligence can be made. The inconsistency with the mortar is indicative of negligence since a contractor may very well use the wrong mortar on a project. In this case, the inconsistency did not become a problem and Respondent was present as the project manager to handle any problem which may have arisen. Therefore, the violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, is moderate to minor.
Recommendation That the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of five violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, assessing a total fine of $750.00 and placing the Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, during which Respondent should be required to take and pass a course or courses on the proper methods of plan drafting for the four violations involving negligence; and issuing a letter of guidance for the violation involving the date. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of February, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
Findings Of Fact Harry L. Wilson is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license, Number RC 0041328, was first issued in March of 1982. The license was issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing, 1943 Hardy Street, Jacksonville, Florida, with the Respondent as qualifier. The Respondent has been the qualifier of Harry L. Wilson Roofing at all times relevant to this proceeding. On December 6, 1984, the Respondent and Robbie L. Hicks, entered into a written contract (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2). Pursuant to this written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), the Respondent agreed to perform the repair work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" and Ms. Hicks agreed to pay the Respondent $2,395.00. The property to be repaired is rental property owned by Ms. Hicks. The property is located at 1508 Eaverson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent commenced work sometime during the early part of 1983. Shortly after commencing work, however, the Respondent and Ms. Hicks began having disagreements as to the work to be performed and the quality of the Respondent's work. These disagreements continued after the Respondent completed the work in November of 1983. Ms. Hicks testified that the work that the Respondent completed was done in an unprofessional manner and that the Respondent had not completed all of the work that he had agreed to perform. In particular, Ms. Hicks testified that the Respondent had failed to paint the interior of the house beige as required by the Contract, had failed to remove saw dust and other debris from the house following completion of the work, had failed to finish cabinets installed in the house, had failed to repair screens and generally had not performed in the manner he had agreed to perform. Ms. Hicks paid the Respondent all but $410.00 of the contract price. The Respondent testified that all off the work called for pursuant to the Contract had been performed. According to the Respondent, he had performed some work not required by the Contract and had not performed other work requested by Ms. Hicks because the work was beyond the scope of the Contract. The Respondent also stated that the work which Ms. Hicks expected would have cost considerably more than the price agreed upon in the Contract. The Respondent did not perform all of the work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" as required by the Contract. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Claude Bagwell, Deputy Chief, Building and Zoning, Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville, it is clear that no permit was issued by the City of Jacksonville to perform the work required by the Contract. The only permits issued with regard to Ms. Hicks' rental property was a permit issued in 1961 and the original building permit issued in 1949. Additionally, due to the fact that no Florida registered roofing contractor's license in the name of "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" had been filed with the City of Jacksonville, no permit could be issued to Harry L. Wilson Roofing with regard to the Contract. The Respondent admitted that he had not obtained a permit to perform the work required by the Contract. The Respondent indicated that he had not obtained a permit because he was not aware that one was required in order to perform the work. He did indicate that he had obtained permits to perform other jobs. The Respondent could not, however, have obtained permits for other jobs because no license issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing had been filed with the City of Jacksonville. The Respondent did take the examination required in order to obtain a registered roofing contractor's license. The Petitioner suggested in its Proposed Findings that the "permit requirement was explained" when the Respondent took the exam. No evidence to support such a finding was presented at the hearing. The Respondent in entering into the Contract clearly used the name "Wilson Recycling". Nowhere on the Contract is the name "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" used. The Respondent ultimately admitted that no Florida license authorizing the use of the name "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained by him. The Respondent, however, when initially asked whether a Florida license in the name of "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained indicated that such a license had been issued. On further examination, however, the Respondent testified that an occupational license in the name of "Wilson Recycling' had been obtained by him and not a Florida license. The work to be performed pursuant to the Contract was beyond the scope off the Respondent's license. As pointed out by Mr. Bagwell the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract would require licensure as a registered residential contractor or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting in a name other than the name as set forth on the Respondent's license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.119(2) and(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the Respondent failed to qualify the business name "Wilson Recycling" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), when he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting to perform and actually performing work beyond the scope of his Florida contracting license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this17th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry L. Wilson 1943 Hardee Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
