The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent does business under the name South Florida Construction Group. At no time relevant to this proceeding has Respondent or his business entity been registered or certified to perform electrical contracting or any other contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of North Miami. The residence owned by the homeowners (the subject property) sustained roof damage as a result of Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. The homeowners planned to replace their damaged roof after their insurance claim had been processed. In the interim, temporary repairs were made to the roof by a roofing contractor the homeowners located through a local Home Depot, Inc., store. This roofing contractor was identified only as the Home Depot roofing contractor. The homeowners were dissatisfied with the work of the Home Depot roofing contractor. In early August 2006, Mrs. Ugokwe mentioned at a beauty salon that the Home Depot roofing contractor had failed to prevent her roof from leaking. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned of the homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the Home Depot roofing contractor. On August 9, 2006, Respondent visited the subject property and told the homeowners that he was a general contractor. Respondent gave them his business card that contained Respondent’s name, address, telephone number, and fax number. In addition, the business card contained the name “South Florida Construction Group” underneath which were the words “State Certified General Contractors” and the following license number “CGC 1510133.” The business card advertised the following services: “Home Improvement & Repairs, New Building Construction, Residential & Commercial Pools, Asphalt Paving & Sealcoating [sic], Site Development & Drainage, and Notary Public Service.” The homeowners believed Respondent to be a licensed general contractor. Respondent and the homeowners discussed Respondent performing work on the damaged roof, including placing blue tarp on the roof (the tarp work) to prevent further leaks until the re-roofing could be completed. They also discussed the subsequent re-roofing of the property. Respondent estimated that the re-roofing would be between $30,000.00 and $33,000.00. After inspecting the subject property, Respondent told the homeowners, among other things, that an electrical connection to a pump on their drain field needed to be repaired. Respondent testified that the electrical connection had been damaged when he backed his truck up while attempting to remove some debris from the subject property. At the meeting on August 9, 2006, Respondent and the homeowners agreed that Respondent would perform the tarp work. On August 11, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent a down- payment of $50.00 cash for the tarp work. On August 12, 2006, Respondent’s crew completed the tarp work. On August 13, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent the sum of $659.28 for the balance of the materials and labor for the tarp work. The total amount paid for the tarp work was $709.28. On August 13, 2006, after he received payment for the tarp work, Respondent produced a building permit application, which he had Mrs. Ogokwe sign in blank. Respondent explained that he had not finished his proposal for the complete re- roofing and that he wanted her to execute a blank permit to expedite the permitting process. On August 14, 2006, Respondent presented a signed permit application to the building department of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pertaining to the re-roofing of the subject property. Ms. Ugowke’s signature had been notarized. When Respondent presented the permit application to the building department, the contractor’s name was listed as F L Construction, Inc. The qualifying contractor’s name was listed as being Charles Lennox with the contracting licensing number CGC 1510133. That was the same number listed on Respondent’s business card. The value of the work was listed as being $6,200.00. On the morning of August 15, 2006, Respondent returned to the subject property with a person Respondent told the homeowners was an electrician. Mrs. Ugokwe asked Respondent how much the repair of the electrical connection would cost before the purported electrician started to work. Respondent told her not to worry since he would add the cost of the electrical work to the cost of re-roofing the subject property. The electrical repair had been made by the time Mrs. Ugokwe returned to the subject property after work that evening. On August 16, 2006, Respondent informed the homeowners that he had secured a building permit and that he had his proposal for the re-roofing. On August 17, 2006, Respondent delivered a package to the homeowners that contained his proposal and the building permit. Respondent’s proposal for the re-roofing was in the total amount of $39,672.92. The homeowners considered this proposal to be unacceptable. On the building permit Respondent gave to the homeowners, the name of the contractor (F L Construction, Inc.) had been covered with white-out and the name South Florida Construction Group had been inserted as the name of the contractor. The building permit was not otherwise altered. On August 19, 2006, Respondent presented the homeowners with a revised contract for the total price of $33,000.00. Mrs. Ugowke confronted Respondent about the discrepancy between the revised proposal ($33,000.00) and the value of the work reflected on the building permit ($6,200.00). Mrs. Ugowke also confronted Respondent about the white-out on the building permit. The homeowners refused to sign the second proposal. Respondent became angry and demanded immediate payment of $750.00 for the repair of the drain field electrical connection. Mrs. Ugokwe counter-offered to pay $150.00, a sum she believed to be fair after her husband priced the cost of the materials used in the repair. Respondent refused to take the counter-offer. By invoices dated August 22 and September 4, 2006, Respondent billed the homeowners for work that included the electrical work. Each invoice was on South Florida Construction Group’s form invoice. Each invoice reflected the general contractor’s license number CGC 1510133, which is Mr. Lennox’s number. Both invoices included a charge of $1,209.28 for installation of “new blue top, nails and labor” although the homeowners had already paid Respondent $709.28 for the same job. The homeowners refused to pay the invoices. Respondent sued them and placed a lien on the subject property in the amount of $3,839.82. In his claim of lien, Respondent affirmed under oath that he furnished the following services to the homeowners: re-roofing, electrical, and repairs. Respondent’s civil suit was dismissed on the merits. Even after that action, Respondent refused the homeowners’ request to remove the lien from their property. On September 15, 2006, Mr. Lennox sent all his sub- contractors a letter asking them to immediately stop using his contractor license number without his express permission. Respondent signed the bottom of the letter acknowledging receipt thereof, even though Respondent was not a sub-contractor. Respondent’s business primarily consists of finding customers for contractors. He deals with a customer, but has a contractor, such as Mr. Lennox, perform the work Respondent’s company has contracted to do. Had the contract with the homeowners in this proceeding gone through, Respondent intended to obtain payment from them, by having F L Construction, Inc., do the actual work. Petitioner has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $277.52. This figure excludes any costs associated with attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and assess investigative costs against Respondent in the amount of $277.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor and took the electrical contractor examination given July 26, 1983. Petitioner's initial grade was 70 percent. Additional credit was given based on certain objections and Petitioner's grade was raised to 73.5 percent. The minimum passing score on this examination is 75 percent. See Rule 21GG- 6.01(4), F.A.C. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's answer to question #11 should be credited since the .80 multiplier utilized by the Board in its calculation was not correct pursuant to note 10A of Table 310-16 of the National Electrical Code. Petitioner's grade is thereby further raised to 74.5 percent. Question #13 involves the calculation of electrical service for a lobby room of an apartment house. There was no listing for a lobby on the Table 220- 25 of the National Electrical Code and since this lobby is found in an apartment building, the service should be the same as a residence which is three watts. Furthermore, Petitioner made mistakes on the percentage he utilized on both motor loads and incorrectly multiplied the fire alarm service by 1.25. Petitioner incorrectly answered question #16, in part because he utilized two watts instead of three watts for the lobby computation. As noted above, the lobby was in an apartment house and should have been assigned the residential rate. Question #23 reads as follows: The owner is thinking of taking 2400 square feet of the lobby and adding a barber shop with 120/208 single phase panel. There would be a 9 KW hot water heater (at 125 percent) and 15 other receptacles, a reverse cycle air conditioner, 3 HP, 208 volt. How many amps would this add to the service? The accepted answer to the above question is computed by adding the additional current requirements to the existing lobby area. Petitioner followed this procedure but went one step further. He deducted the current required for the 2400 feet of lobby space which would no longer exist if the barber shop were added. Question #23 clearly contemplates removal of 2400 feet of lobby space. Therefore, the best answer to the question is derived by following Petitioner's procedure rather than Respondent's. Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to this question, thus raising his grade to 75.5 percent. Petitioner marked the wrong answers on his answer sheet for questions 49 and 60. He was not given credit for his correct calculations on his work sheet since the Board does not grant credit for any information which is not reflected on the answer sheet. This has been a consistent Board policy.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a grade of 75.5 percent on the July, 1983 electrical contractor examination. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1984 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 22nd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Budd, Esquire 660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry W. Hendry, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Hoard 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The parties stipulated that the Petitioner's financial responsibility and morals were not an issue. The only basis for the Board's denial was the Petitioner's alleged lack of experience. Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. These proposals are discussed in detail in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently employed as an electrical inspector for Hillsborough County, Florida. He has held this position for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. He holds a master's electrician's license issued by Hillsborough County but is prohibited by terms of his employment as an electrical inspector from engaging in any electrical contracting activity. Petitioner is technically experienced as an electrician. Prior to his employment as an electrical inspector, Petitioner was employed by Mobil Chemical Company which operates several phosphate mines in central Florida. The Petitioner was employed at its Fort Meade mine. The Fort Meade mine, or plant, is a substantial operation producing approximately four (4) million tons of phosphate per year at the time when Petitioner was employed. The mining area occupies several hundred acres and the working or processing area occupies approximately ten (10) of those acres. The working area comprises of a flotation plant, a washer plant, a sizing section, a shipping area where the rock is loaded on railroad cars, a maintenance area, and an office complex. The plant ran three (3) shifts around the clock and employed approximately one hundred (100) persons. All of the major equipment to include the 30 and 40 yard draglines at the Fort Meade plant alone contained in excess of one hundred (100) electric motors each with its own fuse box and disconnect. The Petitioner was employed by Nobil Chemical Company for twenty (20) years (1962-1982); 16 years as an electrician and four years as supervisor of the electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade plant. He was responsible for all electrical repairs, maintenance, and new construction at the plant for all three shifts. His direct superior was the department chief who was in charge of all the electrical departments at all of Mobil's phosphate mining locations. Approximately twenty (20 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on new construction projects. Approximately forty (40 percent) percent of petitioner's time was spent on regular maintenance and repairs. Fifteen (15 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on emergency repairs. The remainder of petitioner's time was spent on miscellaneous projects. Petitioner supervised a staff of ten (10) men: two (2) crewmen, four linemen, and four (4) electricians. The Petitioner was responsible for estimating the cost of jobs for his immediate superior to include the cost of materials and the number of man hours. The Petitioner was responsible for counting and reporting the number of hours his employees worked in turning this information into the company's payroll section. Petitioner had the power to request overtime work for his employees and made recommendations concerning hiring and firing personnel. On new construction the Petitioner's responsibilities began with doing takeoffs from blueprints provided for the job and supervising the work through to its completion. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Fort Meade facility to include small electrical motors, large electrical motors, office lighting, transformers, and the large draglines. Petitioner's experience included experience with three (3) phase electrical power, high voltage electrical service, and lower voltages used in small motors, lights and appliances. The electrical department which the Petitioner headed provided service only to Mobil's Fort Meade plant. Mobil is not an electrical contractor; however, its electrical department provided extensive services which are comparable to those an outside electrical contracting service would have provided. Although the petitioner did not prepare a payroll for those persons who he supervised, he did serve as the clerk for his church for five (5) years during which time he was responsible for preparing the payroll for the church's employees. The petitioner applied in 1982 to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination. His application was approved by the Respondent and the Petitioner sat for the examination on two occasions, failing both examinations. Petitioner reapplied to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination in 1984 and was denied by the Respondent based upon lack of satisfactory experience. The Petitioner held a responsible management position with Mobil at the Fort Meade plant as supervisor of electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade facility for four (4) years. The Petitioner never negotiated a construction contract, was never bonded as a contractor, never obtained insurance to cover his operation as a contractor, and never sought a building permit for any of the electrical work done at the Fort Meade facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board disapprove the application of Cecil U. Lane to sit for the statewide electrical contractor's license. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jerry W. Hendry Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Electrical Contractors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric S. Ruff, Esquire Post Office Box TT Plant City, Florida 33566 Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Armstrong is a specialty electrician who operates a business named Sound Planning Distributors, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Armstrong holds a local license (called a Certificate of Competency) from the Broward County Central Examining Board of Contractors that authorizes him to engage in specialty electrical contracting in Broward County. Armstrong's local license was issued on November 14, 1989. To obtain it, Armstrong had been required to pass a written examination prepared, proctored, and graded by Block and Associates, a prerequisite which he had accomplished on October 28, 1989. Armstrong's local license is active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. In 1996, Armstrong learned that he needed to become state-registered as a specialty contractor pursuant to Section 489.513, Florida Statutes. He applied to the Department, which in due course issued him a license as a registered specialty contractor, originally effective December 9, 1996. Armstrong has renewed his state registration from time to time as required by law. His state registration is currently active and valid through August 31, 2001. On December 11, 2000, Armstrong applied for certification as a specialty contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes. (Registration and certification are distinct forms of licensure under Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, which deals with the regulation of electrical and alarm system contractors.) On February 6, 2001, the Board denied Armstrong's application for certification solely because he lacked five years of experience as a registered contractor, which is a condition of licensure pursuant to Section 489.514(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6-5.0035, Florida Administrative Code.1
