The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(n) and 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Page Wurts is a Florida State Certified Residential Contractor, whose license number is CRC 1327279. His initial date of licensure was July 12, 2004, and his licensure expires on August 31, 2010. Page Home Builders, Inc. has a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. The license number is QB 32526. The initial date of licensure was July 12, 2004, and the certificate of authority expires on August 31, 2009. Page Wurts is the primary qualifying agent for Page Home Builders, Inc. On September 9, 2005, Page Home Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Trudy Capone for $112,000.00 to build, among other things, an addition to her home located at 1005 Verona Street, Belleair, Florida. On September 24, 2005, Ms. Capone and Page Home Builders, Inc. amended the contract to include the installation of a swimming pool and the renovation of a bathroom, including the replacement of the tub. The contract amount was increased by $37,700.00. On December 13, 2005, Ms. Capone and Page Home Builders, Inc., agreed to a change order for additional windows, increasing the contract amount by $3,200.00. On January 5, 2006, Ms. Capone and Page Home Builders, Inc., entered into a second amendment to the contract to include the installation of an air conditioning system, and the extension of the truss system over the patio, to be supported by columns. This amendment increased the contract amount by $19,485.00, bringing the total contract amount to $169,185.00. Page Home Builders, Inc. accepted approximately $153,265.00 on the contract. Ms. Capone agreed to credit Page Home Builders, Inc., with $1,084.50.00 for half the cost of a claw foot tub, which Page Home Builders, Inc., purchased. Subcontractors hired by Page Home Builders, Inc., cut several existing trusses without supporting the ceiling below and without approval of the architect, causing the ceiling of Ms. Capone’s home to collapse, damaging the floor, furniture, and other property of Ms. Capone. The collapsed ceiling nearly stuck Ms. Capone. As a result of the collapse, Ms. Capone was trapped in her house for approximately 30 minutes until she could be extricated. The hardwood floors were improperly installed. There were numerous gaps between butt and side joints with some in excess of 1/8 of an inch. There was glue smeared over the finished surfaces. Thresholds and reducers were missing. There is an area in the family room where butt joints are nearly aligned instead of being randomly staggered. Additional floating of the floors should have been done prior to the installation of the wood flooring, especially at the arched opening between the living room and hallway. The flooring color is mismatched where it transitions from the living room to the existing hall and bedrooms. John Bosley, an expert in construction, is of the credible opinion that due to the poor workmanship on the project Ms. Capone’s house was destroyed and made unlivable. The fit and finish of the work was some of the worst work that he has ever seen. Mr. Bosley is of the opinion that the poor work resulted from a lack of supervision of the subcontractors by the contractor. Mr. Bosley’s testimony is credited. It will cost over $50,000 to correct the poor workmanship. In a letter to the Department dated April 24, 2008, Page Wurts acknowledged that Ms. Capone was entitled to a credit of $650.00 for stucco and damage to plants and trellis. The difference between the credit to Ms. Capone for stucco and plant damage and the amount owed to Page Home Builders, Inc., for the tub is $434.50, bringing the total contract amount to $169,619.50. Ms. Capone made contract payments of $153,265.00, leaving $16,354.50 remaining unpaid on the contract. By subtracting the remaining contract amount from $50,000.00, which is the cost of repair, the amount owed to Ms. Capone to remedy the shoddy work is $33,645.50. The Department incurred investigative costs in this case, excluding costs associated with attorney’s time, in the amount of $477.52.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(m) and 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, imposing a $10,000 fine, revoking Respondent’s certification (License Nos. CRC 1327279 and QB 32526), requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Ms. Capone in the amount of $33,645.50, and requiring Respondent to pay investigative costs of 477.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1988 Petitioner made application with the Respondent for a permit to erect a banner across State Road 40 in the 900 block, East Silver Springs Boulevard in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. The copy to be placed on that banner would say "18th Annual Marion County Home Builders Assn. Parade of Homes May 13 thru May 21." After considering this permit application, Peter W. Wright, the Respondent's administrator for outdoor advertising in his part of the State, determined to deny the permit. That decision was reached based upon the interpretation by Mr. Wright that under the terms of Rule 14-43.001(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, the permit could not be granted in that the banner was one of a commercial nature. This decision was reached on November 11, 1988. A further attempt to explain the reason why the Petitioner felt that it was entitled to this permit was made in the person of its executive officer, J. W. Shoemaker, by correspondence of January 23, 1989. Mr. Wright, having examined that correspondence wrote to the Petitioner's executive officer and advised him that the request was being denied because the banner was deemed to be commercial in nature. This decision was reached on February 8, 1989 and it explains the right of the Petitioner to a formal hearing to dispute that choice of denial. On February 20, 1989, the Respondent received a request for formal hearing under the terms of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The case was then forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the final hearing held on the date identified in this Recommended Order. Marion County Home Builders Association, Inc., Petitioner, is a not- for-profit corporation incorporated under the Laws of Florida, specifically at Chapter 617, Florida Statutes. The corporation is for the benefit of home builders and related industries within its jurisdiction, having in mind mutual advantage and cooperation and collaboration with all fields related to the residential building industry within that jurisdiction, for the construction industry as a whole and to assist the accomplishment of the mutual objectives of the National Association of Home Builders of the United States and Florida Home Builders Association. The executive officer for the Petitioner stated further that the Petitioner had an interest in assisting its members with legislation in Ocala and Marion County, Florida reference the businesses of its members. Further, it has as its purpose to advertise to the public the skills and wares of the members of the association, in particular through the Parade of Homes for which the banner permit is sought. In that Parade of Homes the association hopes to show the public what the members of the association are involved with as business, and to show the homes themselves. The builders of those homes are at the Parade of Homes show and the public is invited to tour the homes. Not only are the members of the public touring the homes, but also looking at home products being shown by members of the association. The public is charged a nominal fee of $1 to view the homes and in the past, that money has been contributed to the United Way. On one occasion $1400 was given to the United Way. It is expected that the $1 fee collected would be given to the United Way in the 1989 Parade of Homes Show. While persons are looking at the homes in the parade, they may ask the builders who constructed those homes, questions about the homes and if it is the desire of the consumer public and the builder to make arrangements for a home purchase, then that is an acceptable arrangement from the point of view of the association. Nonetheless, the specific idea which the association has in mind is to advertise the display of homes and home products. Other activities concerning the sale of houses or home products is left to the individual members of the association who have homes and home products in the show. The home builders who are in the association pay dues and constitute one-third of the membership. Other dues-paying members are suppliers within the industry and they constitute approximately two-thirds of the membership. Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 is a photograph which shows indicating the appearance of the banner in question. In 1985, Petitioner had been allowed to place a banner in Ocala at a time when Mr. Wright was not in the position of granting permission for banner displays. Within the last year the Respondent has granted permits to such diverse organizations as the Ocala Civic Theater, the Ocala Shrine Rodeo, the Florida Blueberry Festival/Ocala Blueberry Festival and the Rotary Club of Ocala-Silver Springs Charity Barbeque. Copies of these permits may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 5-8, admitted into evidence. Mr. Wright made the decision to grant those permits. Related to the Ocala Civic Theater, Wright spoke to someone within that organization and was impressed with the fact that it was, in his mind, for a public purpose. Related to the Ocala Shrine Rodeo, Mr. Wright felt that the Shrine is a charitable organization and aids burn victims. As to the Florida Blueberry Festival/Ocala Blueberry Festival, Mr. Wright felt that the majority of the funds that were collected in this endeavor went to the Chamber of Commerce to assist in civic and charitable events. In the main, he identified that his process of assessment was one of asking whether the function to be advertised by the banner was one in which the primary interest was for charity as opposed to profiting individuals or companies. Examples of permit requests that he has turned down as not being acceptable in that they were commercial in nature would be rock and gem shows, art festivals, sales of equipment for homes and other types of businesses. He has no recollection of ever having to decide the question of whether a Parade of Homes banner was an acceptable purpose to allow the display of a banner across a public roadway, other than the case at issue. In making decisions about the grant of the permit in the region in question, Mr. Wright does not require the submission of a corporate charter to ascertain whether an organization is a for-profit or not-for-profit corporation.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies the banner permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: J. R. Shoemaker, Executive Officer Marion County Home Builders Association 409 Northeast 36th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Leroy Alvin Colts was qualifier for Berkley Home Service, which held License #RC0029635. Colts held such license from 1977 - 81. In December 28, 1978, Leroy Alvin Colts' local certificate of competency was revoked by the Pinellas County authorities. This action was reviewed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board prior to these charges being filed. On January 4, 1979, Leroy Alvin Colts was adjudged guilty of violating Section 812.021 (Grand Theft) and Section 812.014 (Grand Larceny) and sentenced to 45 years in the State Penitentiary. These offenses arose directly from Colts' activities as a licensed contractor. The court's judgment was affirmed by the appellate court. Notice of this proceeding was provided Colts in the manner prescribed by law, and inquiry of Counsel for the Petitioner Board and representatives of the St. Petersburg Police Department showed that Colts was free on bond and available to attend the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommended that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke Leroy Alvin Colts' license. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 247 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph F. McDermott, Esquire 544 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner,
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in Ms. Cheren's April 15, 1988 letter of denial of renewal, Petitioner, Earlen Braddy operated Earlen's ACLF home at 2840 47th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent, DHRS, is the state agency responsible for licensing ACLF's in Florida. Ms. Braddy has operated the ACLF in question at the current location for about four years during which time she has had as many as five residents at one time. Currently, and for the past year, she has had only three residents in the facility which she also occupies as her home. One current resident has been with her since she opened. On December 4 and 9, 1986, while Ms. Braddy was operating her ACLF in a licensed status, her facility was inspected by representatives of Respondent's Office of Licensure and Certification on its yearly survey. During the survey, the inspectors found several deficiencies, all of a Class III, (least serious) category, in such areas as Administration; Management and Staffing Standards, (6 deficiencies); Admission Criteria and Resident Standards, (3 deficiencies); Food Service, (12 deficiencies); Physical Plant, (5 deficiencies); Fire Safety, (1 deficiency); and Other Administrative Rule Requirements, (4 deficiencies). Though most deficiencies related to the failure to keep or provide the surveyors with the paperwork required to be kept by statute and the rules of the Department, some of the deficiencies related to resident care. These deficiencies were identified to Ms. Braddy in person by the inspectors at the time of discovery and again at the out-briefing. She was also advised as to how to correct them and where to secure assistance in doing so, if necessary. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the uncorrected deficiencies identified in the December, 1986 survey and the March, 1987 follow-up, the Petitioner's license was renewed in April, 1987. Follow-up surveys were conducted in March, June, and October, 1987, at the next annual survey in 1988, and at its follow-ups. While some deficiencies originally identified were thereafter corrected, many were not. Another annual survey of the facility was conducted on February 16, 1988, prior to the issuance by the Department of the yearly renewal license. At this survey, again, numerous Class III deficiencies were identified including: Administrative, (5 deficiencies); Admission, (3 deficiencies); Food Service, (9 deficiencies); Physical Plant, (1 deficiency); Fire Safety, (3 deficiencies); and Other Administrative, (3 deficiencies). Many of these were carried over uncorrected from the previous year's survey, (December, 1986) and its follow- ups, and some were new. Some of the former remained uncorrected through the June, 1988 follow-up to the February, 1988 survey. In August, 1988, the Department filed three Administrative Complaints against the Petitioner seeking to impose monetary civil penalties against her. All three resulted in Final Orders being entered. In the last of the three, Petitioner was alleged to have committed five violations of the statutes and Departmental rules, all of which relate to Petitioner's alleged failure to "provide or make available for review documentation" in five certain areas. Petitioner and Respondent agree that these areas are those primarily involved in the uncorrected deficiencies outlined in the survey reports and upon which the Department relies to support denial of Petitioner's renewal. Petitioner readily agrees that the deficiencies cited by the Department both in the survey reports and in the Administrative Complaints existed at the time of identification and, in many cases, for some time thereafter. While Petitioner now claims all deficiencies have been corrected, her accountant, Mr. Schaub, indicates that at least one, that relating to the failure to document and keep on file scheduled leisure time, had not been accomplished previously and was not now being accomplished. As to the others, those requirements which were not being complied with at the time of the surveys are now being met. Some identified deficiencies were not actually defects. The documentation was being kept, but due to Petitioner's inability to keep up with it, was not made available to the surveyors. Mr. Schaub is convinced that Petitioner has a paperwork problem and needs help with it. She spends her time taking care of the residents without much help and does not keep up with the required paperwork. As he describes it, she is being "choked with red tape" due to the paperwork requirements imposed by the Department whose rules do not differentiate much in the requirements for record keeping between large facilities and very small ones as this is. In his opinion, however, and also in the opinion of the surveyors who visited the facility, the residents appeared to be clean, appropriately dressed, well fed, and content. Ms. Braddy contends that at the present, all the actions the rules require are being taken and while in the past she may not have done everything correctly, she has made the effort to comply with the instructions she received from the Department. She has recently hired an individual to help her and stay with the residents while she is gone. Before he came to work, she received some assistance from her children who, without pay, helped her from time to time. She believes her facility is now operating within the Department's requirements and there has been no survey conducted since June, 1988, to indicate whether this true or not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Earlen Braddy, be issued a conditional license to operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility for a period of 6 months at which time, if all deficiencies are not corrected, the application for renewal be denied. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3025 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER None submitted. BY THE RESPONDENT 1. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein though the problem appears to be more a question of inability rather than unwillingness. Rejected as contra to the state of the evidence. Mr. Schaub indicated she would continue to have paperwork problems but with help could master the problem Not a Finding of Fact but a comment of the state of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Gardner Beckett, Esquire 123 8th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Edward Haman, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (g)3., (j), (o) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Spencer holds a current, active Florida State Certified Building Contractor License, having been issued license number CBC 1252039. He is certified with the Department as doing business as KCLS Spencer, Inc. (KCLS), and is the primary qualifying agent thereof. Mr. Spencer submitted a Proposal, bearing the letterhead of KCLS and dated September, 14, 2004, to Jesse J. Ross, Sr. (Mr. Ross), which pertained to the exterior remodeling of Mr. Ross' jewelry store located at 6290 North Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Initially, the Proposal put the cost for the remodeling at $48,762.86. After some negotiating, the Proposal that ultimately formed the basis of their contract set the cost at $45,000.00 and relieved Mr. Spencer of the obligation of constructing walkways. The Proposal's explicit terms provide: As per specifications and blueprints pricing is as follows; labor and material to renovate existing exterior building. Prices to include all demolition of all exist [sic] structures, installation of siding, columns, dormers, cupolas, two (2) French doors, windows, front gutters and down spouts, electrical, and final painting. Notes: Signs by owner. Paint colors by owner. Power and water supplied by owner. Color of pre-painted metal roof determined by owner. Material storage space to be provided by owner. Quotes good for 10 days (after 10 days, please reconfirm material pricing). 20% deposit $9752.57 due to start project, invoicing to [sic] made weekly per actual costs. Essentially, much of the exterior remodeling to be performed is simply stated as being based on the specifications and blueprints, which Mr. Ross provided to Mr. Spencer. These specifications and blueprints have not been received in evidence, but there appears to be no dispute among the parties regarding the scope of the work. The terms of payment were for an initial 20 percent deposit of $9,752.57, with weekly invoices to follow based on actual, ongoing costs. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Ross' lender, Coastal Bank, drafted a loan check for $9,752.57 made payable to KCLS. Sometime shortly thereafter, KCLS began the work of remodeling the exterior of Mr. Ross' store. As work progressed, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with an invoice, dated November 11, 2004, requesting payment for costs incurred. Despite listing on the invoice an "off set balance" of $2,515.32 that applied costs to date against the initial deposit, the total amount due was nevertheless listed as $12,268.04. On November 23, 2004, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $12,268.04 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. Later, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with another invoice, dated December 23, 2004, requesting payment for further costs incurred. The total amount due was $8,475.24. By check dated that same day, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $8,475.24 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. At this time, Mr. Ross received assurance from Mr. Spencer that no further money would be due, until the work was entirely completed. Sometime between Christmas 2004 and New Year's 2005, Mr. Spencer returned again to Mr. Ross' store and requested from him an additional $3,000.00. At this point, Mr. Ross refused, because of Mr. Spencer's earlier assurance that no further ongoing payments would be demanded and because of the lack of any work performed since the last payment. Mr. Spencer insisted that he had all of the necessary materials in his warehouse and that he would be back on the Monday following the New Year's holiday to work on the store. He never returned and could not be contacted by Mr. Ross. As the storefront remained in disrepair, Mr. Ross was compelled to contract with other parties to complete the work. Sunland General Contractors, Inc. (Sunland); Baker Roofing (Baker); and D.A.B. Painting, Inc. (DAB), completed the work that Mr. Spencer had previously been contracted with to perform. According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, they based their work upon the same specifications and blueprints that Mr. Ross had previously provided to Mr. Spencer. Sunland, except for the roofing and painting, performed what work that remained. Based on a payment history dated December 16, 2005, the total cost of Sunland's work for Mr. Ross was $23,770.00. However, this cost includes $3,990.00 for walkway decking, which Mr. Ross and Mr. Spencer, in their previous negotiations, had agreed would not be part of their final agreement. As such, the relevant cost in the instant case for Sunland's work is $19,780.00. According to a Baker invoice, dated November 10, 2005, the cost to Mr. Ross for the new roof was $14,935.00. According to a letter from DAB, dated April 23, 2005, Mr. Ross paid $6,500.00 for the painting of his store. In sum, the relevant costs to Mr. Ross for this subsequent work total $41,215.00. Sometime in October of 2005, Mr. Ross provided Mr. Frank A. Wisniski (Mr. Wisniski), a general contractor and owner of Sunland, with a set of blueprints and asked him to takeover the job that Mr. Spencer had not completed. Mr. Wisniski further testified on the condition of the building, as Mr. Spencer had left it. According to his testimony, some of the siding was not nailed properly, and the columns in the front of the store were not well secured, a potentially hazardous situation. Overall, in his opinion, he felt that Mr. Spencer had completed approximately 25 percent of the total scope of the job. Mr. Robert T. Shindo (Mr. Shindo) is an investigator for the Department. He responded to Mr. Ross' complaint to the Department regarding Mr. Spencer's work on the store. He found, "basically, a building that was not in repair." Some siding work had been done on the north face of the building, as well as some column work. However, the columns appeared damaged or incomplete, and the siding appeared incomplete as well. Besides the siding and columns, Mr. Shindo testified that "[t]here did not appear to be any other work." Overall, Mr. Shindo had familiarized himself with the Proposal and estimated that between ten and 15 percent of the job appeared to be complete. Mr. Michael McCaughin (Mr. McCaughin) is employed at the Building Code Division of Brevard County and is the chief building official for the county. Mr. McCaughin concluded that based on the work specified in the Proposal of Mr. Spencer, the only item which would not have required permitting is the gutters. Mr. McCaughin personally searched the county permit database, and no permits were ever pulled by Mr. Spencer for the remodeling of Mr. Ross' store. Petitioner's Exhibit 14, a printout of the permits that have been pulled for Mr. Ross' store, confirms Mr. McCaughin's testimony. Moreover, Mr. McCaughin "performed a search of Mr. Spencer under his name, under his state license number, and also under the company name, KCLS and, could not find any record of any permits being pulled, nor was he registered with Brevard County contractor licensing." Mr. Spencer, in testifying in his own behalf, mainly confirmed the testimony of the other witnesses and the other facts in evidence. Among other things, he confirmed that he and Mr. Ross had an agreement for KCLS to remodel the exterior of the store and that the agreement was based on the Proposal he had submitted to Mr. Ross. He agreed that he received the payments that Mr. Ross testified to having paid and testified that he never pulled the permits for the job, because he "[j]ust didn't take the time to do it." Mr. Spencer's recollection of his final conversation with Mr. Ross was substantially the same as Mr. Ross' testimony, with Mr. Spencer testifying that he had told Mr. Ross he would be back to work on the job and that there was an understanding that final payment would be made at the end of the project. He goes on to testify that he did actually go back after this final conversation to finish up the siding on the south side of the store and that the siding was completed. This last testimony is not credible. In Mr. Spencer's defense, some of the work was farmed out to subcontractors, and they were paid in full. He then testified that he was planning on continuing the work but that he was waiting on a roofer. While he was waiting for the roofer, he testified that there was some dispute between himself and Mr. Ross regarding a ring he had received from Mr. Ross. He testified that the ring fell apart and that the dispute ended their working relationship. But for "$8200 - Ring" being handwritten on the Proposal alongside the other payments made by Mr. Ross, no mention of this ring was made by the Petitioner. Presumably, this ring was given as in-kind payment to Mr. Spencer, but without anything more to go on, the insufficiency of the relevant evidence precludes any recognition of the ring as payment. Therefore, the three previously described checks, furnished by Mr. Ross and made payable to Mr. Spencer or KCLS, are found to represent the entirety of the consideration furnished. To refresh, these checks are dated October 25, 2004; November 23, 2004; and December 23, 2004, and amount to $9,752.57; $12,268.04; and $8,475.24, respectively. In sum, they total $30,495.85. Mr. Spencer also testified about the installation of French doors at Mr. Ross' store. Mr. Ross earlier testified that he had refused delivery of two French doors, when a subcontractor arrived to install them, because they were not the style, size or number he desired. He further testified that Mr. Spencer was aware that he desired six doors with plastic slats (not two as listed in the Proposal), because he had directed Mr. Spencer to examine the doors of a nearby storefront, whose style he wished to replicate. Mr. Spencer was questioned about these doors by opposing counsel. Opposing counsel asked, "Were the French doors ever installed into the building?" Mr. Spencer responded, "Not that I know of, by Bill, no." Several questions later, opposing counsel asked, "Okay. My point is, the doors were never installed in the project; is that your understanding?" Mr. Spencer responded, "My understanding from Bill was that, yes, they were installed." On this issue, Mr. Spencer could only speculate, because he never returned to the job site to check whether the doors had been installed. Mr. Spencer's testimony on this topic is not credible. Despite never being installed, Mr. Ross paid a $4,700.00 deposit for the French doors that was never refunded. When asked why this money was never refunded to Mr. Ross, Mr. Spencer goes on to testify that he trusted the subcontractor delivering the doors, that he assumed they were delivered, and that that's why he never attempted to receive a refund of the doors' cost from the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; requiring Respondent to make restitution to Mr. Ross in the amount of $26,710.85; placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years; and requiring Mr. Spencer to attend a minimum of seven additional hours of continuing education classes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Robert Dugger, committed the violations alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2002-007094, filed by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on April 11, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of community association management pursuant to Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). Robert Dugger, is and was at the times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida Community Association Manager (hereinafter referred to as a “CAM”), having been issued license number CAM 1148. (Stipulated Fact). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger’s address of record was 7401 Beach View Drive, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. Miramar Gardens. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger was employed by Timberlake Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Timberlake”). In his capacity with Timberlake, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for 30 homeowners’ associations. In particular, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”). (Stipulated Fact). The Association is made up of approximately 350 homeowner members. The Association was initially created by the Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc., Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions adopted on or about December 16, 1975. By-Laws for the Association were also adopted on December 16, 1975. Article X of the By-Laws provides the following homeowners’ rights concerning the books and records of the Association: The books, records and papers of the Association shall at all times, during reasonable business hours, be subject to inspection by any Member. The Declaration, the Articles and these By-Laws shall be available for inspection by any Member at the principal office of the Association, where copies may be purchased at reasonable cost. Prior to 2001, the Association, along with Vista Verde Townhome Homeowners Association (hereinafter referred to as “Vista Verde”), an adjacent community association, had been placed in receivership and was managed by a civilian board. These events came about due to the dismal state the two communities were in. Crime was rampant, there were no street signs or lights, common areas and alleys were unkempt, there were abandoned vehicles, and the associations for both areas were essentially non-existent. Miami-Dade County had taken over ownership of many homes in the community by foreclosure. Mr. Dugger became involved early with the reorganization and revitalization of the Association and Vista Verde. In 1997, Mr. Dugger was appointed by the receiver as the CAM for the Association and Vista Verde. At the end of 2000, the Association was ready to govern itself. Toward that end, on or about December 21, 2000, the Association and Timberlake, entered into a Management Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Management Agreement”). Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Timberlake was designated as the “Exclusive Managing Agent” for the Association commencing January 1, 2001. Among the duties assumed by Timberlake, are the following: 2) MAINTENANCE OF ASSOCIATION FILES: The Manager will collect, organize and maintain in the office of the Manager, all Association information, including but not limited to the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, Declaration of, [sic] Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, site plans, owner lists, correspondence, rules and regulations, blue prints, specifications, corporate minutes, all maintenance and service contracts in effect and the necessary administrative financial information related to the Association. 8) ASSISTANCE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: The Manager will provide administrative support services to the Board of Directors, to include notifying Directors of Board meetings, circulating minutes of the preceding meeting, as prepared by the Secretary . . . . Timberlake has continued to provide the services of Mr. Dugger as CAM since 2001. During his tenure, street signs and lights have been installed, the common areas have been cleared, and the community has greatly improved. Proposed findings of fact 14 through 19 of Mr. Dugger’s Proposed Recommended Order generally describe Mr. Dugger’s efforts as CAM, the improvement of the community, and Mr. Dugger’s reputation as CAM. Count I: Criminal Violations. During 2003, Mr. Dugger served as a city commissioner for the City of North Bay Village, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Village”). On or about December 12, 2003, Mr. Dugger was charged with eight criminal violations in an Information issued in case number F03-33076, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The alleged violations arose out of Mr. Dugger’s activities as a city commissioner for the Village. Two of the criminal charges, Counts 2 and 8, are of pertinence to this matter: (a) Count 2 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(d), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes; and (b) Count 8 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(i), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. As to Count 2 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about April 08, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a member of THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did vote on a matter presented to said COMMISSION, to wit: ITEM 7A, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 152.029 OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE CODE OF ORDINANCES (FIRST READING), when said defendant would or might, directly or indirectly, profit or be enhanced by this action of said COMMISSION on said matter, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s.2.11.1(d) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . As to Count 8 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about July 01, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a MUNICIAL OFFICAL to wit: MEMBER OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did fail to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes by failing to DISCLOSE ALL LIABILITIES IN PART E. OF FORM 1 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR 2002, filed with the City Clerk of THE CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s. 2-11.1(i) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . Counts 2 and 8 were based upon the following allegations of the Complaint/Arrest Affidavit: Robert A. Dugger was elected Village Commissioner for the City of North Bay Village on November 19, 2002. On September 21, 2002, Mr. Robert Dugger filed his Statement of Financial Interest for the calendar year 2001, as required by Miami- Dade County ordinance. In Part E of the Statement of Financial Interest (this section is designated for Liabilities – major debts-and asks for the name and address of creditor), Mr. Dugger marked N/A in this section. Commissioner Robert Dugger has substantial indebtedness to Al Coletta that was incurred when Al Coletta assumed the mortgage on one of Dugger’s properties and paid off the mortgage on another. Rachael Dugger admitted these debts under oath during her sworn statement. Commissioner Dugger failed to report these debts on his Statement of Financial Interest. Additionally, on March 15, 2001, a Summary Final Judgement of Foreclosure was ordered and adjudged on behalf International Financial Bank, against Tomin Incorporated, and Robert Dugger and Rachael Dugger personally, in the amount of $1,154,427.50. Following the Judgement on March 15, 2001, title of the property in question was acquire by International Finance Bank on Mary [sic] 2, 2001 and sold to a third party on June 1, 2001. The sale amount of the property was $750,000. A short fall of $404,427.50 remained after the sale and is still unpaid. Commissioner Dugger also failed to report this debt on his Statement of Financial Interest for the year 2001. . . . . Based on Commissioner Robert Dugger’s indebtedness to Al Coletta, he had a Conflict of Interest by voting on matters involving Al Coletta, that came before the North Bay Village Commission, each vote is a separate violation of the Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second [degree] misdemeanor. Commissioner Dugger violated the aforementioned Section 2-11.1(d), of the Miami-Dade Code on the following occasions: April 8, 2002, Item 7A, Page 7 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes: A zoning amendment concerning property owned by Al Coletta. Page 14 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes, Commissioner Dugger voted – yes, for approval of the ordinance. . . . . . . . . This action is in violation of Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second-degree misdemeanor . . . . Additionally, Commissioner Dugger is in violation of Section 2-11.1(i)(3), Miami- Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance. This Section required that candidates for County and municipal office must comply with the filing requirements, under Chapter 112, Florida State Statutes. This is a second-degree misdemeanor. . . . Section 2-11.1(d) of the Miami-Dade County Code, prohibits, in pertinent part, the following: Additionally, no person included in the term defined in subsection (b)(1) shall vote on or participate in any way in any matter presented to the Board of County Commissioners if said person has any of the following relationships with any of the persons or entities which would be or might be directly or indirectly affected by any action of the Board of County Commissioners: (i) officer, director, partner, of counsel, consultant, employee, fiduciary or beneficiary; or (ii) stockholder, bondholder, debtor, or creditor, if in any instance the transaction or matter would affect the person defined in subsection (b)(a) in a manner distinct from the manner in which it would affect the public generally. . . . Section 2-11.1(i)(3), of the Miami-Dade County Code, requires that candidates for County and municipal elective office meet the filing requirements of Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, “at the same time that candidate files qualifying papers.” Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, which provides procedures for the prosecution of county ordinances, states that they are to be prosecuted “in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted.” On July 29, 2005, Mr. Dugger entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 2 and 8 of the Information, in case number F03-33076, both second-degree misdemeanor violations of Section 2-11.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation of Fact). Mr. Dugger was adjudicated guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 2 and 8, and was ordered to pay $468.00 in fines and costs. Mr. Dugger was, therefore, adjudicated guilty of having voted on a matter in which he had a conflict of interest because the matter involved an individual to whom he was indebted; and of having failed to fully disclose liabilities on financial disclosure forms he was required to file pursuant to Florida law at the time he qualified to run for public office. Neither of the convictions directly involved Mr. Dugger’s practice as a CAM. Nor has the Department made such an argument. Instead, the Department presented expert testimony in support of its position that at least one of the convictions relates to Mr. Dugger’s ability to practice as a CAM. That testimony was convincing. All CAMs are involved in a fiduciary relationship with the associations they manage. It takes little expert testimony to support a finding that such a fiduciary relationship requires trust and integrity. CAMs must be trusted to handle association money, maintain the records of the association, and to deal on behalf of the association with potential and existing vendors. The association must be able to assume that a CAM will fully disclose any possible conflict the CAM may have with the association’s vendors. Mr. Dugger is responsible for billing, writing checks, paying insurance premiums, and maintaining a payment book for the Association. Paragraph 10 of the Management Agreement specifically provides that Timberlake “shall provide financial management services to the Association . . . .” Paragraph D(11)(a) authorizes Timberlake to “solicit and analyze bids for necessary insurance coverage.” Mr. Dugger has similar responsibilities with Vista Verde. Clearly, the Association must be able to trust that Mr. Dugger will carry out all these duties without having any conflict of interest. The Association must be able to assume that Mr. Dugger is acting in its best interest and not his own. In his defense as to the voting of interest conflict charge, Mr. Dugger, prior to the pertinent vote, made disclosure of his relationship with Mr. Coletta, the owner of the property which was the subject of the vote, to the attorney for the City of the Village. The Department failed to prove that Mr. Dugger did not make full disclosure. Mr. Dugger was advised that no conflict existed. Mr. Dugger cast his vote after receiving this advice. Subsequent to the vote, Mr. Dugger sought an opinion from the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics & Public Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”). The Commission, like the city attorney, opined in writing that no conflict of interest existed. Mr. Dugger entered his plea on the two charges in order to avoid the cost of litigation. The evidence, however, failed to prove why prosecutors agreed to accept a plea on only two of the eight counts. Count IV: Alleged Denial of Access to the Records of the Association. During 2003, Miryam Ruiz lived in Miramar Gardens Township and was a member of the Association. While she had been in arrears for 2001 and 2002, presumably in her association dues, she became current when she paid all outstanding dues in March 2003. On March 14, 2003, during normal business hours, Ms. Ruiz went to the office of Timberlake and requested that she be allowed to inspect certain records of the Association. She made her request verbally and in writing, leaving Petitioner’s Exhibit 13 with a Timberlake employee, apparently the receptionist, which listed the documents she wanted to inspect. She was told by the receptionist that she could not see the documents until she had made an appointment to do so. By letter dated Thursday, March 27, 2003, Ms. Ruiz was informed by Mr. Dugger’s wife, Rachel, that Ms. Ruiz could review the documents. She was also told that, “[i]f you would like, call us to make an appointment at your convenience.” On the morning of Monday, March 31, 2003, not having received Ms. Dugger’s March 27th letter, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by facsimile to Timberlake stating that she would be at the office at 11:00 a.m. that morning to “pick up” the documents. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office at 11:00 a.m. she was again told that she could not review the documents because she had no appointment. Ms. Ruiz left the office. Later that day, Ms. Ruiz sent a second facsimile letter addressed to Ms. Dugger. Ms. Ruiz ended the letter by informing Ms. Dugger that she would be at the office the next day, April 1, 2003, “for the inspection and copying of records at 9:30 a.m.” On April 1, 2003, Ms. Ruiz returned to the Timberlake office and was again told that the records were not available because no appointment had been made. Ms. Ruiz told the receptionist that she would return on Friday, April 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to inspect the documents. In a letter to Ms. Dugger dated April 1, 2003, she stated that she was confirming the date and time. The evidence failed to prove whether the letter was received prior to April 4, 2003. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office on April 4, 2003, she was again denied access to the documents and was told by Ms. Dugger that she had no appointment because the date and time suggested by Ms. Ruiz had not been confirmed by Timberlake. Ms. Ruiz left the office. The following day, April 5, 2003, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by certified mail addressed to Mr. Dugger describing the events leading up to that moment and asking what it would take for her to be allowed to inspect the records. Mr. Dugger did not respond to this letter. In response to Ms. Ruiz’ April 5th letter, a letter dated April 22, 2003, was sent by Ms. Dugger. That letter indicated that the records would be available for inspection at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. The letter, which was postmarked May 2, 2003, ten days after the date of the letter, was not received by Ms. Ruiz prior to May 6th. Sometime during the month of May 2003, approximately two months after first attempting to review the records of the Association, Ms. Ruiz was finally allowed to inspect the records. Ms. Ruiz, without doubt, had the right to review the records of the Association she had requested. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Mr. Dugger was required to collect, organize and maintain the records of the Association. The Management Agreement also required that Mr. Dugger was to assist the Board of Directors in their enforcement of the provisions of the “Association documents and rules and regulations ” Pursuant to Article X of the By-Laws of the Association, also quoted, supra, gives Association members the right to inspect and copy all Association documents The right to inspect association documents is not an unfettered one. In light of the duty and responsibility of a CAM to “maintain” records, it is not unreasonable for a CAM to set reasonable safeguards for a member’s review of those records. The Department did not produce evidence to refute the evidence presented by Mr. Dugger concerning the reasonableness of a CAM insisting on being present during the inspection of documents. The evidence also failed to prove that, given the fact that Mr. Dugger is the CAM for as many as 30 associations, he is not always available at his office to supervise a review of documents. The procedure followed with regard to reviews of the Association’s had been announced at an Association meeting. Members were told that anyone who wished to review records could contact the Timberlake office and make an appointment so Mr. Dugger could be present during an inspection, or that a copy of a document could be obtained upon payment for the document. It is clear that not all of the requests to Timberlake made by Ms. Ruiz were totally reasonable: (a) her first request on April 14, 2003, was without any notice; (b) her notice of March 31, 2003, gave only three hours notice; (c) her request for review on April 1, 2003, gave only one day notice; and (d) her request for review on April 4, 2003, gave only 3 days notice. While Ms. Ruiz eventually was allowed to review the documents, it took approximately two months after her initial request had been made. It is also clear that, although she did not always give reasonable notice for appointments she announced, Mr. Dugger (and his employees) could and should have done more to remedy the situation. Mr. Dugger first became aware of the request on March 14, 2003. It took 13 days to respond to that request. When Ms. Ruiz mailed a certified letter to Mr. Dugger dated April 5, 2003, it was not until May 2, almost a month later that a letter in response to that letter was post-marked. Based upon the foregoing, while neither Ms. Ruiz nor Mr. Dugger did much to ameliorate the situation, for at least part of the two months it took Ms. Ruiz to obtain access to the records of the Association, Mr. Dugger “denied” Ms. Ruiz access to the records of the Association. Count VI: Alleged Failure to Maintain Association Records. Pursuant to the Management Agreement entered into by Mr. Dugger with Miramar Gardens, at paragraph D(2), quoted, supra, Mr. Dugger agreed to collect, organize, and maintain all Association documents in the offices of Timberlake. Beginning in 2001, the minutes of meetings of the Association (held jointly with the meeting of Vista Verde) were usually taken by Claudette Brinson, president of the Association. On occasions, they were taken by others. Minutes taken by Ms. Brinson were written by hand and, after the meeting, were taken home with her. On some occasions, Ms. Brinson would ensure that her hand-written minutes were typed at various locations, including Mr. Dugger’s office. When typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, a copy was retained by Mr. Dugger and maintained with the records of the Association. Ms. Brinson’s testimony at hearing as to whether Mr. Dugger was given a copy of all minutes was in conflict. She initially testified that she had provided him with a copy of all minutes. When recalled by Mr. Dugger, she testified that on some occasions, when she did not have the minutes typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, while maintaining a copy at her home, she did not always provide him with a copy. While the latter testimony was more convincing and has been credited, the bottom line is that Mr. Dugger did not maintain a copy of the minutes from all meetings of the Association. At hearing, Mr. Dugger admitted that when he was served an Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the Department on or about August 30, 2004, he realized that he did not have all the records the subpoena sought. In particular, Mr. Dugger did not have all of the documents requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “[t]he minutes of all meetings of the board of directors and of the members of Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc.” Mr. Dugger, therefore, contacted Ms. Brinson and asked her if she could provide a copy of the minutes of Association meetings that he did not have. She was not able to do so within the time Mr. Dugger had to respond to the subpoena. In a letter to the Department dated September 17, 2004, Mr. Dugger indicted the following with regard to the minutes requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “The Minutes in our possession. Original minute meetings are in the hands of the Receiver, which were retained for his records. Some additional minutes are in the hands of Board members, which we will attempt to locate.” During calendar year 2002, minutes had been kept for meetings held during February, March, April, May, June, July, October, and December. During calendar year 2003, minutes had been kept for meetings held during January, February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October, and November. Finally, during calendar year 2004, minutes were kept for meetings held in January, February, March, April, July, August and September. Mr. Dugger at the time of responding to the Department’s subpoena did not have minutes for all of these meetings. For example, for 2002 he only had minutes for the meetings held in February, March, and June, and for 2003, he only had minutes for the meetings held in January and December. While Ms. Brinson adequately explained why she was not always able to provide a copy of meeting minutes to Mr. Dugger, Mr. Dugger did not provide an adequate explanation as to why he had not made sure that he obtained a copy of all minutes so that he could fulfill his obligation under the Management Agreement. No evidence was presented to suggest that Mr. Dugger’s failure to maintain all minutes was the result of bad faith or any intent on the part of Mr. Dugger to circumvent the rules of the Department or the requirements of the Management Agreement. Prior Discipline Against Mr. Dugger’s CAM License. Mr. Dugger’s CAM license was disciplined in DBPR Case Number 00-02226, pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the Department and Mr. Dugger which was accepted by Final Order entered on April 9, 2001. The Stipulation provides that Mr. Dugger “neither admits or denies the . . . facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint ”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Mr. Dugger committed the violations described in this Recommended Order and imposing the following penalties: A stayed suspension of his license for six months, with the stay being lifted should Mr. Dugger be found to have committed any additional violation with regard to his CAM license within two years of the issuance of the final order in this case; An administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00; Attendance at continuing education classes in records maintenance in an amount to be determined by the Department; and Payment of the costs of this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 E. Gary Early, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) as a certified contractor and has held license CGC 13316. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Coastal Structures, LCC (Coastal Structures) has possessed a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified to do business in the State of Florida and has held license QB39088. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been the primary qualifying agent for Coastal Structures. At times relevant to this proceeding, Ruth Schumacher was the owner of a residence located in Martin County at 2880 Southwest Brighton Way, Palm City, Florida (the subject property). Ms. Schumacher passed away on June 17, 2008. Prior to her mother’s death, Ms. Macey assisted Ms. Schumacher with her affairs. After her death, all of Ms. Schumacher’s estate, including the subject property, was placed in a trust with Ms. Macey as the trustee. In late October 2005, a screened porch on the subject property was damaged by Hurricane Wilma. In November 2005, Ms. Macey, on behalf of her mother, contacted Coastal Structures about making repairs to the damaged porch. In November 2005, David and Donna Williams, on behalf of Coastal Structures, visited the subject property, made temporary repairs to the damaged porch, and discussed with Ms. Macey and Ms. Schumacher the replacement of the porch. On November 28, 2005, Coastal Structures entered into a written contract with Ms. Schumacher to remove the damaged porch and to replace it with a new screened porch over the existing concrete slab. The written contract failed to contain a written statement explaining to Ms. Schumacher her rights under the Florida Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund as required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. When Ms. Schumacher contracted with Coastal Structures on November 25, 2005, her insurance company had accepted her claim, but had not completed the damage assessment. The scope of the work was to be based on the allowances provided in the insurance adjuster’s statement of loss once the damage assessment was completed. The insurance company’s damage assessment for the damaged porch was completed December 3, 2005. The total replacement cost was valued at $21,190.10, with a deductible of $2,960.00, for a net claim value of $18,230.10. On March 8, 2006, Respondent submitted to the Martin County Building Department an application for a permit for a screen enclosure over an existing slab. The Martin County Building Department approved the permit application and issued permit number BSCE-2006030334 (the subject permit) to Respondent on March 8, 2006. The subject permit required one inspection, which was to be a final inspection after the completion of the work. Respondent failed to request the required inspection and the subject permit expired. After the execution of the contract with Coastal Structures and the completion of the damage assessment by the insurance company, Ms. Schumacher and Coastal Structures agreed to change the scope of the work from a screened enclosure to a glass enclosure with windows. Ms. Schumacher and Coastal Structures did not execute a written change order or any other written amendment to the written contract. Coastal Structures completed its work on the porch in May 2006. Pursuant to its verbal agreement with Ms. Schumacher, Coastal Structures replaced the damaged screen porch with a glass enclosure with windows. On May 17, 2006, Ms. Schumacher paid Coastal Structures the sum of $25,363.00 in full payment for the work it had done. After payment had been made, Ms. Macey observed several problems with the project including leaks from the ceiling panels and tile work that was not flush with the bottom of the exterior doorway, which allowed water to seep into the structure. In response to complaints from Ms. Macey, Mr. Williams returned to the subject property in May 2006 and applied caulking to the ceiling and along the floor of the structure. That work did not resolve the problems with the project. Ms. Macey made further complaints to Mr. Williams, but he did not respond to those complaints. Ms. Macey and Ms. Schumacher asked Palm City Screening, LLC (Palm City Screening) to determine the problems with the project and to provide an estimate to repair those problems. On February 13, 2007, Palm City Screening provided Ms. Schumacher with an estimate of $19,785.00 to replace the existing porch. In May 2007, Respondent visited the subject property in response to complaints from Ms. Macey. Ms. Macey pointed out to Respondent problems with the porch and Respondent inspected the structure. Respondent told Ms. Macey that he would send someone named George to the subject property to make repairs. Respondent left the subject property and Ms. Macey heard nothing further from him. No one returned to the property on behalf of Respondent. At no time did Ms. Schumacher or Ms. Macey terminate the contract with Coastal Structures or prevent Coastal Structures from correcting the problems with the porch. On July 2, 2008, Palm City Screening provided a second estimate to Ms. Macey in the amount of $23,230.00 to replace the structure. Palm City Screening’s representative told Ms. Macey that the structure could not be repaired as built, but would have to be replaced. The scope of work and estimated costs excluded electrical work for the structure. On July 11, 2008, Jimmy Rowell Electric Service provided Ms. Macey with a written estimate in the amount of $1,520.00 for the electrical work that would be required if the structure were to be replaced. No one on behalf of Palm City Screening or Jimmy Rowell Electric Service testified at the formal hearing. The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with attorney’s time, was $176.39. On October 8, 1995, Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent in DBPR Case 91- 00022. The Amended Administrative set forth certain factual allegations pertaining to Respondent’s dealings with a person named Donald H. Shaffer. Based on those allegations, Petitioner charged Respondent with abandonment of a project (Count I); committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer by allowing liens to be placed against the project (Count II); failure to supervise (Count III); mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer by abandoning the project (Count IV); and by having committed fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting (Count V). DBPR Case 91-00022 was resolved by stipulation. As part of the stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a fine and make restitution to the customer. The stipulation contained the following provision: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations of fact contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The CILB entered a Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation on August 2, 1966, which “. . . approved and adopted in toto . . .” the settlement stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose against Respondent administrative fines as follows: $500.00 for Count I; $5,000.00 for Count II; $5,000.00 for Count III; and $5,000.00 for Count IV, for the aggregate amount of $15,500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s licensure be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 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 20th day of August, 2008.
