The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 289.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes; mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h)2, Florida Statutes; failing to comply with any of the provisions of Chapter 489, Part I, or a rule or lawful order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; abandoning a construction project, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes; committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; two counts of committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes; and failing to satisfy, within a reasonable time, a civil judgment obtained against him, or a business entity that he has qualified, and related to the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these violations, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified general contractor, holding certificate number CR C016649. He has been continuously certified since 1980 and has been licensed since 1988 as the qualifier of Dunbar Development, Inc. On August 19, 1994, Carla and Vernon Prevatt entered into a contract with Dunbar Development, Inc., for the construction of a residence. The contract calls for Dunbar Development, Inc. (Dunbar), to construct the "Horizon" model home on two platted lots for the sum of $73,395 plus an additional $7400 for Addendum 2. The contract permits Dunbar to cancel the contract if the Prevatts timely apply for a mortgage, but are denied. However, in such event, the contract requires Dunbar to return to the Prevatts all of their money. The contract acknowledges that the Prevatts paid Dunbar the sum of $1500 at the time of entering into the contract. A handwritten note states: "June 06, 1995—Rec'd $17,000.00 ck no. 16655 to initiate construction application for permits & building." Although the contract was originally signed by John Danzy, as "authorized representative" for Dunbar, this handwritten note bears the initials, "WB." The contract does not contain Respondent's certificate number. The contract does not contain a completion date. The contract provides that Dunbar will "commence construction . . . after full down payment and mortgage financing is received" and "will complete the same as soon as practicable, subject to the availability of labor and supplies [and] delays not within the control of [Dunbar]." Another clause in the contract states that Dunbar shall complete construction within two years of the date of the contract. On August 30, 1994, the Prevatts applied for a construction mortgage loan with the First Bank of Clewiston. The bank processed the loan application without any delays or problems. However, there was a substantial delay not attributable to the Prevatts or Respondent in obtaining an appraisal. The appraiser completed the appraisal before March 5, 1995, but probably not much prior to that date. By letter dated March 5, 1995, from Dunbar's financial officer to the Prevatts, Dunbar acknowledged the receipt of the appraisal and proposed a draw schedule totaling $80,795. The first payment under the draw schedule was $18,500 for "applicable fees and permits, plus, the plylon engineered foundation and engineered septic field construction initiation." The policy of First Bank of Clewiston is to match the value of the work to the payments to the contractor. The first payment due under Dunbar's draw schedule called for a payment substantially in excess of the value of the goods and services rendered. However, the bank acceded to the schedule and delivered a check dated June 6, 1995, in the amount of $17,000 payable jointly to the Prevatts and Dunbar. As Dunbar had done with the $1500 down payment received at the time of the execution of the contract, Dunbar deposited the $17,000 check and received payment of these funds. On behalf of Dunbar, Respondent hired Johnson-Prewitt & Associates, Inc., in early November 1995, to prepare the engineering drawings for the septic tank and foundation. These materials are specific to the Prevatts' homesite. By invoice dated November 13, 1995, Johnson-Prewitt & Associates, Inc., invoiced Respondent at Dunbar a total of $1700 for the completed work. After a credit of $700, the outstanding balance was $1000, which remains unpaid. From 1994 through 1995, Respondent, on behalf of Dunbar, provided information to Alpha Engineering, which was retained to prepare the plans for the Horizon model that the Prevatts were building. Most of this work was for the prototype Horizon home, but the work reflected by an invoice dated March 16, 1996, was exclusively for the home to be built for the Prevatts. Respondent and Dunbar never paid this invoice and never picked up the plan revisions that were the subject of this invoice. In fact, Respondent and Dunbar never commenced construction of the Prevatts' home and refused to return any portion of the $18,500 that the Prevatts paid to Dunbar. Although the bank never made any additional disbursements, the Prevatts nevertheless owed the bank the $17,000 disbursed as the first draw and, at the time of the hearing, had paid the sum of $6522.96 in interest and closing costs on this loan. With two checks totaling $2800 that, in June 1995, Yvonne Bushnell delivered to Respondent, on behalf of Dunbar, Ms. Bushnell entered into a contract with Dunbar for the construction of a residence. After Dunbar declined to construct a house or return the money, Ms. Bushnell filed an action against Respondent and Dunbar in Lee County Court on January 31, 1997. On March 12, 1997, the court entered a default judgment against Dunbar Developing, Inc., for the sum of $2800 and costs of $79.50. Following entry of the judgment, on September 14, 1998, Ms. Bushnell and Respondent agreed to settle the matter with the payment of $1600. However, upon payment of only $800, Respondent obtained Ms. Bushnell's signature on a letter dated September 14, 1998, to Petitioner acknowledging the full settlement of the case. Respondent then proceeded to obtain court issuance of a satisfaction when Ms. Bushnell refused to sign a satisfaction, absent payment of the remaining $800. By Order to Set Aside Settlement Agreement entered November 24, 1998, the court reinstated the original judgment. The judgment remains unsatisfied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's certificate as a general contractor and imposing an administrative fine against him of $4000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 6th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 P. Michael Villalobos Sussman Law Group, P.A. 1375 Jackson Street, Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fred H. White, was licensed as a registered general contractor in Florida under License Number RG 0005082 in February, 1968. Thereafter, in April, 1970, Respondent was issued his license to qualify BUILDINGS BY WINCHESTER, INC. His license went delinquent on July 1, 1973, however, it was reinstated and placed on active status in July, 1977 when Respondent qualified CAPITAL STONE COMPANY under that license. The license was to expire on June 30, 1981. In July 1982, it was again issued to Respondent qualifying as an individual and was, at all times pertinent to the issues alleged herein, active. On December 2, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. E.M. Powell, of Lot 10, Shell Harbour, St. George Island, Florida, to build a 1736 square foot home for them for the contract price of $74,120.00. The plans and specifications for this construction were listed by number on the hand written contract signed by Respondent and the Powells and witnessed by Ronald Jones. This contract was signed after Mr. Powell procured the issuance of a building permit to build a 1668 square foot residence, estimated to cost $52,500.00 on his Shell Harbour property. Mr. Powell-indicates that the application for the building permit was made by his architect, Mr. Clayton Anderson, however, the application and permit itself reveals no place thereon where Mr. Anderson's signature appears. In fact, the signature of the applicant, undated, is that of Mr. Powell, but the permit, number 4512, was issued on November 11, 1982. Both Mr. Powell and the Respondent attribute the difference in size of the building and the price to changes made and agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the issuance of the permit and prior to the signing of the contract. The contract in question is what could be best described as a "bare bones" contract. The basic legal requirements of a contract are present in that the parties are identified, consideration is reflected, there is a specific legal purpose, and obviously an offer and acceptance with, at the time of signing, an apparent meeting of the minds. This document is, however, an invitation to dispute, as there is no estimated time of completion or any other detail which might serve to more clearly identify the rights and obligations of the parties. Mr. Powell indicates that the Respondent estimated three months would be necessary to complete the project and that Mr. White indicated he would be on the site just about every day. Mr. White tells a substantially different story, however, in that he contends he had other projects under construction at the time, projects with which Mr. Powell was totally familiar, and that he, Respondent, was present when necessary, to supervise as necessary. Mr. White denies that he was the general contractor for Mr. Powell on this job. He contends that he was the framing contractor and that Mr. Powell served as his own general contractor. He contends, and Mr. Powell admits, that much of the building material purchased was picked out by Mr. Powell. On the other hand, much was also ordered by Respondent. Neither side could give a detailed accounting of who bought what and no evidence was presented to show who did what in any detail. Certain of the subcontractors were arranged for by Respondent. Others were arranged for by Mr. Powell. All bills were paid by Mr. Powell. According to Respondent, he signed the contract as general contractor only so that Powell could get a Veterans' Administration loan and issued the completion certificate as general contractor because "that's the way it was done." Be that as it may, the house was subsequently completed, and at the closing on or about October 31, 1983, Mr. White, as general contractor, presented Mr. Powell with a contractor's affidavit in which he indicated that all subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers had been paid in full; that all building codes had been complied with; that all installed equipment including roofing, ventilators, windows, skylights, fireplaces, insulation, etc., were installed according to building code and manufacturers' instructions and that all manufacturers' guarantees and warranties were thereby validated by the proper installation of the product. Respondent orally warranted he would stand behind his work for one year. Mr. White, as was indicated above, denies he was the general contractor but insists that he was properly supervising those portions of the project which it was his responsibility to supervise. Mr. Powell, on the other hand, insists that Respondent was frequently absent and there were several periods when he did not appear on the site to supervise construction of the property for extended periods of days. There was no detailed evidence, however, as to which days were involved, but it is clear from all the evidence, including the contract and the certificate as well as Mr. White's testimony, that he was the general contractor and had a responsibility to adequately supervise the construction regardless of whether the subs in question were directly hired by him or were hired by Mr. Powell. It is inconceivable that Respondent would have continued to perform under the contract if he did not feel that he had a responsibility to do so and that, for the most part, matters were going as they were envisioned to go under the terms of the agreements between the parties. After installation and from the very beginning, Mr. Powell noticed a problem with the upper outside fixed windows on the land side of the house which had been picked out by Respondent. It appears that water was leaking in the vicinity of these triangular windows and ran down the interior walls under the two outermost windows into the light fixture over the sink and down onto the counter tops. Water also ran down the wall over the entrance door and damaged a closet ceiling near that area. As a result, part of the ceiling fell in the closet the counter top in the kitchen began to swell and pull away from the wall and the drawers in the closets began to bind. When these leaks first occurred, even before the house was completed, Mr. Powell notified the Respondent both orally and in writing. Respondent promised to repair the windows and did, on several occasions, come out and attempt repairs by caulking around the windows. However, these repairs were ineffective and each time it would rain, water would again come in. Respondent never inspected right after a rain, however. Consequently, on December 19, 1983, Mr. Powell wrote a letter of complaint to Respondent which he sent by Registered Mail to that address utilized by Respondent--Route 8, Box 85B, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Respondent was left several notices by postal authorities but failed to claim the letter from the post office and it was returned to the sender undelivered. Mr. Powell, on February 15, 1984, hand-delivered a similar letter outlining the discrepancies in the house to Respondent on the steps of the county courthouse in Apalachicola, Florida, but Respondent denies ever having received the letter. Respondent attempted to explain why he did not receive notice of the letter sent to him by Registered Mail. His explanation was so convoluted and involved as to be incomprehensible and not capable of belief. By the same token, Mr. Powell has a faulty memory of many of the things recited by Respondent. This is obviously a situation where both parties see the matter in the light most favorable to them and, unfortunately for the resolution of this dispute, there is little independent evidence of what happened. However, in resolution of the matter, it is found that though the first letter was not received, the second letter was, and Mr. White was given ample notice, aliande the letters, of the defects in the installation of these windows as well as the chimney cap through which, reportedly, water was entering the chimney and rusting the firebox of the fireplace. With regard to this chimney, Respondent agreed to install a new chimney cap, just to keep the peace, even though he did not feel there was anything wrong with the installation of the original one. Mr. Powell was to get it, but did not do so, however, claiming that he was never instructed by Respondent as to what kind to get or when to get it. As to the allegedly deficient cap, Respondent describes it as a tubular piece of metal perforated all around so that the smoke can get out but hot ash is retained. Since there are holes in the device to let the smoke out, water can get in through those holes when it rains. Respondent claims that what is needed, if a total absence of water is desired, is to place a cover over the cap. Respondent contends that all fireplaces built that way with an uncovered cap, admit water to some degree. There was no evidence presented by the Petitioner to contradict Respondent's assertion or to show that Respondent improperly installed the chimney cap. With regard to the windows, however, after Mr. Powell had made the repeated efforts to have Respondent repair the windows so that the leakage would stop, he subsequently contracted with another builder to replace them. When this second builder examined the windows, it was determined that they were too small for the opening in which they were placed and that they were improperly installed. This left a large area around the window which Respondent had attempted to fill with caulking, but the space was so large that caulking itself was insufficient to correct the problem. The second contractor determined it would be necessary to remove the windows and install appropriate sized windows in a proper fashion and this was done at a cost of in excess of $500.00. The windows have not leaked since. Respondent contends that the windows were properly installed and caulked and that the leak did not come from the space around the windows. Instead, he contends, the leak was caused by improper caulking of the batting above the window below the soffit which was the responsibility of the painter who was, in fact, Mr. Powell's son-in-law and hired by him. Even the builder who replaced the windows agrees that caulking of the batting would be the responsibility of the painter, but he contends that this leak was not caused by this deficient caulking but by the improperly sized and installed windows. This was Respondent's responsibility and it is so found. There is no evidence, aliunde that described above which in any way shows that Respondent made any misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent misrepresentations in the practice of contracting. Though no detailed information was presented regarding the actual number of days Respondent was absent from the job site, there was some substantial evidence on the part of Mr. Powell, who had no reason to lie, that Respondent was absent from the job site quite frequently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of imcompetence in the installation of the windows in question in Mr. Powell's house, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint that the remaining allegations be dismissed that Respondent be reprimanded that his license be placed on probation for a period of two years under such terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board shall determine appropriate, and that he make restitution to Mr. Powell in the amount of $577.23. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1986. Copies furnished: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred H. White, pro se Route 8, Box 85-B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. lla. Irrelevant. Subordinate to the finding that Respondent was the general contractor. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Irrelevant. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 18-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 22-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 28. Irrelevant. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a residential contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CR C022406, and was the licensed contractor qualifying Rothberg Homes, Inc. On or about May 21, 1986, the Respondent entered into a contract to build Mr. and Mrs. Frank Sargent a new home in Palm Harbor, Florida, for $95,670. The home was to be completed before November 15, 1986, so that the Sargents could qualify for a lower interest rate. The Respondent relied heavily on his construction superintendent, Frank Jackson, to accomplish the work in a timely and workmanlike manner. The Respondent was responsible primarily for selling contracts and for taking care of the company finances. To comply with the technical requirements of the contract, the Respondent had construction begin in July, 1986, with the clearing of the lot. But foundation footers were not dug and poured until about a month later, and construction proceeded at a slow pace (then it went on at all.) The Sargents registered numerous complaints to Jackson about the slow pace and some complaints to the Respondent about Jackson, but nothing was done to speed construction along. In October, 1986, the Sargents, who were on the job site daily, began hearing complaints from suppliers and subcontractors that the Respondent was slow paying them but was told that he eventually was coming through with the payments due. By November, the Respondent was not making payments at all in some cases. Also in October and November, Jackson was in the process of opening his own business (not construction-related) and was devoting less and less time to the Sargent job. November 15, 1986, approached, and it became obvious that the deadline would not be met. The Sargents and the Respondent met and agreed to extend the deadline one month to December 16. On December 11th, the Sargents again reminded the Respondent of the deadline and its importance to them, but the December 16 deadline also came and went with the house only about 70 percent complete. In December, Jackson quit altogether. The Sargents complained to the Respondent, who promised to replace Jackson but never did. Because the Respondent had stopped paying subs and suppliers, they refused to do any more work, and the Sargents wound up having to pay some of them out of their own pockets in order for work to continue. In March 1987, some of the subs and suppliers also filed claims of liens for unpaid work which the Sargents had to clear out of their own pockets in order to close the purchase of the house. Mr. Sargent himself did some of the work, some of which would have been warranty work if the Respondent had paid his bills on time, to save some additional expense caused by the Respondent's failure to keep current on his accounts with the subs and suppliers and to avoid some of the additional hassle of trying to persuade an unpaid sub or supplier to do warranty work. On March 16, 1987, the Sargents met with the Respondent to arrive at an accounting for purposes of the upcoming closing. They agreed that the Sargents should receive the last construction loan draw of about $9,500 to compensate them for payments they made that should have been made by the Respondent and that the Respondent still owed them $6,000, which the parties agreed would be the subject of a promissory note from the Respondent to the Sargents. (This does not even account for the Sargents being shortchanged when a three-foot roof overhang for which they had contracted turned out to be only a two-foot overhang.) The Respondent has paid the promissory note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Daniel S. Rothberg, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Daniel S. Rothberg 624 Charisma Drive Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Daniel S. Rothberg 196 Mayfair Circle Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Warren A. Wilson, III, Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry within the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the Respondent was licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, license number CG C007009. Additionally, due to the time period from which the Respondent held his license he was "grand- fathered" to perform roofing construction. The Respondent was the qualifying agent of O. Benitez & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation. On November 13, 1997, the Respondent executed a contract with Maricel Alayon to construct a terrace for a home located at 1215 West 82nd Street, Hialeah, Florida. While Ms. Alayon referred to the structure as a "terrace," it was to be a covered (roofed) open porch attached to her home at the rear of the property. The price for the addition was $14,125.00. The contract that was prepared by the Respondent for Ms. Alayon's signature did not contain the Respondent's license number or a written notice of the consumer's rights under the Construction Industry's Recoveries Fund. Ms. Alayon paid the Respondent the full $14,125.00 on or about November 17, 1997. Despite having been paid the full amount, the Respondent did not complete the Alayon project. The work was begun on or about November 27, 1997, but was never finished. Ms. Alayon did not fire the Respondent, did not refuse access to her property, and never refused to pay the Respondent monies owed for the work. Curiously, the Respondent obtained the building permit for the Alayon project on January 27, 1998. The Respondent never called for a final inspection on the job and, as of March 29, 2001, a final passing inspection for the project had not been performed by building officials. In addition to the contract amount, Ms. Alayon paid $3,575.00 for materials that were used in the construction of the porch. The Respondent did not reimburse Ms. Alayon for that amount. In May of 1998, the Respondent began negotiations with Mr. and Mrs. Piloto for the construction of an addition to their home to include an in-ground swimming pool. From the beginning of the talks, Mr. Piloto advised the Respondent that the couple could only invest $38,000 for the remodeling work as that was the amount the bank had approved for the project. The Pilotos wanted to build a bedroom, an expanded bathroom, and a swimming pool at the rear of their home located at 750 West 73rd Place, Hialeah, Florida. Eventually the Respondent telephoned the Pilotos to advise them that they could get what they wanted within the budget set by the bank. The contract executed by the Pilotos called for the remodeling for a price of $37,890.00. The contract, prepared by the Respondent, did not contain the Respondent's license number or a notice of consumer's rights pursuant to the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At all times material to the Piloto project, the Respondent did not hold a valid architect's license. In fact, in December of 1997, the Board of Architecture and Interior Design had fined the Respondent for having practiced architecture with a delinquent license. Nevertheless, the Respondent represented himself as an architect to the Pilotos and charged them for blueprints for the remodeling project. Moreover, the Respondent submitted the signed and sealed plans for the Piloto project to the Building Department in order to obtain a building permit for this project. Such plans were filed on or about August 12, 1998. Pursuant to their agreement with the Respondent, the Pilotos paid the Respondent a total of $26,664.00 for the project. In comparison, the value of the work performed by the Respondent did not exceed $10,000. The Respondent asked the Pilotos to increase the amount for the contract to $50,395.75, but they refused. Despite the fact that he had caused their home to be reduced to a dangerous condition (by virtue of exposed wiring and open walls), the Respondent refused to complete the work on the Piloto project for the contracted amount. Instead, he abandoned the project. The Pilotos did not fire the Respondent. They refused to increase the amount of the contract. The Pilotos did not stop the work or refuse workers access to the property. A lien was placed on the Piloto property by a subcontractor to whom the Respondent owed monies. The Pilotos were required to pay the subcontractor in order to satisfy the lien amount. The Respondent has failed or refused to repay the lien amount. The Respondent grossly under estimated the cost of remodeling the Piloto home. He did so either negligently or intentionally. The Piloto home was compromised by the demolition work done by the Respondent's crew. The Pilotos were faced with paying the additional monies to comply with the Respondent's demand or living with their home in an uninhabitable condition. They chose the latter. On or about May 11, 1999, the Respondent applied for and obtained a building permit to re-roof the home of Sam and Daisy Carpenter. The contract for the work was with Banos Remodeling Services, an unlicensed entity, not the Respondent or his company. The Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary actions filed by the Department. He settled such actions without admitting or denying the allegations against him. As to his architectural license, it is undisputed that at all times material to these cases, the Respondent did not hold a valid architect's license. The Petitioner has incurred expenses and costs in the investigation of and the prosecution of the instant cases against this Respondent. The Respondent provided no credible explanation for the failure to complete the work contracted for regarding the Alayon and Piloto homes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order sustaining the violations outlined by the Conclusions of Law, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00, requiring the Respondent to make restitution to the Pilotos and Ms. Alayon, requiring the Respondent to remit the costs of investigation and prosecution of these cases, and revoking the Respondent's license until all amounts are fully paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ______________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 23rd day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2201 Oscar S. Benitez 3894 Southwest 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165 Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128-1765
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and Amended Administrative Complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified residential contractor, having been issued license number CR C040917. He has been licensed since March 16, 1987. Respondent was the qualifying agent of KM Homes, Inc. (KMH) from June 10, 1995 through March 13, 1997, more than one year but less than two years. On or about February 3, 1997, KMH filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 97-30498, with an estimate of assets of less than $50,000.00 and an estimate of liabilities of between $1 million and $10 million. The petition was signed by Kenneth H. Maltz, as president of KMH. On or about February 4, 1997, the next day, Kenneth H. Maltz and his wife, Susan Maltz, filed a joint voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7. Case No. 01-3827PL On or about April 28, 1996, KMH contracted with Daniel L. Simons and Carol L. Stefanski for the sale of a lot to Simons and Stefanski and for construction of a house on the lot. The contract price for the lot was $45,000.00 and for the construction of the home was $141,000.00, totaling $186,000.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, Simons and Stefanski made the following payments to KMH: on or about April 28, 1996, $5,000.00; on or about August 21, 1996, $40,000.00; and on or about August 30, 1996, $42,229.60 and $747.00, through their lender, First Federal Savings of the Palm Beaches, pursuant to an August 21, 1996, mortgage loan of $128,000.00. The payments totaled $100,976.60. KMH applied for a building permit from Martin County to build the home for Simons and Stefanski. Respondent's license number appeared on the application. The building permit was never obtained. Beginning on or about August 27, 1996, and at various times thereafter, until approximately January 9, 1997, the lot was cleared and fill was delivered to the lot by KMH's subcontractor, Tideway Construction Company, Inc. (Tideway). The work by Tideway was the only work performed by KMH pursuant to the contract with Simons and Stefanski. KHM did not pay Tideway and Tideway recorded a lien on the lot for $4,084.00. KMH failed to remove Tideway's lien. On or about November 23, 1997, Tideway filed suit to foreclose its lien. Sometime in May 1998, Tideway released the lien in exchange for payment from Simons and Stefanski in the amount of 65 percent of the lien amount. Simons and Stefanski's lender paid the 65 percent from additional funds the lender loaned to Simons and Stefanski to enable them to complete their home. Tideway wrote off the remaining 35 percent. KMH never explained to Simons and Stefanski why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. Simons and Stefanski never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. Simons considered KMH to have abandoned the job. Simons and Stefanski filed a proof of claim in KMH's bankruptcy for an unsecured non-priority claim in the amount of $58,000.00. They received nothing from the bankruptcy action. In the latter part of 1998, Simons and Stefanski had their home completed by another contractor, Murex, for $143,270.00. The house that Murex completed for Simons and Stefanski was essentially the same house that KMH was to construct, except that the roof structure was different and the garage and back porch were a little larger. KMH never provided Simons and Stefanski with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Simons and Stefanski never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. They attempted to sue Respondent but were unsuccessful. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3827PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $457.88. Case No. 01-3828PL On or about June 6, 1996, KMH contracted with Carol Morris for construction of a house on a lot owned by Morris. The contract price for the construction of the house was $287,940.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, Morris made the following payments to KMH: on or about February 28, 1996, $1,000.00; on or about June 10, 1996, $27,000.00; and on or about August 2, 1996, $109,240.00. The payments totaled $137,240.00. Morris obtained a mortgage loan in the amount of $150,000.00 from First Bank of Florida to finance part of the contract price. On or about September 17, 1996, KMH applied for a building permit from Palm Beach Gardens to construct the home for Morris. Respondent's license number appeared on the application. On or about September 26, 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number 28644. From approximately September to December 1996, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract and thereafter, did not perform any more work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of Morris' home. KMH never explained to Morris why it did not complete her home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. Morris never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. Morris considered KMH to have abandoned the job. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on Morris' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens were as follows: on December 12, 1996, Tideway for $8,438.00; on January 16, 1997, Buckeye Plumbing, Inc. (Buckeye Plumbing) for $3,676.00; on January 22, 1997, Tarmac Florida, Inc. (Tarmac) for $6,296.40; on January 23, 1997, Electrical Express, Inc. (Electrical Express) for $450.00; on February 13, 1997, E. M. Brandon, Inc. (Brandon) for $2,164.00; on February 18, 1997, Tom Rawn Masonry, Inc. (TR Masonry) for $16,454.00; and on April 3, 1997, Spacerace Enterprises, Inc. (Spacerace) for $7,850.00. Morris paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. Morris never paid any monies directly to the lien holders to remove any of the liens. However, Morris' lender, First Bank of Florida, assisted her with the resolution of the liens, including allowing its attorney to act as Morris' representative in resolving the liens. In May 1998, Tideway released its lien in exchange for payment by Morris' lender in the amount of 65 percent of the lien amount. Tideway wrote off the remaining 35 percent. The evidence is unclear as to whether Morris was obligated to repay the lender. Buckeye Plumbing, Electrical Express, TR Masonry, Inc., and Spacerace never received any money on their liens and the entire amount of their liens was a complete loss. Tarmac sued to foreclose on its lien, but ultimately dismissed its lawsuit and wrote off the amount of its lien as a bad debt. No testimony was presented regarding the final result of the lien held by Brandon. Morris obtained the services of another contractor, Home Work Group, Inc. (Home Work), to complete the construction of her home. Morris used the original mortgage loan of $150,000.00, a shortfall loan from the same lender in the amount of $45,000.00, and her savings of approximately $43,000.00, to pay Home Work. On or about September 1998, Home Work completed the construction of Morris' house, which was essentially the same as the house which was to be constructed by KMH. Morris received notification of KMH's bankruptcy by mail. She filed a complaint with the bankruptcy court objecting to KMH's discharge. The bankruptcy court eventually dismissed Morris' complaint. Sometime during the year 2000, Morris received $900.00 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided Morris with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. During the transaction between KMH and Morris, she knew Respondent as the construction manager for KMH. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3828PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $478.70. Case No. 01-3829PL On or about February 23, 1996, KMH contracted with Fred W. Connell, Jr., and his wife, Celia M. Connell, for construction of a house on a lot that the Connells would purchase separately, not as a part of the contract. The contract price for the construction of the house was $258,870.00, which included $18,000.00 for a swimming pool. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, the Connells made the following payments to KMH: on or about February 23, 1996, $5,000.00; on or about February 29, 1996, $30,000.00; on or about November 7, 1996, $8,687.00; on or about November 25, 1996, through their lender, First Bank of Florida, pursuant to a mortgage loan, $33,541.00; and on or about December 16, 1996, $24,393.00. The payments totaled $101,621.00. KMH applied for a building permit from the City of North Palm Beach to construct the home for the Connells. Respondent's name and license number appeared on the application. On or about November 5, 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number 96-01386. From approximately November to December 1996, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract and thereafter, did not perform any more work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of the Connells' home. In December 1996, the City of North Palm Beach issued a stop work order due to voids in the concrete walls that made, according to the City of North Palm Beach, the structure of the house unsafe. After the issuance of the stop work order, KMH failed to resume work on the house. KMH never explained to the Connells why it did not complete their home. The Connells fired KMH only after they received notification of KMH's filing for bankruptcy. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Connells considered KMH to have abandoned the job. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Connells' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 16, 1997, Palm Beach Masonry (PB Masonry) for $12,125.00; on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air Conditioning, Inc. (Sasso Air) for $550.00; on January 22, 1997, Tarmac for $4,239.21; on January 28, 1997, CPS Construction, Inc. (CPS Construction) for $2,580.00; on January 31, 1997, Gulf Stream Lumber Company (Gulf Stream Lumber) for $19,461.00; and on March 24, 1997, Waste Management of Florida, Inc. (Waste Management) for $276.50. The Connells paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. The Connells paid its lender, First Bank of Florida, $25,000.00 in exchange for the lender's assistance in resolving the liens. PB Masonry and Waste Management never received any money on their liens and the entire amount of their liens was a complete loss. On or about August 4, 1997, Sasso Air gave a partial release of its lien in return for payment in the amount of $275.00. Tarmac's notice to owner was untimely, so it chose to not pursue foreclosure proceedings and instead wrote the amount of its lien off as a bad debt. On or about November 11, 1997, Gulf Stream Lumber released its lien in return for payment of $5,000.00 from First Bank of Florida. On May 13, 1997, CPS Construction released its lien in exchange for payment from the Connells in the amount of $2,500.00. On or about April 22, 1997, the Connells obtained the services of another contractor, Villafranca Design and Development, L.C. (Villafranca Design), to complete the construction of their home for $221,000.00. The Connells, through their lender, paid Villafranca Design. Their home was completed shortly before Christmas 1997. The house completed by Villafranca Design was essentially the same as the house which was to be constructed by KMH. Because KMH failed to complete the Connells' home, the Connells, their two children and their two dogs were forced to live on the Connells' boat and to store their furniture for almost a year. During that year, the Connells had to pay dockage fees to live on their boat and storage fees for their furniture. The Connells estimate that the difference in the contract price of their home with KMH and what they eventually paid for their home was conservatively $100,000.00. The Connells did not receive any money from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Connells with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. During the transaction between KMH and the Connells, the Connells knew Respondent as someone who worked in the KMH office. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3829PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $519.43. Case No. 01-3830PL On or about September 19, 1996, KMH contracted with William and Iceline Chang for the construction of a house on the lot owned by the Changs. The contract price for the construction of the home was $205,620.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, the Changs made the following payments to KMH: on or about September 16, 1996, $10,000.00; and on or about October 10, 1996, $10,620.00. Pursuant to a change order for additional site preparation and fill, on or about October 7, 1996, the Changs paid KMH $9,400.00. On or about December 16, 1996, KMH applied for a building permit from Palm Beach County to build the Changs' home. Respondent's license number and Respondent's name as the qualifying agent for KMH appeared on the application. The building permit was never obtained due to KMH's failing to submit the construction plans to Palm Beach County's building department. On December 13, 16, and 19, 1996, the Changs' lot was cleared and fill was delivered to the lot by KMH's subcontractor, Tideway. The work by Tideway was the only work performed by KMH pursuant to the contract with the Changs. KHM did not pay Tideway and Tideway recorded a lien on the lot for $10,900.00. KMH failed to remove Tideway's lien. On or about June 6, 1997, Tideway agreed with the Changs to release the lien in exchange for payment from them in the amount of $9,810.00. The Changs paid Tideway in six monthly installments, June through November 1997, of $1,635.00. On or about November 26, 1997, Tideway gave the Changs a release of its lien. KMH never explained to the Changs why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Changs never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Changs considered KMH to have abandoned the job. The Changs had their home completed by another contractor, Villafranca Design, for $203,500.00. Villafranca Design submitted the same construction plans to Palm Beach County's building department that KMH was to use to construct the Changs' home. On or about May 7, 1997, a building permit was issued, bearing permit number B97012080. The house that Villafranca Design completed for the Changs was essentially the same house that KMH was to construct. On or about February 26, 2000, the Changs received $643.29 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Changs with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The Changs never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3830PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $714.11. Case No. 01-3831PL On or about July 30, 1996, KMH contracted with Harold and Jean Bell to sell them a lot and construct a house on the lot. The contract price for the lot was $53,000.00 and the construction of the home was $186,000.00, totaling $239,000.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, on or about August 1, 1996, the Bells paid a deposit of $5,000.00 to KMH. On September 19, 1996, the Bells paid, as closing costs, $67,147.63 to Universal Land Title, Inc., which included the cost for the lot and an additional deposit toward construction in the amount of $13,600.00. Subsequently, the Bells received a deed to the lot. KMH never obtained a building permit to construct the house. On or about December 11, 1996, the Bells' lot was cleared and fill was delivered to the lot by KMH's subcontractor, Tideway. The work by Tideway was the only work performed by KMH pursuant to the contract with the Bells. KHM did not pay Tideway, and Tideway recorded a lien on the lot for $3,688.00. KMH failed to remove Tideway's lien. Tideway never received any money on its lien and the entire amount of its lien was a complete loss. KMH never explained to the Bells why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Bells never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Bells considered KMH to have abandoned the job. The Bells had their home, with extras, completed by another contractor, Villafranca Design, for approximately $208,000.00. On or about August 2, 2000, the Bells received $996.95 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Bells with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. On October 1, 2002, Mr. Bell obtained a civil judgment against KMH in the amount of $24,199.64, plus costs of $264.75; prejudgment interest of $21,664.88; and attorney's fees of $2,395.00, totaling $48,524.27. The Bells never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3831PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $305.84. Case No. 01-3832PL On or about May 26, 1996, KMH contracted, in a revised contract, with Erol and Yildiz Aksoy for the sale of a lot and construction of a house on a lot. The contract price for the lot was $58,000.00 and construction of the house was $242,000.00, totaling $300,000.00. The revised contract entered into evidence at hearing was incomplete. No determination could be made as to whether Respondent's license appeared in the revised contract. In accordance with the contract, the Aksoys made the following payments to KMH: on or about October 28, 1994, $1,000.003; on or about June 5, 1996, $23,000.00; on or about August 14, 1996, $12,545.00; on or about October 4, 1996, $21,800.00; on or about October 17, 1996, $1,323.00; on or about November 2, 1996, $21,800.00; on or about November 20, 1996, $7,123.00 and $21,800.00; on or about November 22, 1996, $21,800.00; on or about December 13, 1996, $21,800.00; and on or about January 2, 1997, $21,800.00 and $5,000.00. The payments totaled $180,791.00. On or about July 26, 1996, KMH executed and delivered a deed to the Aksoys for the lot. KMH performed work pursuant to the contract, but only performed 55 percent to 60 percent of the construction contracted for. After January 1997, KMH failed to perform any further work on the Aksoys' home. KMH failed to complete the construction of Aksoys' home. KMH never explained to the Aksoys why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Aksoys never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Aksoys considered KMH to have abandoned the job. The Aksoys filed a proof of claim in KMH's bankruptcy for an unsecured non-priority claim in the amount of $85,000.00. Sometime in the years 2000 or 2001, they received $918.00 from the bankruptcy action. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Aksoys' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 8, 1997, Buckeye Plumbing for $2,570.00; on January 14, 1997, J. W. Hodges Drywall Textures, Inc. (Hodges Drywall) for $3,500.00; on January 15, 1997, Griffin & Wilson Stucco, Inc. (GW Stucco) for $6,040.00; on January 16, 1997, Gallina Electric, Inc. (Gallina Electric) for $3,732.00; on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air for $2,925.00; on January 21, 1997, K. D. Installation, Inc. (KD Installation) for $2,789.00; and on February 5, 1997, Macshmeyer Concrete Company of Florida, Inc. (Macshmeyer Concrete) for $5,814.00. The Aksoys paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. The Aksoys paid the lien holders to remove the liens, as follows: on or about February 18, 1997, $2,570.00 to Buckeye Plumbing; on or about April 7, 1997, $1,400.00 to Hodges Drywall, with the remaining unpaid amount ($2,100.00) being a loss for the company; on or about August 6, 1997, $7,760.10 to GW Stucco, which included additional monies for attorney's fees; on or about March 12, 1997, $1,866.00 to Gallina Electric; on or about April 7, 1997, $2,975.00 to Sasso Air; $1,500.00 to KD Installation (date of payment unknown); on or about March 12, 1997, $2,616.00 to Macshmeyer Concrete. The Aksoys also paid for work for which another KMH subcontractor, Spacerace Enterprises, Inc., claimed that KMH had failed to pay. On or about February 18, 1997, the Aksoys obtained the services of another contractor, Villafranca Design, to complete the construction of their home. The Aksoys paid Villafranca Design $145,250.00. In or around May 1997, Villafranca Design completed the construction of the Aksoys' house, which was essentially the same as the house which was to be constructed by KMH. KMH never provided the Aksoys with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The Aksoys never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3828PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $606.48. Case No. 01-3833PL On or about December 11, 1995, KMH contracted with Milo and Jerolene Glass for construction of a house on a lot owned by the Glasses. The contract price for the construction of the house was $395,795.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, the Glasses made the following payments to KMH: on or about November 13, 1995, $1,000.00; and on or about December 11, 1995, $39,079.00. The payments totaled $40,079.00. On or about May 21, 1996, KMH applied for a building permit from Palm Beach County to construct the home for the Glasses. Respondent's name as the qualifying agent for KMH and license number appeared on the application. Sometime thereafter in 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number B96019588. From approximately November 1996 to January 1997, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract, but thereafter, did not perform any further work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of the Glasses' home. At the time KMH stopped working on the Glasses' home, a substantial amount of work remained to be completed. Furthermore, much of KMH's work had to be repaired or corrected. KMH never explained to the Glasses why it did not complete her home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Glasses never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Glasses considered KMH to have abandoned the job. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Glasses' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air for $925.00; on January 23, 1997, Electrical Express for $750.00; and on January 28, 1997, R J G Masonry, Inc. (RJG Masonry) for $8,353.99. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. The evidence is unclear as to whether the Glasses paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. The Glasses paid to remove the liens. The Glasses paid the following: $925.00 to Sasso Air for which they received a final waiver of lien dated July 8, 1999; on or about February 14, 1997, $750.00 to Electrical Express for which they received a release of lien dated June 2, 1997; and on or about January 24, 1997, $8,353.99 to RJG Masonary. The Glasses did not obtain the services of another contractor to complete the construction of their home. Contractors whom they approached were very reluctant or unwilling to take over the project. Finally, the Glasses, who had prior experience as owners of other construction projects, became their own contractors and completed their home. They also received the assistance of a contracting firm, but the Glasses handled all the disbursements of funds to the suppliers for labor and materials. By September 2000, the Glasses had substantially completed their home and were living in it. At the time of the hearing, they had sold the house and moved to another location in Florida. The Glasses estimate that they expended $1,239,487.78 in the construction of their home. They maintain that this cost does not include approximately $80,000.00 that the Glasses claim that their original lender paid to KMH without their authorization. The amount paid by the Glasses exceeds the contract price because (1) KMH underbid the job; (2) the Glasses spent substantial sums to repair or correct KMH's work, which the Glasses estimate conservatively to be more than $200,000.00; and (3) the Glasses spent substantial sums on upgrades of contract allowance items. The Glasses received approximately $1,000.00 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Glasses with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. After the bankruptcy, Mrs. Glass contacted Respondent and requested the construction plans for the home. Respondent indicated that he did not have the plans. Mrs. Glass contacted Respondent again and he indicated that he may be able to locate the plans. Subsequently, Respondent contacted the Glasses and indicated that he had located the plans. The Glasses went to Respondent's place of business to retrieve the plans. After providing the plans, Respondent requested the Glasses to hire him to complete their home. The Glasses declined Respondent's offer because they considered Respondent's cost estimate to be too high and because of Respondent's association with KMH. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3833PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $628.33. Case No. 01-3834PL On or about December 8, 1995, KMH contracted with Suzanne Beck for construction of a house on a lot that Beck would acquire at a later date (in 1996), not as a part of the contract. The contract price for the construction of the house was $133,500.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, Beck made the following payments to KMH: on or about December 8, 1995, $5,000.00; on or about July 31, 1996, $8,350.00 and 5,643.09; on or about August 7, 1996, $5,030.88; on or about September 4, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about September 18, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about October 1, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about October 11, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about November 7, 1996, $12,051.05; and on or about November 26, 1996, $12,051.05 and $12,051.05. The payments totaled $108,381.32. KMH applied for a building permit from the Town of Jupiter to construct the home for Beck. Respondent's name and license number appeared on the application as the contractor. On February 12, 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number 96-29588. From approximately August to December 1996, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract and thereafter, did not perform any more work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of the Beck's home. KMH never explained to Beck why it did not complete her home. Around the end of December 1996 or in January 1997, Beck notified KMH that she was taking over the project. Progress by KMH had been slow and Beck discovered that KMH had closed the doors of its business for a second time and was not paying its subcontractors. Beck considered KMH to have abandoned the job. She obtained an owner's building permit and completed the project, making payments directly to the suppliers of labor and materials. On February 7, 1997, Beck obtained a certificate of occupancy from the Town of Jupiter. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Beck's property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 6, 1997, American Aluminum and Insulation FireProofing Company, Inc. (American Alum.) for $385.00; on January 6, 1997, Buckeye Plumbing for $2,625.00; on January 14, 1997, Hodges Drywall for $8,280.00; on January 14, 1997, Rizzo Tile & Marble, Inc. (R Tile & Marble) for $1,870.70; on January 15, 1997, James M. Webster d/b/a Rain Flow of South Florida (Rain Flow) for $75.00; on January 17, 1997, K. D. Installation, Inc. (KD Installation) for $520.40; on January 17, 1997, Q. C. Cabinet Systems, Inc. (QC Cabinets) for $3,207.00; on January 17, 1997, Paul Temple Painting (PT Painting) for $2,534.75; on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air for $3,360.00; on January 28, 1997, James Velix Bobcat Service (Bobcat Service) for $1,450.00; on February 4, 1997, Tideway for $279.00; on February 7, 1997, Florida Builder Appliances, Inc. (Builder Appliances) for $2,936.20; on February 7, 1997, Mc D Sprinklers, Inc. (McD Sprinklers)for $1,275.00; on February 11, 1997, Builder Direct Carpet Sales (Direct Carpet) for $1,959.26; and on February 12, 1997, Pollard Electric, Inc. (Pollard Electric) for $3,640.00. Beck paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. Beck paid to remove the liens as follows: on or about June 18, 1997, $2,625.00 to Buckeye Plumbing; on or about March 9, 1999, $10,125.00 to PT Painting, Hodges Drywall, R Tile & Marble, and Direct Carpet; and on or about October 19, 1999, $3,360.00 to Sasso Air. Hodges Drywall released its lien for $4,000.00 and the remaining amount of its lien was not paid, which represents a loss to the company. Builder Appliances, Rain Flow, McD Sprinklers, QC Cabinets, and Tideway did not receive payment from any source and the entire amounts of their liens were complete losses. After Beck took over construction of her home from KMH, she spent $19,203.00 to complete the home. Beck did not receive any money from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided Beck with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. During the transaction between KMH and Beck, she met with Respondent at the job-site on one occasion to discuss some aspects of the project with which she was dissatisfied. Beck had expressed her dissatisfaction in a letter to KMH's owner. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3834PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $534.57.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing the following counts: Count I of Case Nos. 01-3828PL, 01-3831PL, and 01-3833PL. Count IV of Case No. 01-3832PL. Finding that Glenn L. Mustapick committed all other violations in the counts of Case Nos. 01-3827PL, 01-3828PL, 01-3829PL, 01-3830PL, 01-3831PL, 01-3832PL, 01-3233PL, and 01-3834PL. Imposing a $25,000.00 administrative fine. Requiring Respondent to pay restitution not exceeding $25,000.00. Assessing $4,245.34 in costs for investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Revoking the certified residential license, CR C040917, of Glenn L. Mustapick. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 3rd day of May, 2002.
