The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, seeks to revoke the registered contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, Respondent, based on allegations, which will be set forth in detail hereafter, that he engaged in conduct violative of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent aided or abetted and/or knowingly combined or conspired with Mr. Howard North, an uncertified or unregistered contractor, to evade the provisions of Chapter 468.112(2)(b), and (c), Florida Statutes, by allowing North to use his certificate of registration without having any active participation in the operations, management, or control of North's operations. Based on the testimony adduced during the hearing and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor who holds license no. CGC007016, which is current and active. On or about July 25, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Csobor entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard North for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for a total price of $35,990. Neither Mr. or Mrs. North are certified or registered contractors in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #2). Respondent applied for and was issued a permit by the Martin County Building Department to construct a residence for the Csobors at the same address stipulated in the contract between the Csobors and the Norths, i.e., Northwest 16th Street, Palm Lake Park, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1). Howard North, a licensed masonry contractor for approximately nine (9) years was contacted by the Csobors through a sales representative from a local real estate firm. It appears from the evidence that North had previously constructed a "spec" house which the local realtor had sold and thus put the Csobors in contact with Mr. North when they were shown the "spec" house built by North. Evidence reveals that North contacted Borovina who agreed to pull the permit "if he could get some work from the job and could supervise the project". Having reached an agreement on this point, North purchased the lot to build the home for the Csobors and he orally contracted with the Respondent to, among other things, pull the permit, supervise construction, layout the home and do trim and carpentry work. North paid Respondent approximately $200 to layout the home for the Csobors. By the time that North had poured the slab and erected the subfloor, the Csobors became dissatisfied with his (North's) work and demanded that he leave the project. According to North, Respondent checked the progress of construction periodically. Prior to this hearing, the Csobors had never dealt with Respondent in any manner whatsoever. According to Csobor, North held himself out as a reputable building contractor. A contractor is defined in relevant part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. . . . real estate for others. . . Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephen J. Borovina 2347 Southeast Monroe Street Stuart, Florida 33494 J. Hoskinson, Jr. Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, 2347 S. E. Monroe Street, Stuart, Florida 33494, Respondent. / This cause came before the FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD at its regular meeting on February 10, 1978. Respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did not appear The FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD on February 10, 1978, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of STEPHEN J. BOROVINA. It is therefore, ORDERED that the certification of respondent STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, Number CG C007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has 30 days after the date of this final order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. DATED this 13th day of February, 1978. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President ================================================================= SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, Respondent/Appellant, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner/Appellee. / This cause came before the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at its regular meeting on August 3, 1979. The respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did appear. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, on August 3, 1979, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded, voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016. On February 13, 1978, the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016, was revoked by order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On April 25, 1979, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, in Case Number: 78-527, reversed the final order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That Court remanded the above captioned case to the Board to further consider the matter and enter such order as it may be advised in conformity with Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977). In accordance with the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, the Board has reconsidered the above captioned matter and finds as follows: The Board rejects the recommended order as the agency's final order. The Board adopts the first paragraph of the hearing officer's finding of fact. The Board, however, rejects the findings of fact found in the second paragraph of the hearing officer's findings. The second paragraph states as follows: A contractor is defined in relevent(sic) part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. real estate for others...Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. The findings of fact found in the above-quoted paragraph were not based upon competent substantial evidence. The competent substantial evidence supports a finding that the respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, did not supervise the project and that Borovina evaded the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The following evidence supports the Board's position: There was no written agreement entered into between Howard North and the respondent which indicated that the respondent was to supervise the construction of the Csobors' house (T- 14); It was conceded at the hearing that the only subcontractors or draftmen who worked on the Csobors' house were contracted solely by Howard North and they had no contract whatsoever with the respondent (T-19, 25); The respondent never advised or informed Mr. and Mrs. Csobor that he was the contractor on the job. (T-51); At all times during the act of construction of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Csobor were under the impression that Howard North was the contractor (T-44-51). It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, Number CG 0007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) days after the date of the Final Order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. Dated this 3rd day of August, 1979. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues in this hearing, Respondent was a licensed building contractor, whose license is No. CBC014467. His certification as an individual by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was initially dated August 16, 1979. In February, 1981, he requested his second license be registered qualifying Jeff Webb Homes, Inc.; and in September, 1982, the license was changed from Jeff Webb Homes, Inc., to Intervest Construction, Inc. On April 23, 1981, Anna Ray McClellan contracted with Regency Central, Inc., for the construction and purchase of a single family residence located at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, Volusia County, Florida. David L. Martin is president of Regency Central, Inc., and neither he nor Regency Central, Inc., are or have ever been registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. On June 5, 1981, Respondent applied for a residential construction permit for Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, listing Regency Central, Inc., as the owner of the property, and himself, with License No. CBC014467, as the contractor. Actual contracting for the construction at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, was accomplished by Regency Central, Inc. Three separate addenda to the construction/purchase contract calling for modifications to the specifications of construction were signed, not by Respondent, but by David L. Martin for Regency Central, Inc. Major subcontracts on the construction including plumbing, electrical, and heating and air conditioning, were entered into between the subcontractors and Regency Central, Inc., and not Respondent. Subcontractors looked to Regency Central for payment, and not to Respondent. A claim of lien filed on ,September 9, 1981, for central air conditioning and heating work on the property in question reflects the work was done under contract with Regency Central, Inc., David L. Martin, President. During construction of the house, Ms. McClellan visited the construction site several times a week at different hours of the day. She recalls seeing Respondent in the area only twice, the first time being the day the contract for purchase was signed, and the second being the day the slab was poured. Her dealings at the site were with the supervisor, Dan Haley, who indicated to her that he worked for Regency Central, Inc. Respondent was interviewed by Philip T. Hundemann, an investigator for the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, in late March, 1982, at Respondent's home. During the course of the interview, Respondent admitted that he met David L. Martin when Martin rented office space in a building that Respondent had constructed and owned. During the course of conversations, Martin suggested to Respondent that he, Martin, had ninety-nine lots available for building and that if Respondent would pull the construction permit for the Lot 5 project, he would get a contract from Martin to build on the other ninety- nine lots. Respondent admitted that he did not supervise the contract, that he did pull the permit, and that he was in violation of the law and had prostituted his license. His defense was, at that time, that he was hungry to get a big construction contract with Martin. Though after he pulled the permits his agreement was to work on the site for the rate of ten dollars per day with the supervisor, Mr. Haley, he was there only infrequently. Respondent now modifies the admissions made previously to Mr. Hundemann. He now states he was heavily involved with the construction project on a daily basis either in his office or on the construction site, not only as a contractor, but also as sales broker. While he admits what he did was in violation of the law and was foolish, he did not intend to break the law. Respondent's involvement with Ms. McClellan's project was not as contractor as indicated in the permit he pulled. He had very little contact with that project until Martin abandoned the project and left the area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's, Dominic D'Alexander's, license as a certified building contractor be suspended for one year, but that, upon the payment of a $500 administrative fine, the execution of the suspension be deferred for a period of three years, with provision for automatic recission. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dominic D'Alexander Post Office Box 4580 South Daytona, Florida 32021 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Ruben S. Ares was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number CG CO 14769. Sentinel Building Company of Central Florida, Inc. was engaged in the business of building residential homes for sale. It was the practice of Sentinel Building to buy the land, engage the services of a general contractor to obtain a building permit and help in the supervision and consultation on construction and sell the hones built to others. The contractors were paid a fee of between $250 and $500 per residence for obtaining permits and providing consultation and services. The Vice-President of Sentinel Building was responsible for hiring and paying subcontractors and suppliers. Sentinel Building was not a Florida licensed general contractor, nor was it qualified by respondent or other Florida registered or certified licensee to engage in the business or contracting in Florida. Respondent Ares was not an officer, stockholder, member of the board of directors or employee of Sentinel Building Company. In 1980, respondent entered into an agreement with Sentinel Building to act as the general contractor for the con- struction of at least four residences. His responsibilities were to supervise the construction of the hones and obtain all necessary permits, including the original building permit and the final certificate of occupancy. The responsibility for engaging subcontractors and ordering and purchasing materials and supplies remained with Sentinel Building Company. Respondent was paid a fixed fee of $350 per house. During the period of time in which four residences in Seminole County were constructed, respondent held another full time job with a building company for which he worked 43 to 44 hours per week. His activity with Sentinel Building consisted of obtaining permits and periodic checks on the construction work. According to respondent, his inspections on construction activity occurred once every three to ten days and consumed approximately too to four hours of respondent's time per week. In 1980 and 1981, respondent applied for and obtained building permits for four single-family residences in Delmar Estates, Seminole County. The applications and permits listed Sentinel Building as the owner of the property and respondent Ruben S. Ares as the contractor. At least one of the four homes was under a contract of sale prior to construction. Three of the four purchasers were under the impression that the homes were built by Sentinel Building. None of the three had ever met respondent Ares, nor were they aware that he was the general contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes, that an administrative fine in the amount of $1500 be imposed against respondent and that the remaining charges of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Aldo Icardi, Esquire P.O. Box 879 990 Lewis Drive Winter Park, Florida 32790 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, John Arena, was a certified residential contractor, the qualifying agent for Classic Industries, Inc. and held license number CR C021139 from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The President and sole owner of Classic was Anthony Manganelli. Mr. Manganelli was also the manager of Classic and the principal from whom Mr. Arena received his information about the contracts entered into by Classic. On or about July 30, 1988, someone contacted Ms. Solange Gaston of Hollywood, Florida, by telephone, and asked her if her roof needed repair. The solicitor represented himself as an associate of Classic and offered to come out and inspect her roof. Ms. Gaston, believing her roof was in disrepair, agreed to have the inspection completed and entered into a contract with Mr. Carlo Mangano, representing himself as an agent of Classic, to do the repair. With Ms. Gaston's agreement, the tile on her roof was replaced with shingle roofing and certain other repairs were attempted. A letter to Petitioner from the Chief Permit Processor of the City of Hollywood, Florida indicates that no roofing permit was issued for Ms. Gaston's address. The roof was leaking prior to the repair and continues to leak. Ms. Gaston paid the complete contract price of $3,500 to Classic, but has been unable to locate Mr. Mangano or to have her roof repair completed. In her attempts to achieve satisfaction, Ms. Gaston contacted Classic and asked to speak with someone in charge. She was under the impression that she was speaking with Mr. Arena; however, she never spoke to Mr. Arena. In fact, Mr. Arena was not aware of the contract with Ms. Gaston until the instant complaint was filed against him. Mr. Arena does not know Mr. Mangano. When Mr. Arena became aware of the problem, he attempted to contact Mr. Manganelli, but was told that Mr. Manganelli had moved. Ultimately, Mr. Arena located Mr. Manganelli at a new address. According to Mr. Arena, Mr. Manganelli produced a copy of what appeared to be a contract with Ms. Gaston which has the signature of Carlo Mangano on it, but it is marked indicating that Ms. Gaston's credit was turned down. Mr. Manganelli told Mr. Arena that Classic had not undertaken the job due to the refusal of credit. With that representation, Mr. Arena was under the impression that the work had not been done, as was the custom of dealing for Classic when credit was denied. The two papers purporting to be contracts, one which Ms. Gaston acknowledged as being the one which she signed and the other being the one which Mr. Arena obtained from Mr. Manganelli as the actual contract between Ms. Gaston and Classic through Mr. Mangano, appear to be altered. Although both documents contain the same information, including the date, parties, addresses, work to be completed and price quoted, the portion of the copy indicating the price is written in Arabic numerals on Mr. Arena's copy and by words on Ms. Gaston's copy. Mr. Arena's copy also has the indication that credit was turned down on it, although the cancelled checks paid to Classic by Ms. Gaston were received into evidence. It was Mr. Arena's arrangement with Mr. Manganelli that Mr. Arena was to be informed of every contract into which Classic entered. In this way, Mr. Arena knew which sites he was to supervise. Since he was not advised about the roofing job for Ms. Gaston, he made no attempt to supervise it and after he became aware that the credit for the job had been disallowed, he was under the reasonable impression that the job was not done by Classic. Further, he did not know Mr. Mangano, nor did he believe that Mr. Mangano had the authority to bind Classic. Mr. Arena believes that Mr. Mangano may have obtained a blank contract form of Classic and misrepresented himself to Ms. Gaston as an agent for Classic. Petitioner asserted, however, that Mr. Arena, nevertheless, was responsible for the job and that Classic did perform the job. Neither Mr. Manganelli nor Mr. Mangano were present or testified at the hearing. Given Mr. Arena's demeanor at the hearing and the conflicting and altered state of the alleged contract forms, Mr. Arena's testimony is deemed credible, and the proof failed to demonstrate clearly that Classic actually attempted to repair Ms. Gaston's roof or that Mr. Arena was responsible for the attempted repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this case against Respondent, John Arena. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June, 1990. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 341 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John D. Arena 5961 Southwest 13th Street Plantation, Florida 33317 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) preliminary award of funding to University Station I, LLC (“University Station”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Findings on Florida Housing and the RFA Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, and promotes public welfare by administering the financing of affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the State of Florida’s housing credit agency within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, Florida Housing is responsible for establishing procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. Florida Housing allocates housing credits and other funding via requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation methods identified in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing initiated the instant competitive solicitation by issuing the RFA on October 15, 2020, and anticipates awarding up to an estimated $88,959,045.00 in State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”)2 financing. The RFA set forth a process by which applications would be scored based, in part, on eligibility items. Only applications satisfying all of the eligibility items were eligible for funding and considered for selection. 2 Marissa Button, the Director of Multifamily Programs at Florida Housing, testified that the SAIL program finances the development of multifamily, affordable rental housing. The Florida Legislature traditionally appropriates money for the SAIL program via the State Housing Trust Fund. Site Control was an eligibility item because Florida Housing wants assurances that applicants selected for funding will be able to actually use the development sites.3 Applicants satisfy the Site Control requirement by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Site Control Certification Form (“the Site Control Form”). In order for the Site Control Form to be considered complete, an applicant had to attach documentation demonstrating that it: (a) was a party to an eligible contract or lease; or (b) owned the property in question. The RFA set forth specific requirements for contracts and leases used for demonstrating site control. For example, a contract had to satisfy all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021. It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant; and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or 3 Ms. Button explained that Site Control “is a component of how the applicant demonstrates its ability to proceed with the proposed development. And essentially it is the – the way that we require them to demonstrate they have control over the proposed development site.” As for why Site Control is important, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing wants “to be assured if the – the applicant is successful in its request for funding, that the – they will be able to actually use the development site.” conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The language quoted above indicates that the RFA was referring to a sales contract when it used the term “contract.” If an applicant used a lease to satisfy the Site Control requirement, then the RFA provided the following: (3) Lease – The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline and the lessee must be the Applicant. The owner of the subject property must be a party to the lease, or a party to one or more intermediate leases, subleases, agreements, or assignments, between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to lease the property for at least 50 years to the lessee. Marissa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that the RFA did not require a lease to have a commencement date. The RFA required that Site Control documentation for leases “include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” Ms. Button provided the following testimony about this requirement: A: Florida Housing includes the requirements for that documentation to – to essentially acknowledge that there are circumstances where there may be an intermediate contract or agreement that would demonstrate one of the criteria for those different types of site control and the requirements that we want to see that -- that chain back to the requirement itself. * * * Q: So Florida Housing considers this term to broadly include all different types of potential contract agreements, et cetera; correct? A: Yes. Q: Could you give me an example of an intermediate contract or agreement? A: Yes. An intermediate contract or agreement may be where – with regard to the [ ] contract, the terms require an owner of the subject property to be a seller of the subject property. And so there may be an applicant that has a contract with the seller of the property. And that seller might not be the actual owner; so there may be an intermediate contract that we need to see between the seller to the buyer and the actual owner of the subject property. Q: And that situation that you just described, that happened in the past few years; correct? A: I can think of one example where that happened, yes. Q: Okay. And in that case Florida Housing agreed that the intermediate agreement was necessary to include with the site documentation; correct? A: Florida Housing reviewed – yes. That – Florida Housing’s position was there was an intermediate agreement necessary because the site control documentation provided did not include the owner of the subject property. As for Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, the RFA provided as follows: Note: [Florida Housing] will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, [Florida Housing] will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. [Florida Housing] has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, [Florida Housing] may rescind the award. When questioned about Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, Ms. Button offered the following testimony: Q: If you look at the next page, Page 48, at the end of Subsection A there’s a note. It says Florida Housing will not review the site control during the scoring process. It will not evaluate the authority or enforceability of such documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: But even though Florida Housing does not review the site documentation during scoring, it will review the documentation during the bid protest; correct? A: Yes as it relates to the RFA requirements. * * * Q: If the documents attached to a site control documentation [do] not meet the RFA criteria, then that site control certification form would be incorrect; right? A: Yes. Q: And the applicant would be found ineligible; correct? A: Yes. The RFA and Ms. Button’s testimony indicate that Florida Housing intended, under most circumstances, to accept the representations set forth in an applicant’s Site Control documentation during the scoring process. In other words, Florida Housing did not go behind the Site Control documentation to verify the representations therein. The terms of the RFA were not challenged. Stipulated Facts Pertaining to Certain Parties Douglas Gardens and Florida Housing agree that Douglas Gardens’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. Quiet Meadows and Florida Housing agree that Quiet Meadows’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. MHP and Florida Housing agree that MHP’s Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA.4 MHP, Quiet Meadows, and Douglas Gardens agree that Fulham Terrace’s application remains eligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows and Florida Housing agree that the Willows Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows agrees that the HTG Astoria Application is eligible for funding via the RFA. 4 MHP, Florida Housing, Quiet Meadows, Douglas Gardens, and Fulham Terrace entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation on March 26, 2021, that was entered into evidence as Fern Grove Exhibit 1. SoMi Parc, Vista, and Florida Housing agree that the SoMi Parc Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. SoMi Parc has accepted an invitation to enter credit underwriting for the same Development in RFA 2020-203 and thus cannot be funding via the RFA. Findings Regarding the Applications of University Station and Vista Florida Housing received 90 applications in response to the RFA. Those applications were processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA. On January 22, 2021, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 17 applicants, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. University Station was one of the 17 successful applicants, and University Station’s Site Control documentation included: (a) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Hollywood, Florida (“the City”), and University Station (“the University Station I Lease”); (b) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD (“the University Station II Lease”); and (c) an Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement assigning University Station II, LTD’s interests in the Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD to University Station.5 The University Station I Lease described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the closing date of Tenant’s construction financing for the development of the Phase I Project (the “Construction Financing”), but in no event later 5 The Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement between University Station and University Station II was a relevant intermediate document for demonstrating Site Control. than June 30, 2022. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this Lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the later of the closing date of Tenant’s construction loan for the development of the Project (the “Construction Loan”) and the termination of the lease of the premises to Barry University, but in no event later than June 30, 2023. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the leased premises are currently improved with an educational facility and adjacent ground parking that is leased to Barry University through November 23, 2021 and the Landlord may enter into an additional one-year extension of the lease to Barry University at Landlord’s sole discretion. Until the Commencement Date, Landlord, or its tenant, shall be solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of the leased premises and any uses on the Leased Premises. University Station’s proposed Development site consists of five Scattered Sites. Barry University currently leases a building and parking spaces located on the Scattered Site described as latitude and longitude coordinates of 26.014703, -80.148572 in Question 5.d.2 of the University Station Application. This is the site described in the University Station II Lease. The City and Barry University, Inc., are the parties to the Barry University Lease (“the Barry University Lease”). The Barry University Lease was executed on May 23, 2011, with a term of 10 and one-half years, which would expire on approximately November 23, 2021. With regard to its term, the Barry University Lease states that “[t]he term of this lease shall be for ten and one-half (10 ½) years commencing upon the execution of this lease. The parties will have the mutual option to renew this lease subject to City Commission and the Lessee’s Board of Directors approval.” A copy of the Barry University Lease was not included in University Station’s application. In contrast to the statement in the University Station II Lease that the Barry University Lease could be extended by “an additional one-year extension” at the City’s “sole discretion,” the Barry University Lease simply says that the parties have a “mutual option to renew” with no mention of a particular term. Ms. Button provided the following testimony regarding the Barry University Lease: Q: And you are aware that University Station did not submit the Barry University lease as part of its site control documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: And does the existence of that Barry University lease change your position on whether University Station met the requirements in the RFA for a lease? A: No. Q: And why not? A: Because the documents submitted with the application meet the terms of the RFA for a lease site control documentation. Q: Did the existence of the Barry University lease impact whether or not the University Station site control documentation met the requirements for a lease? A: No. Q: As Florida Housing’s corporate representative, what is your position regarding University Station’s application? A: It is eligible for funding. Vista also applied for funding from the RFA. Florida Housing determined that Vista was eligible for funding, but Florida Housing did not preliminarily select Vista for funding. If University Station is deemed ineligible for funding, then Vista will be selected for funding subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. Ultimate Findings Vista has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that Florida Housing’s proposed award to University Station was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Also, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that: (a) Florida Housing’s proposed action is not contrary to the RFA’s terms; and that (b) University Station will have control over the site in question. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the University Station Lease I Lease, the University Stations II Lease, and the assignment of University Station II’s interest to University Station collectively satisfied the RFA’s requirements because: (a) there is unexpired term of at least 50 years after the application deadline; (b) University Station, i.e., the lessee, was the applicant for funding; and (c) the City, as the owner of the subject property, was a party to the lease. Upon considering Florida Housing’s preliminary approval of University Station’s application without the benefit of reviewing the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Florida Housing was not clearly erroneous when it determined that the Barry University Lease was not a relevant intermediate lease within the meaning of the RFA. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II requires the lease to begin no later than June 30, 2023. Also, the City and University Station II acknowledge that Barry University’s Lease runs through November 23, 2021, and they agree that the City may extend Barry University’s lease by “an additional one-year.” Accordingly, the Barry University Lease will end prior to June 30, 2023, and University Station will have site control no later than that date. In other words, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. The analysis set forth above does not change if one considers the Barry University Lease.6 Even though the Barry University Lease does not limit a renewal to one year, the lease cannot be renewed without the City’s assent, and the City agreed in the University Station II Lease that any renewal would not exceed one year. Therefore, even if one considers the terms of the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that it is a relevant intermediate document that was required to be included with University Station’s application. Again, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. 6 As will be explained in more detail in the Conclusions of Law below, “[n]ew evidence cannot be offered to amend or supplement a party’s response or application. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. However, new evidence may be offered in a competitive protest proceeding to prove that there was an error in another party’s application. Intercontinental Props., supra.” Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 14-1361BID, ¶ 116 (Fla. DOAH June 10, 2014; Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp. June 13, 2014).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: awarding funding to University Station I, LLC, via Request for Application 2020-205 subject to credit underwriting; and (b) finding that the applications submitted by Douglas Gardens IV, Ltd., MHP FL VIII, LLLP, Quiet Meadows, Ltd, RST The Willows, LP, and Residences at SoMi Parc, LLC are ineligible for funding via Request for Application 2020-205. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marc Ito, Esquire Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2021. Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Hall, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Wharton, Esquire Dean Mead and Dunbar Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Ryan Russell, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact In General: Respondent is, and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, a certified general contractor, having been issued license no. CG C016774 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the Administrative Complaint was Stephen Karlan licensed, registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. As to Counts I--III: There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to tie any participation by Stephen Karlan to any event at the Reyes' home (Administrative Complaint Counts I--III). Mrs. Carolyn Reyes is the wife of Augustin Reyes, both of whom have resided at 9355 Southwest 180th Street, Miami, Florida, for approximately 12 years. They first met with Respondent Gomez sometime in July of 1983, and after a series of discussions concerning the work which the Reyes' desired, their budget restrictions, and charges proposed by Respondent, a contract was prepared by Respondent on Respondent's stationery. (P-3) The contracted work included: completely remodeling the kitchen and living room; the installation of central air conditioning and heating; the construction of a swimming pool; and the construction of a covered patio. The Reyes provided Respondent with a check in the amount of $4,227.40, representing a twenty percent down payment on the contract price of $24,237.00. Although signed by Mr. Reyes, who did not testify, Mr. Reyes' signature was identified by Mrs. Reyes on the contract and on the September 20, 1983 check. She was present at the execution of the contract and tendering of the check on the Reyes' joint bank account to Respondent Reyes on September 20, 1983. Existence of this contract and its terms is not disputed by Respondent. Subsequently, approximately $3,100.00 was deducted from the total contract price by way of a change order. This amount represented the cost of installing a roof over the patio and brought the new contract price to $21,137.00. (P-3 and P-6) A change order, prepared by Respondent, and signed by Mrs. Reyes, was agreed to approximately October 18, 1983, for installation of more expensive bronze-tone sliding glass doors in the family room and $250.00 was paid additionally by the Reyes. From September through November, 1983, Respondent performed construction work at the Reyes' residence. Under the terms of the contract, the Reyes provided Respondent with the following amounts, mostly by checks drawn on their joint account and issued over Mrs. Reyes' signature. DATES AMOUNTS September 20, 1983 $ 4,227.40 (20 percent down payment) October 5, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (installation of kitchen cabinets) October 13, 1983 $ 3,170.55 (pool framing inspection) October 24, 1983 $ 250.00 (change order--glass doors) October 25, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (air conditioning equipment) October 28, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool gunnited) November 3, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (kitchen remodeling) November 4, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (plumbing payment) November 21, 1983 $ 2,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 23, 1983 $ 1,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 28, 1983 $ 982.00 December 6, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool decking) $21,211.50 TOTAL (P-6) All of these checks were cashed by Respondent. During October and November, 1983, work was localized in the kitchen. Mrs. Reyes recalled not being able to use her kitchen for Thanksgiving, 1983. Except for recurring problems of improperly installed tiles, cabinets and appliances, related infra., Respondent completed the bulk of the kitchen remodeling in early December, 1983. Also in early December, 1983, the swimming pool was dug and gunnite was sprayed for the pool. Gunnite is a base of a spray used for installing the concrete bottom of a swimming pool prior to installing further marble-type finishing material, tile, and accouterments. In this same time period, the overhang above the anticipated patio was torn off the existing house by Respondent with the apparent goal of tying the existing roof beams into the new roof. After December 6, 1983, Respondent failed to perform any actual construction at the Reyes' residence until May, 1984. 2/ His crew only worked there one day in December of 1983. Approximately December 20, renegotiation of pool costs and kitchen tile costs were indulged-in by the the participants. The final result was that the Reyes would pay $80.00 more for kitchen tiles and $106.00 more for pool tiles and would be permitted by Respondent to deduct $246.00 from the total owed on the contract to him. Mrs. Reyes purchased the pool materials and paid cash for them rather than turning over any monies to Respondent but she stored them on her property so that the work could go forward. Respondent testified that shortly before that point in time, he realized that he had underestimated the cost of doing the Reyes' job by $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 and attempted to explain to them that having received approximately 90 percent of the contract price, but having not completed that much of the work contracted-for, he would have to do the work as he was able between other jobs in order to stay afloat financially. Respondent's proposal was not initially acceptable to the Reyes and they hired a lawyer who thereafter prohibited Respondent making direct contact with the Reyes. At that time, the following items remained to be completed at the Reyes' residence. The pool tile had not been installed; the pool equipment had not been purchased or installed; the living room windows had not been installed; and the patio roof had not been completed. There were also numerous problems with the quality of the workmanship of the completed items. The kitchen cabinets and the dishwasher were both initially improperly installed. As a result of the Reyes complaining to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, one of that agency's code enforcement officers, John Delaney, inspected the Reyes' home on April 20, 1984. At that time, Mr. Delaney noted all of the items listed in Paragraph 8 as needing completion and also noted that the patio roof overhang was still exposed to the elements and that the air conditioning unit was only balanced on a concrete slab. Mr. Delaney estimated that at that time the contract work was approximately 55 percent to 60 percent complete. Upon investigation and a record search, Mr. Delaney determined that Respondent had obtained an approved building permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the open beamed porch. (P-13) The building permit did not specify installation of the pool's piping. Likewise the building permit did not specify that Respondent might perform the interior remodeling work. This permit which Respondent did obtain lists, and Respondent's signature acknowledges, that Respondent knew that "unless specifically covered by this permit" separate permits must also be obtained for electrical, plumbing, roofing, and paving and pool, among other items. Upon concluding his investigation, Mr. Delaney felt sufficient evidence existed to charge Respondent with violation of Section 10-22 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code and forwarded his investigative report to the official for the appropriate unincorporated municipality. This report indicates that Respondent also pulled permits for mechanical air conditioning and heating and an electrical permit for the swimming pool. To Mr. Delaney's knowledge, no charges were ever filed by that official against Respondent. 3/ Mr. Delaney conceded that a state certified general contractor such as Respondent can legitimately do pool piping and that the only failure of Respondent was in not pulling the county permit. He indicated that the kitchen work in the Reyes' home would require a special permit because there is electrical and plumbing work in replacing old appliances with new. However, as to the kitchen cabinets he felt it would be permissible for either the general contractor to pull a general permit or for a subcontractor to pull a specialty cabinet permit. By questions on cross-examination of Mr. Delaney, Respondent asserted that no electrical work was done, no switches were moved and his only work was replacement of kitchen cabinets, floor, and acoustical tile but this is in the form of his questions and not sworn testimony. Respondent eventually came back to the Reyes job. He finished the pool in July, 1984. He finished the open beamed roof in October 1984. Respondent's carpenters or subcontracting cabinetmakers Carlos and Hector eventually fixed a kitchen door drawer Mrs. Reyes had complained about. (It was never established what these workers' status was/is.) Despite her general dissatisfaction with the tiles in her kitchen, despite a chipped sink, and despite personally having to explain to the plumber (again the tile setter and plumber's contract or employment relationship with Respondent is unclear) how to install the dishwasher, Mrs. Reyes currently feels 95 percent of the contract work has been completed by Respondent. 4/ She acknowledged that Respondent has provided additional bronze fixtures in her family room by way of mitigation. As to Counts IV--VII: In March, 1982, June Mildred Cooper contracted with one Steve Karlan for the construction of a bathroom addition on a residence located at 4835 Westwood Lakes Drive, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $6,700.00. Steve Karlan is not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. See supra. All oral representations made by Karlan to Mrs. Cooper are total hearsay and excludable, but it is clear that Respondent was never mentioned or otherwise identified during the contract negotiation of Cooper and Karlan. Cooper submitted contract payments directly to Karlan and never paid anything to Respondent. Cooper found Respondent on the job one day and thinks he said something to her like, "I'm the boss," but her memory of the exact language, if any, is vague. Cooper was admittedly not on the premises most of the time the construction was in progress because she repeatedly visited her other residence in Indianapolis for several months at a time. Respondent admits he was approached by Steve Karlan to give an estimate for the bathroom job and they thereafter agreed that Respondent should do the work. Respondent admits Karlan later gave him a piece of paper, probably a tax assessment, showing June Cooper's name as the owner, which Respondent used as the basis for filling out the building permit application which he applied for and received covering the portion of the construction work he did at her Florida residence. At the conclusion of his job, Respondent also executed a waiver-of- mechanic-lien affidavit which did not specify any owner and gave it to Karlan. Gomez never inquired into the relationship between Karlan and Cooper and just assumed Karlan was a relative, probably a son, living at the same address, and initially assumed Karlan had authority to authorize the work because Karlan opened the door to him the first time Respondent came to do the requested estimate. At the time Karlan opened the door to Respondent, some construction was already in progress in the house. Respondent represents that this scenario of obtaining a construction job is so customary in the trade that he never questioned Karlan's statement until Mrs. Cooper ultimately complained about the construction after completion. He recalls meeting her at the house twice during construction, but does not think he told her he was the boss. In mitigation, he represents that he made good on Mrs. Cooper's complaints. Respondent admits he later entered a contract with Steve Karlan as a "salesman" after satisfying Mrs. Cooper but that contract had nothing to do with the Cooper job.
Recommendation Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay a penalty of $1,000.00 and monitoring his license for one year in a probationary status. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 18th day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by obtaining licensure by fraud or misrepresentation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure of certified general contractors. The Respondent Lawrence I. Paul, III, ("Respondent") is a licensed general contractor, holding State of Florida licenses GC C046485 and CG CA46485. On or about December 12, 1988, the Respondent submitted his application to the Department of Professional Regulation seeking leave to take the examination for certification as a general contractor. The Respondent subsequently took and passed the certified general contractors examination. In his application, the Respondent states that he is qualified to take the examination by virtue of having four years of proven experience as a workman or foreman of which at least one year was as a foreman. On the experience verification form submitted to the DPR as part of his application the Respondent states that from January, 1977 to January, 1980, he had been employed as a construction workman and that from January 1980 to January 1981 he had been employed as a construction foreman. The application includes an experience verification form executed by the Respondent and Paula Wisnik, a New York licensed architect. The form indicates that the Respondent had experience in steel erection form work, masonry walls, concrete slabs, footings, site work, excavation, rebar, trusses, and floor and ceiling joists, in single family residences, strip stores and high rise condominiums ten stories and higher. The experience verification form executed by Ms. Wisnik and the Respondent states as follows: I have read the CANDIDATE INFORMATION BOOKLET and reviewed the experience requirements and understand that any false information provided on this form may subject the person(s) signing below to disciplinary action and possible loss of license. I understand that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE does NOT mean that I am relying on a statement from the applicant that he has met the requirements. Ms. Wisnik has no direct knowledge of the Applicant's experience or of the applicant personally. Her knowledge was based upon information provided to her by Peter Wendt, another licensed architect. The Respondent originally sought to have Mr. Wendt complete the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt forwarded the form to Ms. Wisnik and she subsequently signed the document. Mr. Wendt has no direct personal knowledge of the Respondent's experience as set forth on the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt did not meet the Respondent until the Respondent's move to Florida, which occurred subsequent to the period of employment identified in the application. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that at the time the application was completed, the Respondent did not have the claimed four years of proven experience as construction worker or foreman. The Respondent's application states that first he became employed in the construction trade in January, 1977. In fact, he became employed full time in late December, 1978, with Paul Brothers, Inc., a family owned fire restoration business in Philadelphia. He worked primarily as a salesman and estimator with Paul Brothers until June, 1982, a period of approximately three and one-half years. Although there were periods when the Respondent worked on- site, it was not his primary responsibility throughout the employment period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order revoking the licensure of Lawrence I. Paul, III, as a certified general contractor, license numbers GC C046485 and CG CA46485. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0193 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. The proposed finding is modified to reflect that the Respondent did not hold the licenses prior to examination. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, illogical and unsupported by evidence. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert G. Harris, Esq. Senior Attorney Dept. of Professional Regulation 2295 Victoria Avenue #263 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Timothy J. Murty, Esq. 1633 Periwinkle Way, Suite A Sanibel, Florida 33957 Wellington H. Meffert, II Chief Construction Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
