Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Sam Pollack, held certified air-conditioning contractor license number CA-C008663 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed by the Board for approximately sixteen years. Respondent used his license with and was qualifying agent for a firm known as Dr. Cool's Clinic, Inc. located at 10662 Southwest 186th Lane, Miami, Florida. Around April 1, 1986 Steven and Beverlee Swerdlen moved into a 1,400 square foot prefabricated modular home at 19800 Southwest 180th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The home is located in a large modular home subdivision known as Redland. Although a modular home resembles a mobile home in certain respects, it is considered to be a fixed, permanent residential dwelling under local building codes. The home had previously been a model unit in the subdivision and had never been lived in since being built at least three years earlier. On April 3, 1986 respondent entered into a contract with Steven Swerdlen to install a Rheem four-ton air conditioning unit at Swerdlen's home. The contract called for a total price of $2152.50. The Swerdlens paid for the job in full the same day by credit card. Because Swerdlen's home had the ductwork and twenty outlets already in place, Pollack was to adapt the unit to the existing ductwork. Respondent's firm was selected over other firms because Mrs. Swerdlen was impressed with Pollack's advertisement which represented that Pollack provided "air conditioning designed and serviced for people with allergies and other respiratory problems." This was important to her since she suffers a heart condition and requires air-conditioning during warm weather. She also accepted respondent's oral representations that he had the experience and expertise to satisfy her needs. The ductwork in the home was accessible through a small crawlspace located under the floor. There were also two vents under the floor to prevent a buildup of moisture. The flooring in the home was made of particle board and was sealed with a vapor barrier which was designed to protect it from moisture damage. When the Swerdlens purchased their home, the vapor barrier was already cracked in several places and, coupled with the fact that the area had only two vents, the floor was susceptible to moisture damage. Before a central air-conditioning unit is installed, a prudent and competent air-conditioning contractor should take measurements of the home, perform heat loss calculations and inspect the existing ductwork to insure that the proper size unit is being installed. The evidence is sharply conflicting as to what steps, if any, were undertaken by respondent when he visited the Swerdlen home on April 3 to discuss the job. It is found, however, that Pollack made a visual inspection of the home but did not take formal measurements or make heat loss calculations. He inspected the ductwork to the extent he looked under the house through the crawlspace opening. He noted a potential problem with the vapor barrier and a supply duct hookup location that was blocked by a pier (support). He mentioned to Mrs. Swerdlen that she needed additional ventilation windows underneath the home and that she had a potential moisture problem with the vapor barrier. However, he did not suggest that she wait and have those matters corrected before he installed the unit. The unit was installed on April 7, 1986, or four days after the contract was signed. Besides respondent and a helper, Mrs. Swerdlen was the only person present. No electricians were called in to assist on the job. According to Pollack, the only electrical work that he performed was the installation of the thermostat unit in the closet under the fuse box and the internal electrical connections to the unit. As to this latter work, Pollack stated he did not believe an electrical license was needed to connect the terminal wires to the air-conditioning unit. He did not obtain a building permit from the county nor did he request an inspection of his work. Both were required by county regulations. Because the supply duct hookup was blocked by a pier, Pollack was forced to place a three or four foot high supply duct in a bedroom closet. Without advising the Swerdlens as to the extent or nature of modifications needed to bypass the pier, Pollack cut a large, unsightly hole in the closet floor. It was also necessary to penetrate the vapor barrier when the hole was cut. The cut was never resealed. The new duct took up much of the closet space and was vulnerable to puncture damage. A photograph of the supply duct is found in petitioner's exhibit 14. After the work was completed, Pollack did not advise the Swerdlens that the vapor barrier had been broken or that it needed to be resealed to avoid moisture damage to their floor. The power source to the air-conditioning unit was a 10-gauge wire. Since the unit required a larger gauge, it was necessary that an 8-gauge wire be installed. Pollack and his helper left for one and one-half hours at lunch during the day of installation, and Pollack claims the wire was changed by someone during the time he was gone. The Swerdlens contended they knew nothing about electrical wiring and could not perform the task themselves. Their testimony is accepted as being more credible and it is found that Pollack, even though he was not licensed as an electrician, changed the electrical power source wiring. In addition, Pollack did all other electrical work required for the installation of the unit. In doing so, he made no provision for overload, left exposed wiring in the closet by the thermostat and failed to provide a service disconnection switch for the unit inside the home. Until these deficiencies were corrected several months later, the Swerdlens could smell a burning odor in their home. According to industry standards and local building code requirements, the unit should have been placed on a concrete slab. However, Pollack used two sets of concrete runners obtained from the unit manufacturer. He justified this on the ground that many other homes in the same subdivision did not have slabs under their units. Even so, this did not justify a deviation from code requirements. Because a slab was not used, the unit sank into the ground after the first rainfall. Pollack eventually installed a cement slab in November, 1986 after being ordered to do so by local building officials. The Swerdlens' floors began to buckle and ripple within a short time after the unit was installed. It began in the bathroom directly above the area where Pollack had penetrated the vapor barrier to install the supply duct and was exacerbated by the closure of one of the two vents under the floor when Pollack installed the unit. The damaged floor is memorialized in photographs received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 14. Mrs. Swerdlen contacted respondent after the above problems began to occur. Other than adjusting the thermostat to get better cooling, Pollack did nothing since he did not think he was responsible for the other problems. He offered to make the other changes for additional compensation and if the Swerdlens would agree to release him from all liability. After declining Pollack's offer, Mrs. Swerdlen had other persons or companies make the needed repairs. Most of the costs were paid by her insurance company. She also contacted the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Department) and the Board. The Department learned that no permit had been obtained by Pollack even though one was required and that no inspections had been made during and after the work. Pollack obtained an after-the-fact permit on November 24, 1986, after paying a double fee and a $100 violation fee for failing to timely obtain the permit. After being contacted by Mrs. Swerdlen, a Department mechanical inspector made an inspection of the Swerdlens' home on November 24, 1986. He found several violations of the local building code including (a) a failure to obtain a permit and have required inspections made, and (b) improper electrical work. A summons was issued against Pollack for these violations. The disposition of the summons is not of record. The inspector also noted that the vapor barrier around the closet supply duct had not been resealed, that the flooring was warped above the cut and that the unit was not on a concrete slab. Although the inspector suggested that Pollack correct these deficiencies, only the latter deficiency was corrected. The work never passed final inspection. The Board employed a Jacksonville residential contractor as its expert in this case. Although the expert did not personally inspect the property, he reviewed photographs of the site, respondent's deposition and the investigative file and spoke with the Swerdlens by telephone. According to the Board's expert, Pollack was guilty of gross negligence by performing work that exceeded the scope of his license, performing potentially hazardous electrical wiring, installing a non-efficient system in the Swerdlens' home, failing to follow accepted industry rules concerning static friction, velocities, noise levels and filtration, failing to properly inspect the home prior to installation, improperly installing the unit, damaging the vapor barrier, installing a large supply duct in the closet without obtaining the Swerdlens' approval and failing to use a cement slab to support a heavy unit. He further opined that respondent was deceitful by selling the system in the manner that he did, particularly since it was sold and installed within a four day period with no thought given to or preparation taken as to the problems that might be encountered. The expert agreed that the work was made more difficult by the position of the pier but stated that Pollack should have explained this problem to the Swerdlens and obtained their approval prior to cutting through their closet floor. Pollack has worked in the air-conditioning business for around 26 or 27 years, of which two were spent as a building inspector for Dade County in the late 1960s. He contended he warned Mrs. Swerdlen about the penetrated vapor barrier, the blocked air duct and the lack of a sufficient number of vents. Pollack also stated he advised Mrs. Swerdlen it was her responsibility to get an electrician to do all electrical work. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Moreover, if there were special problems with the Swerdlens' home, it was respondent's responsibility to design and install a system that was compatible with those special needs. Pollack asserted that the Swerdlens' home was actually a mobile home, and he was under the impression that permits were not required for work on this type of home. However, this contention is irrelevant since Dade County has required permits for air conditioning work on both fixed and mobile homes for at least the last ten years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), that he pay a $3,000 civil fine within thirty days from date of a Final Order in this cause, and that his license be suspended for thirty days, or until the fine is paid if after the expiration of said thirty day period. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of June, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is be Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is John Anthony Fantasia, at all times pertinent to these proceedings holder of certified air conditioning contractor license number CA-C024378 and qualifying agent for Fantasia Air Conditioning Refrigeration Appliance Service. Nat Weintraub contracted with Respondent on or about June 25, 1986. Under terms of the contract, Weintraub gave Respondent a $2,500 down payment to have a central air conditioning system installed in the Weintraub home. Weintraub paid Respondent an additional $1,250 when the central air conditioning unit was delivered on or about July 1, 1986. A third and final payment of $1,250 due upon completion of the work set forth in the contract has not been made by Weintraub dub to difficulties he has encountered with the Respondent concerning the quality of work on the project. While he timely commenced work shortly after delivery of the central air unit and receipt of two monetary payments from Weintraub, Respondent damaged a screen covering an opening in an overhanging eave to the Weintraub's flat roofed house. This occurred when he inserted equipment into the opening of the eave in order to place additional insulation between the roof and the ceiling of the home. Weintraub later paid someone else $52 to repair the damage. Respondent made an opening in the roof through which he placed a ventilation pipe. The opening was too large and emitted daylight around the pipe into the closet where the air conditioning unit was installed. As a result, rainwater accumulated in the closet. Weintraub later paid repair costs of $185 to another contractor to seal the opening around the pipe and replace the closet door. While repair of the opening was not a part of the written contract, the Respondent had orally promised to make this correction. A noise problem associated with overly small grillwork on the main air outlet to the air conditioning unit was fixed by another contractor at a cost of $236 to Weintraub. Dry wall covering a soffit containing duct work in the Weintraub living room was not properly finished off. Weintraub has received estimates leading him to believe correction of this deficiency will cost him approximately $510 in repairs. During installation of the air conditioning unit, closure of an existing line supplying natural gas to a heat furnace was required. Respondent "pinched off" the line in an improper manner. Further, Respondent's license does not authorize him to engage in work on heating equipment gas lines. As a result of the manner in which Respondent installed the air conditioning unit, it is extremely inconvenient if not impossible to change the unit's air filters. The job at the Weintraub home was approximately eighty percent completed when the Respondent exhausted his supply of insulation. He left the job site at that time. Later he called Weintraub demanding additional funds. Weintraub refused to pay anything additional until, in accordance with the contract terms, the job was completed. Al Childress is an enforcement officer with the Metro-Dade County Building and Zoning Department. He went to the Weintraub home on December 3, 1986. He noted the air conditioning unit had been installed without a proper permit and issued a citation by certified mail to the Respondent. The Respondent subsequently paid a $50 civil penalty for the citation. William Huckstep was a mechanical inspector for the Metro-Dade County Building and Zoning Department when he was called to the Weintraub home on or about February 3, 1987. He observed the gas line which had been altered by the Respondent. Huckstep subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by certified mail to Respondent for performing such a task without a certificate of competency as required by the Dade County Building Code. On or about April 22, 1987, Huckstep issued a second notice of violation to Respondent for failure to have called for rough and final inspections of the air conditioner installation as required by the Dade County Building Code. To date, these inspections have not been performed by local authorities or requested by the Respondent. Considerably more than 90 days have elapsed since the fall of 1986 when Respondent left the Weintraub project, prior to its completion, without notification, and without just cause to depart. The improper installation of air conditioning equipment, insulation and duct work exhibited gross negligence by the Respondent in the performance of these tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this cause assessing the Respondent a fine of $1,500 and placing him on probation for a period of two years upon terms and conditions to be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 17th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5602 The following constitutes my specific ruling on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Those proposed findings consisted of 18 paragraphs. Only the first five paragraphs were numbered. Numbers 6 through 18 were applied to the remaining paragraphs by the Hearing Officer. Included in finding number 2. Included in finding number 3. Included in finding number 12. Included in finding number 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in part in findings numbered 3 and 4. Included in findings numbered 13 and 14. Included in findings numbered 6 and 9. Included in finding number 11. Included as to the soffit in finding number 8. The remainder is rejected. Included in finding number 11. Included in finding number 12. Included in findings numbered 11 and 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings numbered 5, 6, 7, and 8. Included in finding number 13, with the exception of Petitioner's dates which are reflective of the deadline given Respondent on the citations. Included in finding number 13. Included in finding number 14, with exception of hearsay relating to testimony of Bob Wolf which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John Anthony Fantasia 149-10 Northeast Eighth Avenue North Miami, Florida 33161 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Stephen G. Blume, the Respondent, is a state certified Class A contractor under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He holds license number CA C009753, and he is the qualifying agent for BCH Mechanical, Inc. (BCH), a Florida corporation, in which Blume is the principle stockholder. BCH is a mechanical contractor and concentrates its efforts in commercial construction work, particularly in shopping center construction. BCH subcontracts from owners or general contractors for the installation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning for individual establishments within shopping malls. Prior to February 18, 1983, the Respondent contracted with a general contractor for the Respondent to provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment to approximately 15 stores in the Aventura Mall in Dade County, Florida. The work was of a nature for which the Respondent and BCH were qualified to perform under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On February 18, 1983, the Respondent and his company contracted with Richard E. Hahn, doing business as Temp-Rite Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., to install air conditioning systems in spaces 128, 163, 645, and 677 at the Aventura Mall. See attachment to Respondent's Exhibit 1, and paragraph 3 of the administrative complaint. On February 23, 1983, the Respondent obtained building and mechanical permits to perform heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work on spaces 163, 645, 677, and 128 at the Aventura Mall. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The Respondent did not attempt to list the permits in the name of Hahn at the time of application or subsequently. Richard Hahn did not have a certificate of competency to do air conditioning construction work, and was not qualified in Dade County to obtain a permit to do that work himself. He also was not licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to perform this work. The Respondent selected Hahn by the following process. When he got to the mall, he contacted Robert Shaw Controls, the company that was doing work on the concourse air conditioning systems at the mall. Employees of Robert Shaw told the Respondent of three pipe fitting companies that were then doing work at the mall. All three gave the Respondent bids, and Respondent selected Hahn's company as low bidder. There is no evidence that Blume was a friend of Hahn prior to this contract. Respondent's company specializes in installation of air conditioning systems in shops in commercial malls. Respondent's company employs 30 to 40 people. Most of this is handled by his own employees, without subcontracts. Thus, for most of his work, there is no need for a licensed subcontractor. At the Aventura Mall project, the Respondent determined that he needed to hire a subcontractor affiliated with the pipefitters union for the work on first floor shops. The Respondent did not have a bargaining agreement with the pipefitters union, and thus could not call the Dade County pipefitters' hiring hall to hire a pipefitter as a temporary employee. Instead, Respondent had to subcontract the work to a pipe fitter union member. Respondent determined that he needed pipefitter union affiliation because that union was quite strong in Dade County, and use of nonunion members might have caused labor unrest at the mall work site. It was not to the economic advantage of the Respondent to subcontract the work to Hahn. It would have been more profitable to the Respondent to have followed his usual business practice of doing the air conditioning pipe fitting work using his own nonunion pipefitter employees. The Respondent asked Hahn if he was a licensed contractor for his work, whether he was a union pipe fitter, and whether he carried worker's compensation coverage. The Respondent was told by Hahn that he had a license, that he was a journeyman union pipe fitter, and that he did carry worker's compensation coverage. Following his past practice, the Respondent asked Hahn only for proof of his worker's compensation coverage. The Respondent did nothing to attempt to verify the truth of Hahn's assertion that he was a licensed contractor. The Respondent could have verified the existence of Hahn's license by either asking Hahn to show him his license card or by telephoning the license record officer in Dade County and asking that agency to verify Hahn's license. The Respondent did not do either of these things both of which were relatively easy to do. The Respondent had memorized his own contract license number. William Lessaris was employed by the Respondent and BCH Mechanical, Inc., to provide daily supervision of the project. Lessaris was at the job site daily. Other BCH employees were also on the job site. John D. Arition is Mechanical and Building Inspector and Plans Processor for far the Building and Zoning Department of Dade County, Florida. Arition was called by Lessaris to come to the job site to perform the air conditioning inspection. Arition did not tell BCH Mechanical, Inc., when he would arrive. When Arition arrived on the job site, Hahn was there. Arition asked Hahn for his license to do the work. Hahn told Arition that he did not have a license. Arition ordered Hahn to cease work. Hanh picked up his tools and left the job site. Arition then talked with Lessaris and told him about the problem with Hahn. The work was completed satisfactorily, without defects. Subsequently, Hahn was administratively charged with violating various provisions of Dade County construction law, was found to have committed six violations, was fined a total of $2,700 and had his personal certificate of competency suspended for one year. Blume was asked to appear at the hearing, but could not due to prior scheduled work. There is no evidence that Blume was given adequate notice of the date of the hearing, and it appears that he was given only short notice of the precise date. Blume was not subpoened to appear, and was not at fault in failing to appear. Blume voluntarily supplied Dade County with all documentary evidence requested.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order finding no violations as alleged, and dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 29th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Sizemore, Esquire Suite 838, Plaza On The Mall 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Salvatore Carprino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's motel license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a motel license, number 2200031. The motel is located at 4140 West Highway 90, Lake City, Florida. On June 9, 2003, and on June 16, 2003, a division inspector inspected the Respondent's motel premises and specifically inspected room 207. The inspector noted five alleged deficiencies on June 9, 2003. On June 16, 2003, the inspector noted that three of the five alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected, while two of the alleged deficiencies were corrected during the June 16, 2003, re-inspection. The three uncorrected alleged deficiencies consisted of exposed insulation around the air conditioning unit in room 207, food buildup present in the microwave in room 207, and heavy lint buildup present in the lint filter of the motel's commercial clothes dryer. The two alleged deficiencies corrected during the re-inspection were the use of an electrical extension cord and an unsecured electrical outlet cover. Room number 207 was available for rent and was rented to the public by the Respondent on May 31, 2003, and again on June 19, 2003. During the interim time and at the time of these inspections, the room was not rented because it was undergoing repairs. During this time, the room was being used primarily as a handyman workroom for ongoing repairs. Part of the repairs being done to room 207 was to replace the permanent air conditioning unit in that room. Because the air conditioning unit did not work, Respondent had temporarily installed a window air conditioning unit. The window air conditioning unit did not fit the window it was in, therefore, Respondent had placed insulation around the unit. The insulation was exposed. The insulation was not a furnishing supplied with the room but was a temporary part of the building’s window/wall system intended as a prelude to replacing the air conditioning unit. Since the insulation was not a furnishing, its exposure did not violate Rule 61C-3.001(5) that addresses the cleanliness of room furnishings such as drapes. An extension cord was being used to power the window air conditioning unit in room 207. Even though Respondent unhooked the extension cord during the re-inspection, the use of the extension cord to power the air conditioning unit was a fire hazard and violates Chapter 509. Additionally, one of the electrical outlet cover plates was attached, but was loose. However, it did function as a barrier. There was no evidence regarding the space requirements for an electrical outlet or how the outlet cover impacts that space other than as a barrier. The evidence did not show that a loose outlet cover violates NFPA 70,110.32 that deals with the space requirements around electrical equipment. Finally, the microwave in room 207 had old food buildup on its walls. The microwave is a furnishing and is required to be kept clean. Such food buildup does not meet the cleanliness requirements of Rule 61C-3.001(5). Outside of room 207, the inspector personally observed the lint buildup in the dryer. Petitioner does require that the dryer’s lint trap be cleaned once a day. However, either the trap had not been cleaned or the dryer had received heavier use on the days of the inspection. The lint is a flammable material and the dryer trap must be kept free of such flammables. The accumulation of the lint was a fire hazard and is a violation of Rule 61C-1.004(7).
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty for violating Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kana Baleswaran, pro se Piney Woods Lodge 4140 West Highway 90 Lake City, Florida 32055 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Scott Eric Baker ("Petitioner"), took the Certified Air Conditioning Class A Contractor examination in June 1991. The examination consists of two parts, Part One on business and financial management, and Part Two on actual air conditioning system mechanics. The Petitioner informally challenged the scoring of certain questions and received additional points but his total score of 68% was below the minimum passing score of 69.01%. Part One, Question 6 of the June 1991 directs the applicant to estimate the cost of refrigeration piping and related hardware shown in a related schematic. The schematic illustrates proposed refrigerant piping between a 15 ton air-cooled condensing unit and an air handler unit. Pipe joint connections are identified by standard symbols. The question states as follows: Refer to the Refrigeration System shown in Figure 1. Estimate the cost of the Refrigeration Piping. Add 6% Florida State Sales Tax to the total cost. The multiple choice list of possible answers to the question are: Less than $500.00. (B) Between $500.00 and $600.00 (C) Between $600.01 and $700.00 (D) More than $700.00 The pipe joint segments identified by the symbols on the schematic are 90-degree elbow joints. Elbow joints can connect pipe segments which have different elevations. Elbow joints can also be connected to construct a "swing joint" which provides for pipe alignment. Swing joints do not change the elevation between the pipe segments connected at the joint. According to the schematic, the first pipe segments, (two feet two inch pipes), run from the air-cooled condensing unit to a joint. The schematic does not identify the elevation of the air-cooled condensing unit or of the first pipe segments. The second pipe segments lie at an elevation of 104 feet 4 inches and connect via a pipe joint to the third pipe segments, which lie at an elevation of 104 feet 0 inches. The third segments connect via a pipe joint to the fourth pipe segments which are at an elevation of 103 feet 8 inches. The fourth segments connect to the pipe segments leading from the air handling unit (AHU 1). The correct answer to Question 6 is (B). The total cost for piping and hardware shown on the schematic is approximately $557. There are 83.3333 lineal feet of 1 and 3/8 inch diameter pipe at $3.96 per lineal foot, totaling about $330.00. There are 75.7527 lineal feet of 7/8 inch diameter pipe at $2.35 per lineal foot, totaling about $178.02. There are fourteen 90-degree elbows, (seven 1 and 3/8 inch elbows at 1.71 each and seven 7/8 inch elbows at .79 each) totaling 17.50. The total of materials is 525.52. Inclusion of the 6% tax results in an estimated cost of $557.05. Because there was no elevation shown for the first pipe segment between the condenser unit and the pipe joint, the Petitioner assumed that the pipe joint symbol indicated an elevation change and that the condenser unit could be located substantially above or below the identified 104 feet 0 inches elevation of the second segment. Accordingly, his answer to Question 6 was "(D) More than $700.00." The Petitioner's answer is based, not on the information provided in the schematic, but on unreasonable assumptions as to the condenser unit location, and is incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing Scott Eric Baker's challenge to the grading of his responses to the June 1991 examination for licensure as a Certified Air Conditioning Class A Contractor. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 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 29th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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: 4. Rejected, unnecessary. 10-14. Rejected, recitation of testimony. Respondent The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. Copies furnished to: 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 Scott Eric Baker 13438 Caribbean Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33095 Vytas J. Urba, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession and the licensing of real estate professionals within this state. Respondent was licensed as a real estate sales person and employed as such in association with Today Real Estate, Inc., a real estate corporation trading as Re/Max Today, located at 2451-1 McMullen Booth Road in Clearwater, Florida. On July 16, 1997, James E. Brown and his wife submitted an offer to purchase a house located at 9813 Palmer Drive in New Port Richey. The offer was submitted by the Browns through their real estate agent, Nancy Riley, to the sellers who were represented by Respondent. As a part of the sales package, a home inspection report was completed on July 21, 1997, which indicated that the "air conditioning does not appear to be cooling enough." Thereafter, Respondent contacted Alvarez/Taylor, a plumbing and air conditioning company, to examine the unit and a representative of that company, William Taylor, went to the property on July 25, 1997, to inspect the unit. When he arrived, he found no one there and the house locked. He contacted his dispatcher who advised him to wait, and within a few minutes, Ms. Riley showed up. She let him in the house to do the inspection. The unit was low on freon, but the big problem with the unit that Taylor found was that it was old -- about 13 years old -- and at that age, he contends, units usually lose freon. He made an oral report to Ms. Riley who authorized him in writing to do whatever work was necessary on the unit to get it working properly. He installed the freon but that did not completely correct the problem. He advised Ms. Riley that he felt the unit should be replaced because of its age. She did not seem concerned about it, but she did not authorize the repairman to replace it. When he had done what he could do, short of replacing the unit, she again signed the work order, indicating the work had been done, and he gave her the pink copy of the form. This form showed his recommendation that the unit be replaced. According to Respondent, Ms. Riley called her after the air conditioner repairman had been at the house. She said the unit was working but was an older unit and somewhere down the line would have to be replaced. Respondent also claims that Ms. Riley told her she, Ms. Riley, had called Mrs. Brown and read her the report, and the Browns "were OK with it." Respondent did not see the repairman's report until July 28, 1997. At that time, she verified the repair charge of $140.00, and when she saw the recommendation for replacement on the form, she was upset by it. Respondent claims she had not been told by Ms. Riley that there was a recommendation for replacement, and she wanted to investigate the matter. She called Ms. Riley and left a message that she wanted to talk about it, and, on the recommendation of her own air conditioning repair firm, also called Alvarez/Taylor to ask for details on the recommendation for replacement. The repairman was not available, and she was unable to speak with anyone who was aware of the problem. All she was told was that the unit was old, would need constant repair, and should be replaced. When she asked to speak with the owner, he refused to speak with her. After several unsuccessful attempts to get information from Alvarez/Taylor, still on July 28, 1997, Respondent called Ms. Riley again and was told, she claims, that the situation was not so bad and the replacement recommendation was not immediate; that the Browns knew of the situation and were OK with it; and that the Browns hoped to get another year use out of the existing unit. Respondent claims she told Ms. Riley at that time she intended to remove the recommendation for replacement from the inspection report if she didn't hear back from Alvarez/Taylor, and that Ms. Riley agreed. Ms. Riley disputes this. Thereafter, she removed the recommendation for replacement from the inspection report, and on July 30, 1997, at the closing, Respondent gave the buyers an altered copy of the report of the air conditioning repairman. On this copy, the notation in the place reserved for recommendations that the unit was 13 years old and should be replaced was not present. The closing went forward and was consummated, and the Browns were given a copy of the altered inspection report. Almost a month later, on August 26, 1997, after the closing, Alvarez/Taylor furnished the Browns with a copy of the inspection report dated July 25, 1997 which reflected, in the space reserved for recommendations, that the unit should be replaced. The unit failed, and on September 3, 1997, Alvarez/Taylor replaced the unit due to its age and condition. The replacement cost the Browns $2,315.00. When the Browns started to look into the matter, and enlisted the aid of their agent, Ms. Riley, they also contacted Respondent who told them that she had altered the inspection report because she believed she had the authority to do that as a realtor. Respondent claims she was not trying to hide anything by altering the inspection report, nor was she trying to limit the Browns "or their representatives" access to the unit. She further contends she did not intend for anyone to reply on the altered inspection report. She says she believed everyone who needed to know, Ms. Riley and the Browns, were aware of the actual recommendation for replacement, and she was merely trying to correct the situation since she could not get what she considered to be appropriate information from Alvarez/Taylor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Margaret L. Page, guilty of concealment and breach of trust, imposing a suspension of her license as a real estate salesperson for six months under such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate, and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Development 400 West Robinson Street Suite N-308 Orlando, Florida 32801 David C. Levenreich, Esquire 406 South Prospect Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issues are (1) whether engaging in air conditioning contracting regulated by the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board pursuant to Section 489.500 et seq. Part II, Florida Statutes, constitutes exceeding the scope of one's license as an electrical contractor, (2) whether performing air conditioning contracting in the name of "Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning" constitutes operating in a name other than the name his electrical contracting license is issued in, contrary to Subsection 489.533(1)(l), and (3) whether Respondent willfully violated the building codes by venting the heater improperly, failing to get a permit and get work inspected.
Findings Of Fact Notice of hearing was given to Respondent at Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. Arnold Dixon is and has been at all times material to this case a registered electrical contractor, license number ER0004417. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) He has maintained his address of record as Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. (T-Pg. 6) He has held such license since 1976. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) Arnold Dixon does not hold a license, a state registration or certification to engage in contracting as a heating or air conditioning contractor. (Pet. Ex. 4 & 6) Arnold Dixon does hold a Nassau County Occupational License as an electrical contractor and as a heating and air conditioning contractor. No check of local records was conducted to see if he had a local license as an air conditioning contractor. (T-Pg. 22) On or about June 1985, the Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, contracted to install an air conditioning and heating unit at the home of John Williams for a contract price of $1985. (Pet. Ex. 5 and T-Pgs. 10 & 11) The work on this contract was done by David Everett, who negotiated the contract. The Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, did not obtain a permit to perform the work at the Williams' residence. Inspections on the Williams' job were not called for by Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning. Permits and inspections were required by the applicable building code. (T-Pgs. 25 & 26) Entering into a contract to perform air conditioning and heating work and performing such work is air conditioning contracting, which is regulated under Part I, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. After installation by Dixon's Hearing and Air Conditioning, the Williams' heating system generated carbon monoxide when operating because there was insufficient fresh air being provided to the unit. Because the air intake was in a closet which restricted the air supply to the hot air handling system, the air handling unit sucked fumes from the exhaust side of the unit back through the unit's combustion chamber and circulated it through the house. The longer the unit ran, the more debris was trapped in the louvered door of the closet and the more combustion gases were pulled through the combustion chamber and distributed through the house by the air handling unit. (T-Pg. 34) According to the manufacturer's representative, the hot air return is required to be ducted into the unit. In this case, the return air was pulled from inside a closet which had louvered doors. No duct was used and this installation was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Although the unit as installed was unsafe and had the potential to kill, no evidence was received that failure to install the unit in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was a violation of local building code. (T-Pgs. 34- 38) Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did not hold itself out to be and was not engaged in electrical contracting in fulfilling the Williams' contract. Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did hold itself out to be an air conditioning contractor and the work performed in fulfilling the Williams' contract was air conditioning contracting.
The Issue This matter concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's license as a heating and air conditioning contractor should be suspended, revoked or other disciplinary action taken as a result of allegedly contracting outside the scope of his license, willfully or deliberately violating a local building code by failing to pull a permit, and failing to affix his license number to a contract and making an untrue representation in the practice of contracting. Counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommend Order, they have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issue in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
