The Issue Does the unsatisfied civil judgment in ABC v Millman et al, Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB relate to practice of Respondent’s profession, thus establishing that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,(2009)? If he committed the violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board has certified Millman as a General Contractor and a Roofing Contractor under the authority of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In 2009 and 2010, he held license numbers CGC l1522 (General) and CCC 1327057 (Roofing). Millman’s licenses are presently inactive. Millman has actively practiced the licensed professions of general contractor and roofing contractor in Florida since 1977. The Department and its predecessor agencies have never taken any disciplinary action against him. At all times material to this proceeding, Affiliated was a Construction Qualified Business in the State of Florida, certified under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, holding license number QB45287. Millman was the Primary Qualifying Agent for Affiliated under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, at all times material to this proceeding. On December 26, 2005, Millman signed a credit application with American Builders and Contractors Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Supply Co. Inc. (ABC), on behalf of Affiliated. Millman listed his Certified General Contractor’s License (CGC 011522) on the credit application and personal guarantee Although Millman provided his General Contractor’s license number on the application, ABC did not require a license number. The application indicates that the account is related to “low and steep slope roofing.” The account was for the purchase of roofing materials and supplies. On December 29, 2005, Millman signed a personal guarantee of the Affiliated account with ABC. Millman’s personal guarantee made him personally liable for Affiliated’s obligation to pay ABC. ABC granted the application and opened a line of credit for Millman and Affiliated. Millman and Affiliated used the account to purchase roofing supplies on credit. They purchased and paid for over $800,000 worth of supplies from 2006 into 2009. This is separate from the goods and materials that were the subject of the lawsuit described below. Most of the materials and supplies that Affiliated purchased on the ABC account were for specific roofing projects. But some, as Millman acknowledged in his testimony, were to maintain roofing materials in the Affiliated warehouse. He used these on small jobs and to supplement materials purchased for larger, specific jobs. All the goods and materials purchased related to Millman’s practice of the roofing contracting profession. In 2007 Millman and Affiliated started having financial difficulties. Millman’s business began failing. The failure of a lender that took over a construction project it was financing resulted in the lender not paying Millman for approximately $500,000 worth of his company’s work. This contributed to Millman’s business failure. In addition to Millman’s problems paying ABC, his landlord was evicting him. Millman worked hard during these difficulties to meet his obligations to ABC. He liquidated his Individual Retirement Account and his life savings to make sure he paid for all charges for supplies used for specified customers. He did this to protect customers from the risk of liens being placed on their properties. Millman advised ABC that he was being evicted from his warehouse. He told ABC that the warehouse contained materials obtained with his line of credit that had not been paid for. Millman did not have the ability to return the materials to ABC. As eviction neared, he urged ABC to retrieve the materials before eviction. ABC did not act to retrieve the materials. The landlord evicted Millman. What happened to the materials is not known. On March 4, 2008, ABC sued Millman and Affiliated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. ABC sought payment for goods and materials purchased on the account and delivered to Millman and Affiliated between January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008. The court assigned the action Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB. The goods and materials for which ABC sought payment were roofing goods and materials. They included roofing felt, roofing cement, shingles, plywood, lumber, roofing nails, lead sheets, insulation, roof tile cement, lead boots for pipes, roofing paint, asphalt, and galvanized roof edging. Much, although not all, of the material was delivered to roof tops. Many invoices for the material describe the roof for which the material is intended by height and pitch. The goods and materials related to Millman’s profession of roofing contractor. On June 17, 2008, barely three months after ABC filed suit, Millman entered into a Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default with ABC. Millman agreed in the Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default, that both he as an individual and Affiliated are indebted to ABC in the amount of $45,617.02. This amount included interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The stipulation included a schedule of eight payments starting with a payment of $2,500.00 on May 30, 2008, and ending with a payment of $22,720.02 on December 30, 2008. Millman made payments from January 1, 2007, forward, even during and after the collection litigation. Millman made over $16,000.00 of those payments. But he did not make all of them. As Millman made payments, he took care to designate payments for supplies allocated to a specific customer and job. He did this to protect his customers from liens and to make sure that documents he signed attesting that supplies for specific jobs had been paid for were honest and correct. On August 3, 2009, the court rendered a Final Judgment After Stipulation in ABC’s collection action. The court adjudged that ABC recover $29,617.02 together with interest at the rate of 11 percent per annum accruing from May 31, 2008, from Affiliated and Millman, jointly and severally. The judgment is for debt incurred relating to Millman’s practice of his licensed profession of roofing contracting. It is not related to Millman’s licensed profession of general contracting. ABC continued to actively pursue collecting the judgment. It garnished Millman’s bank account with Bank Atlantic and obtained $662.61. Millman and Affiliated have not fully satisfied the judgment within a reasonable period of time. The Department incurred $216.00 in costs for the investigation and this action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: Payment of an administrative fine of $500.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. Payment of costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $216.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton, was licensed as a roofing contractor in Florida under license number RC0030867, but at the time of the misconduct alleged herein, the license was delinquent and invalid. Respondent's license was placed on delinquent status for non-renewal when it expired on June 30, 1987 and was considered invalid until reinstated in April, 1988. The Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for the licensing of contractors in this state. On August 27, 1987, John M. Mack and his wife contracted with Respondent, doing business as Roofing Enterprises, to replace the roof on their 70 year old house in Clearwater. The contract called for Respondent to remove the old roof, replace all rotten wood, and install fiberglass shingles as well as all other actions part thereof, including cleanup. For this, the Macks agreed to pay Respondent $2,930.00 to be paid one- third at commencement, one-third when dried in, and the balance due upon completion. The term "dried in" means to cover the roof base with felt and secure it so as to prevent moisture incursion. This constitutes the subsurface for the final roof surface. The contract did not provide a completion date. Respondent guaranteed his work for five years. Respondent started work on September 9, 1989 and was paid the first $1,000.00 by check. He started tearing off the existing roof and five days later, when only one quarter of the existing roof had been removed, requested the second installment of the contract price. Mr. Mack was out of town at the time, but Mrs. Mack gave him a second $1,000.00 check. At that time, far less than one third of the project had been completed. After that second payment was made, Respondent did "minimal work" on the project. He would appear at the job only intermittently and when he did, would leave after only a short while. When Mr. Mack asked about this, Respondent indicated it was too hot to work after 11:00 in the morning. He also complained that because the sub-roof was made of hard, old white pine, it was very difficult to remove the old nails. For several days in early November, 1987, Respondent did not show up for work and Mack's efforts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful. He finally filed a complaint with both the Better Business Bureau and the Department of Professional Regulation. Finally, on November 14, 1987, Respondent came to the work site and left after two hours indicating he had a meeting with other contractors on other jobs. The next day, when Respondent did not show up, Mr. Mack went to his house whereupon Respondent stated he had spent most of the $2,000.00 the Macks had given him on other projects and to pay his workers and did not have enough funds to finish the job. Mr. Archer, the only employee to work on the Mack property has not been paid at all for his work. Nonetheless, Mr. Mack instructed Respondent to do what he could with what was left and when that was gone, he would pay the balance. Though Respondent had previously indicated to Mr. Mack that he had secured all required permits, the day after the above discussion, he stated he had not done so and left the job site to get it without doing any work that day. Over the next 11 days, Respondent spent a total of 20 hours on the job. On November 17, 1987 it rained and because the roof was not secure, water leaked into the house. The following day, Respondent did not arrive for work until 10:00 AM. On November 19, 1987, when Mr. Mack called the lumber yard from which Respondent had ordered the shingles, he was told they were scheduled for delivery COD and were on their way. When they arrived, Mr. Mack refused to accept them and pay for them because he had already paid Respondent $2,000. Respondent, when told of this development, agreed to borrow the money for them from his brother but was unable to do so, and in order to get the job finally done, Mr. Mack agreed to pay approximately $200.00 for them. They were ultimately delivered. The next day, Respondent telephoned Mr. Mack and said he was coming to the site and would stay until the job was done. However, he did not get there until after 10 and left at 3:30 PM with the job incomplete. At 8:00 AM the following morning, Respondent again called Mr. Mack and reported he did not have enough money for the required flashings. He indicated he would come to work and finish up the shingling, but did not show up at all that day. On the day after, Respondent came with his wife who worked with him for a short while. On this occasion, Mack gave Respondent some more money for supplies, but Respondent left again before the job was complete. Respondent neither showed up for work nor called on both the next two days, but on the following day, November 25, 1987, he finally finished up the job except for the gravel roof on the rear house and the front part of the main house. Because the Macks had a tenant in the rear house who they did not want disturbed, they did not permit Respondent to work there, but he did finally finish up the front of the main house roof and the work that was accomplished was done satisfactorily. There was, however, an unused chimney on the main house which Respondent should have removed and roofed over. Instead, he improperly attempted to roof around it and since he was unable to make the area water tight, it resulted in severe leakage into the house which caused damage to several ceilings and some furniture. Throughout the entire course of the work, Respondent applied improper pressure to the Macks. He repeatedly threatened to file for bankruptcy and not complete the work, prompting the Macks to pay him before contractually called for. At the time for final payment, when Mr. Mack indicated he wanted to have the job checked before making that last payment, Respondent became angry and walked off. He has not been seen or heard from since. As a result of Respondent's failure to properly manage his funds and accomplish the job in a timely and professional manner, the Macks have sustained substantial damage to their property and have had to expend additional funds to get the work done properly. Respondent should have identified the unused chimney at the time he bid for the job and provided for its removal. If this would cost more, he should have so indicated. His failure to identify the problem and correct it constitutes negligence since it is impossible to properly roof around such an obstruction without leaks. Based on the information available to him, Mr. Verse, the Department's expert, concluded Respondent was guilty of gross negligence because: He was required to get a permit for this project and failed to do so, He was required to request inspections of the project as it progressed and failed to do so, He took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the job, (roofs are usually replaced in an expedient manner because re-roofing generates exposure of the house and contents to weather conditions), He failed to properly place the felt and thereafter cover it with the final coat in a timely manner (qualified roofers recognize that felt is insufficient roofing to prevent leaking), He diverted funds from this project to others for which they were not intended, He failed to properly supervise his employees, He did not complete the work called for under the contract, He failed to honor his warranty, and He failed to properly remove the old chimney as a part of the re-roofing process. With the exception of the failure to complete the job which was caused by Mr. Mack's refusal to allow Respondent to complete the roofing project on the gravel roof, Respondent's actions as outlined herein constituted gross negligence. In addition, he violated existing local law by failing to get a permit and have the required inspections made; he failed to perform in a timely manner; he diverted funds; he abandoned the job without it being completed; and he failed to honor his warranty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton's, license as a registered roofing contractor be suspended for three years under such provisions for reinstatement as may be deemed appropriate by the Board, and that he be fined $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 11th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce D. Gayton 15010 113th Avenue #32 Largo, Florida 34644-4305 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative fine or other disciplinary action imposed for allegedly acting as a contractor without a license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Edsel Mathews, operated a business under the name of Home Repair Roofing in Monticello, Florida. Records of Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), establish that Respondent holds no licenses from that Board and thus he is not authorized to engage in any professions regulated by the Board. Gessie Lee Choice owns a residence at 1701 South Campbell Street, Perry, Florida. In 1995, her home was partially destroyed in a fire. Based on a recommendation by her lender, who was refinancing the repair work, Choice selected Respondent to repair her home. Relevant portions of the City Code of the City of Perry (City) were not made a part of this record. However, testimony established that under the licensing scheme for the City, an individual who has a specialty contractor license from the City may perform residential carpentry work if he works under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Alternatively, the same work may be performed by the license holder if the property owner obtains a building permit and signs an affidavit that he or she will be supervising the work. The license does not, however, authorize the holder to perform air-conditioning, electrical, or plumbing work even if the owner supervises the project. In addition, roofing work involving structural changes can only be performed under the auspices of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent held a valid specialty contractor license from the City. On August 7, 1995, Choice obtained a building permit from the City and executed an affidavit stating that she would be supervising the work. Under these circumstances, Respondent was authorized to perform all work on the house except that relating to the plumbing, electrical, and air-conditioning systems. Also, he could not perform any structural work on her roof. The evidence is conflicting as to the representations Respondent made to Choice regarding his qualifications before the two parties executed a contract. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that he represented he was a "subcontractor," but was not a licensed contractor within the Board's purview. While there is a conflict as to representations regarding his ability to perform plumbing and electrical work, it is found that Respondent simply agreed to procure for Choice a licensed plumber and electrician to do that type of work. Under the agreement executed by Choice, Respondent agreed to "furnish and perform the labor necessary for the completion" of a wide array of work. The items to be completed are listed on Petitioner's exhibit 3 and include removing asbestos from the outside of her house, enlarging three bedrooms and bath, removing an existing tin roof, installing new rafters, reroofing the home, building new cabinets and installing new plumbing and wiring for the kitchen, remodeling the existing bathrooms, building a utility room, installing new windows, insulating walls and ceilings, drywalling all ceilings, installing new carpet and vinyl, and placing vinyl siding on outside of home. Respondent established that even though the contract lists a number of items outside the scope of his authority, he intended to get licensed contractors to perform all work for which he held no authority under his city license. Choice agreed with this assertion. Despite Respondent's offer to obtain other contractors to perform the electrical and plumbing work, Choice selected her own licensed contractors to do that work. She also hired another individual to remove the asbestos from her home. Respondent performed a part of the remaining work, including the installation of a new roof. This latter work involved structural changes upon the house. Respondent made two draws totaling $13,200.00 from the escrowed funds. Also, in September 1995, Choice paid Respondent $446.00 in personal funds to purchase plywood to be placed on the floor and walls of the house. There is no allegation, however, that he failed to perform an equivalent amount of work before he was told by a Board inspector to stop working on the project. A short time after Respondent terminated work, a City building inspector, David Parker, inspected the roofing work performed by Respondent. Parker found that the truss system did not meet building code requirements. Because of numerous code violations, which are enumerated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the entire roof system had to be removed and reinstalled. Parker also noted that Respondent's work involved structural changes not authorized under his license. In mitigation, however, it is found that Respondent believed that he was authorized to do this work under his local license. Choice was forced to hire a licensed roofing contractor to reroof her home. That contractor described Respondent's workmanship as "not good." In order to correct the deficiencies and complete the remodeling project, Choice expended another $12,000.00 over and above her original contract price of $33,490.00. Except for this incident, there is no evidence of Respondent violating Board rules and statutes relating to contracting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 be imposed, to be paid within such time as the Board deems appropriate. A decision on Petitioner's request for the assessment of costs against Respondent under Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, is deferred to the Board. Finally, Counts I and II should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 14267 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Clifford L. Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 1057 Monticello, Florida 32345 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a registered roofing contractor's license Number RC 0030261 issued by Petitioner and did business under the name of Jim's Painting and Roof Repairs in Cocoa Beach, Florida. On or about May 22, 1984, Rick Callahan, d/b/a Rick Callahan Roofing (Callahan) contracted with Dan Risken to reroof his residence located at 1765 Sandbar Drive, Merritt Island, Florida. On May 23, 1984, Respondent obtained building permit No. 16543-C from the Brevard County Building Department for reroofing the Risken residence at 1765 Sandbar Drive, Merritt Island, Florida. Callahan performed the reroofing work on the Risken residence located at 1765 Sandbar Drive, Merritt Island, Florida, without any supervision by Respondent and received payments under the contract in the amount of $2,000.00, $1,000.00, and $735.00 on May 21, 25, and 26, 1984, respectively. No moneys were paid to Respondent by Dan Risken under the contract with Callahan for reroofing his residence. On or about September 10, 1984, Respondent contracted with A1 Notary for the construction of a roof on an office building located at 375 South Courtney Parkway, Merritt Island, Florida, for a contract price of approximately $2,500.00 and on September 10, 1984, obtained a permit No. 16867-C from the Brevard County Building Department for the roofing work at 375 South Courtney Parkway, Merritt Island, Florida. Respondent subcontracted the roofing work on the A1 Notary building at 375 South Courtney Parkway in Merritt Island to Callahan and on September 28, 1984, Callahan was paid the contract price of $2,500.00 by the A. C. Notary Company for the roofing work. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Rick Callahan did not have a certificate of competency to do roofing work and was not qualified in Brevard County to obtain a permit to do roofing work himself. Additionally, during the period of time pertinent to this proceeding, Rick Callahan was not licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) as a roofing contractor. Subsequent to the time pertinent to this proceeding, Rick Callahan was issued a certificate of competency by Brevard County and was licensed as a roofing contractor by the Board. Respondent's only involvement in the Risken job was to obtain a permit to allow Callahan to do the roofing work. Although Respondent contracted with Notary for his roofing work, the more credible evidence shows that the only reason for Respondent's involvement with the Notary job was to obtain a permit to allow Callahan to do the roofing work. On or about November 28, 1984, Robert J. Connors, d/b/a Connors' Home Repair, Painting and Roofing, Inc. (Connors) contracted with Richard McLain to reroof his residence at 1080 South Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida, for a contract price of $2,535.10. On November 30, 1984, Respondent obtained building permit No. B7547 from the City of Cocoa Beach Building Department for reroofing the residence at 1080 South Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach. Connors performed the reroofing work at the McLain residence and received payments for work performed from Richard McLain in the amounts of $1,535.00 and 01,035.00 on November 29, 1984, and December 6, 1984, respectively. On or about December 31, 1984, Connors contracted with Tom Eddie to reroof his residence at 118 LaRiviere, Cocoa Beach, Florida, for a contract price of $3,795 74. On January 8, 1985, Respondent obtained building permit No. B-7592 from the City of Cocoa Beach Building Department for the reroofing work to be performed on the Eddie residence at 118 LaRiviere, Cocoa Beach, Florida. Connors performed the reroofing work on the Eddie residence. Although Connors testified that Respondent supervised the McLain and Eddie jobs, the more credible evidence is that he was not involved in the supervision of those jobs but was only involved in obtaining the permits for Connors and Connors reciprocated by helping Respondent on some of his roofing jobs. At no time relevant to this proceeding did Connors have a certificate of competency, nor was he qualified in Brevard County to obtain a permit to do roofing work himself. Additionally, at no time relevant to this proceeding was Connors licensed by the Board as a roofing contractor. On January 7, 1985, Art Arnone contracted with Jack Poe to perform roofing work at the Brentwood Apartments, located at 351 Woodland Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida, for a contract price of $6,575.00. Since Art Arnone did not have a State of Florida roofing contractor's license or a certificate of competency in Brevard County and was not qualified in Brevard County to obtain a permit to do roofing work, Respondent asked Art Arnone to get Jack Poe to sign a contract with Respondent instead of Art Arnone for the roofing work on the Brentwood Apartments. On January 4, 1985, Respondent contracted with Jack Poe for the roofing work on the Brentwood Apartments for a contract price of $6,500.00. On the request of Art Arnone, Jack Poe listed Art Arnone as the subcontractor on the job. On January 7, 1985, Respondent obtained a permit from the city of Cocoa Beach Building Department to do the roofing work on the Brentwood Apartments. Art Arnone performed the roofing work on the Brentwood Apartments and there is sufficient evidence that Respondent did supervise Art Arnone while performing this work. Jack Poe arranged for payment under the contract in two installments of $3,280.00 and $3,215.00. Although the first cashier's check of $3,280.00 was made payable to Art Arnone and dated January 4, 1985, it was not given to Art Arnone until January 11 or 12, 1985. Respondent not require the cashier's check to be reissued in his name because Art Arnone was to use the proceeds to pay for supplies used on the job. The second check of $3,215.00 was made payable to Respondent and delivered on January 16, 985. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was aware that Rick Callahan, Robert J. Connors, and Art Arnone did not possess certificates of competency from Brevard County or possess roofing contractors' licenses issued by the Board and, therefore, were not qualified to obtain permits to perform roofing work in Brevard County, Florida. By ordinance, the City of Cocoa Beach requires that a person meet all the local requirements for certificate of competency and licensure by the state in order to be qualified to obtain a building permit. By ordinance, Brevard County requires that a person have a certificate of competency from Brevard County, unless certified by the state, and be licensed by the Board in order to be qualified to obtain a permit in Brevard County. Rick Callahan, Robert J. Connors, and Art Arnone were not certified roofing contractors. Although Respondent may have used Rick Callahan, Robert J. Connors, and Art Arnone on a job on occasion, they were not employees of Respondent. There were no complaints about the quality of the work performed by Rick Callahan, Robert J. Connors, or Art Arnone. In fact, Jack Poe was complimentary of the work performed by Art Arnone. Respondent was disciplined by the Board on October 29, 1984, for an earlier violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in October 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation it is recommended that the Board suspend Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) months. It is further recommended that all other charges be dismissed.. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James L. Muller 1520 Bayshore Drive Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Mr. Fred L. Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Suite 504 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, CASE no. 52999 DOAH CASE NO. 85-2195 JAMES L. MULLER, License No. RC 0030261 Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto. His license number is RC-0035594. On or about April 26, 1985 Respondent, doing business as Pinellas Roofing Service, contracted with Bausch and Lomb to reroof their plant in Manatee County, at a contract price of $31,150. Respondent admits that at no time material hereto was he licensed to engage in contracting in Manatee County. Pinellas Roofing thereafter began, and partially performed, this job for which it was paid a total of $28,035. Petitioner alleges, and Respondent denies, that Respondent diverted funds received from this job for other purposes, and was thereafter unable to fulfill the terms of the contract with Bausch and Lomb. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence in support of this charge. Respondent never completed this job and took no steps to inform Bausch and Lomb that he would not complete the contract or make other arrangements for its completion. He left several thousand dollars worth of material on the roof, exposed, when he walked off this job, and this resulted in these materials being substantially destroyed. During the job, he did not take precautions to assure that the roof did not leak during heavy rainstorms. In fact, on at least three occasions, leaks caused damage to the interior of the plant and Respondent could not be reached. Therefore, Bausch and Lomb had to have another roofing contractor make emergency repairs on June 25, July 15 and September 3, 1985, at a total additional cost of $4,150. Since Respondent did not complete the contract, and left the roof unfinished, Bausch and Lomb contracted on September 17, 1985 with Bernard J. Lozon, Inc., to complete the job, and make certain additional repairs, at a cost of $24,000. In the opinion of Bernard J. Lozon, who was accepted as an expert in roofing contracting, the actual work that was done by Pinellas Roofing was satisfactory. However, Respondent's actions in walking off the job and leaving the roof unattended without completing the job is an unacceptable practice in roofing contracting, and constitutes incompetence and misconduct. Respondent failed to properly supervise this job. He relied upon his son to hire the necessary crews, pay them, handle financial aspects of the job, and assure its completion. His testimony indicates he fails to understand his own responsibility for supervising and completing the work for which he contracted, and which was performed under his license. At no time material hereto did Respondent qualify Pinellas Roofing Service with Petitioner. Respondent failed to apply for and obtain a Manatee County building permit for the roofing job in question, and also failed to request the county building department to perform inspections of the work performed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County has adopted and follows the 1979 edition of the Standard for Installation of Roof Coverings, Southern Building Code, as amended in 1981. This Code requires all contractors performing work in Manatee County to be registered in Manatee County, and to obtain permits for all roof replacements and repairs in excess of $200, as well as obtain inspections of all such work to insure compliance with the Code. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the local building code. When Respondent submitted his proposal on April 16, 1985 for the Bausch and Lomb job, he specifically acknowledged, in writing, that "all work (is) to be done according to owner specifications sheet." (Emphasis supplied). At hearing, Respondent contended that when he submitted his proposal he never saw the project specification sheet which was thereafter attached to his contract with Bausch and Lomb and made a part thereof. Rather, he testified that his proposal referred to certain specifications that appeared on project drawings which he reviewed prior to submitting his proposal. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and all of the evidence presented, and particularly the fact that Respondent referred to the "specifications sheet" and not "drawings" in his proposal, it is specifically found that Respondent had knowledge of, and did in fact submit his proposal based upon the "specifications sheet" which ultimately became a part of his contract. As such, he was bound thereby in the performance of work under this contract. In pertinent part, the "specifications sheet" requires that the contractor obtain all necessary permits from Manatee County, that notice be given to the owner in advance of work that will produce excessive amounts of dust or tar fumes so proper precautions could be taken, that roofing materials be stored in a manner that protects them from damage or adverse weather conditions during construction, and that the contractor provide a two year written guarantee at the conclusion of the job. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of ninety (90) days and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 22nd day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3698 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5,6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 5-7 Addressed in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 5. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Michael Schlesinger, Esquire 655 Ulmerton Road Building 11-A Large, Fl 33541 Fred Seely Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
Findings Of Fact Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license number is CC C020246. Respondent is vice president of Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (The Dean Company), Post Office Box 2077, Clearwater, Florida. By proposal submitted March 31, 1983, and accepted by Marshall Kent on April 1, 1983, the Dean Company contracted to remove the existing roof on Kent's residence and replace same at a price of $8,600 (Exhibit 1). The work was supposed to start April 11, 1983 and be completed on April 15, 1983. This contract was signed on behalf of Dean Company by Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, as vice president of Dean Company and by Marshall Kent. Kent is an experienced residential contractor who acknowledged having built approximately 2,000 homes. While removing the existing roof, Dean Company workers found the 30-year old house had three plys of roofing applied since the house was constructed and to remove this thick roof heavier equipment that normal was required. Kent's residence had a tectum roof decking which consists of a metallic-fiber substance which has a long life and serves as inside ceiling and outside roof decking over which built up roofing is applied. While removing the existing roof the tectum deck was fractured and Kent ordered Dean Company workers off the Job. By letter dated April 18, 1983 (Exhibit 6) Respondent advised Kent that the cost of replacing the damaged tectum would be borne by the Dean Company and it was necessary to get on with the project before additional damage was done through the areas of roof exposed by removal of the original roof. Upon seeing Exhibit 6, K. A. Williams, president of Dean Company and father of the Respondent, concluded that the problems may have been exacerbated by a personality conflict between Respondent and Kent, and turned the job over to R. L. MacMurry, another vice president at Dean Company, who had considerable experience in the roofing business. By letter dated Apri1 19, 1983 (Exhibit 7) MacMurry, on behalf of Dean Company, advised Kent that since he questioned their ability to properly install the new decking to replace the damaged decking they would employ the services of a general contractor to replace the damaged tectum, and if the replaced tectum did not match the original tectum they would have the entire ceiling painted. Kent denies receiving this letter. Kent refused these offers and by letter dated April 21, 1983 "Exhibit 8) R. A. Williams pointed out that Kent's refusal to allow Dean Company to immediately complete the roofing work in progress could lead to serious damage from water intrusion and that such damage would be Kent's responsibility. On Friday, April 29, 1983 a meeting was held between the Kents, Williams and MacMurry at which Dean Company -agreed to immediately recommence roof work, bring in a general contractor to replace the damaged decking and complete the contract. Kent demurred until the agreement was reduced to writing, preferably by an attorney. Kent prepared an endorsement on Exhibit 9 in which responsibility for the repairs was, in Kent's opinion, shifted to the general contractor. This endorsement was accepted by the parties on May 3, 1983. The residence was reroofed in accordance with the latter agreement and Kent never advised Dean Company that all work was not satisfactorily completed. Dean Company provided Kent with a five (5) year Roofing Guarantee (Exhibit 11) dated May 10, 1983, which was forwarded to Kent by letter dated May 11, 1983 (Exhibit 10) with an invoice for the total owed on the job (Exhibit 14). Kent responded with letter dated May 17, 1983 (Exhibit 23) contending he was not whole, the job was not. complete and the guarantee was a joke. Kent considered the Roofing Guarantee suspect because it was a form used by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association. Shortly after this time Kent was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and upon his release from the hospital in August 1983 he found that a mechanic's lien had been placed on his property by Dean Company. He also found what he believed to be leaks into the ceiling of a bedroom but made no complaint to Dean Company. Kent then hired a roofer, Chuck Goldsmith, to inspect the work done on his roof. When Goldsmith tried to negotiate the dispute between Kent and Dean Company, Kent fired him. Kent then hired William A. Cox, an architect and roofing consultant, to inspect the roof and advise what needed to be done. Cox inspected the roof in late October 1983 and submitted a list of discrepancies he recommended for correction. In one place he was able to insert a knife blade between the Fla. roof and the vertical wall against which the roof abuts which indicated no sheathing had been installed. Expert witnesses opined that without metal sheathing the roof would have leaked within six to eighteen months and the roof could never have been intact for the 30 years the house had been built without sheathing at such a joint. The vertical side of the original flashing would have been under the stucco at this point and there was no evidence that the stucco was disturbed when the new roof was first installed by Dean Company. New flashing was subsequently installed by Dean Company at this juncture but no one testified respecting the flashing observed or not present when this new roof was removed to insert the new flashing. Failure to insert flashing at such a juncture of horizontal roof and vertical wall would constitute a violation of the Standard Building Code. The report Cox gave to Kent was not made known to Dean until January 1984. By letter dated August 21, 1984 (Exhibit 13) Clark and Logan advised K. A. Williams that they would do all of the work listed in the Cox report on the Kent residence. This work was done in August 1984. Kent contends the leak continued in his bedroom after the work was completed but he never relayed this information to either Clark and Logan or to Dean Company. He has yet to pay one penny for the work done on his roof. Kent considered Clark and Logan to be the prime contractor on the job at the time the August 1984 work was done. Kent further testified that following that work Clark and Logan abandoned the job and he also filed a complaint against that general contractor. Since April 1983 following the damage to the tectum decking, Respondent, Bruce Williams, has had no responsibility for, and did no supervision of, the reroofing of Kent's residence. When the roof was inspected by the Pinellas County Building Inspector he found the workmanship done on this job only slightly below standard. At one place-on the roof Cox found the lower section of flashing overlapped the upper section of flashing which would have permitted water to enter under the flashing. This was a mistake but not an uncommon one for roofers to make. When pointed out to Dean Company the situation was promptly corrected.
