Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: Respondent, John Anthony Fantasia, is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CA C024378. Mr. Joseph Wilensky resides in a single family home at 1020 N.E. 160th Terrace in North Miami Beach, Florida. On December 23, 1983 there was a fire at Wilensky's home. The fire was primarily located in the basement near the oil heating unit, some type of electric heating device which utilized a heat strip and part of the central air conditioning unit. The air conditioning and heating systems all sustained damage in the fire. A few days after the fire, an insurance adjuster went to Wilensky's home and recommended a general contractor by the name of H. E. Nason. Nason inspected the damage at the Wilensky home and later sent Respondent over to inspect the damage for an estimate. Nason had previously used Respondent as a sub- contractor on other projects. The Respondent submitted a bid of $2,600 to Nason to install an air conditioning system with a heat strip in the Wilensky home. Thereafter, Nason entered into a contract with Wilensky to make the repairs and sub-contracted the entire job to Respondent. In January 1984, approximately one week after the contract was signed, Respondent, with the assistance of a single helper, removed the old air conditioning and heating units and installed a new central air conditioning/heating unit. Mr. Wilensky was at home while the work was performed. Wilensky observed the Respondent perform some of the work but did not watch Respondent the whole time. Wilensky was talking with his wife either in the dining room or in the kitchen when Respondent informed him that he had just finished with the switch and that the unit was "all set." Prior to installing the new unit, no work permits were pulled nor inspections called for by either Respondent or Mr. Nason. The Respondent believed that Nason, as general contractor, was obligated to pull all necessary work permits. The Respondent connected the new air conditioning/ heating unit to an electrical box which served as an on/off disconnect switch. The on/off disconnect switch was wired to the power source "ahead of the main." "Ahead of the main" is a term used in the electrical industry meaning that an apparatus is wired directly to a power source, by-passing the fuse box or main circuit breaker entirely. In this manner, the apparatus cannot be turned off from the fuse box. Such wiring violates the National Electrical Code, presents a serious hazard of fire and reflects gross negligence and incompetence. The evidence did not establish that the Respondent wired the on/off disconnect switch to the power source when he installed the new unit. There was at least an equal amount of credible evidence that the disconnect switch had been utilized with the previous unit and was in place prior to Respondent's installation work. Shortly after the unit was installed, Wilensky became dissatisfied because he believed that the unit was not heating or cooling properly and that his electricity bills were too high. Respondent returned to Mr. Wilensky's home on several occasions to do additional work on the unit, such as changing thermostats, in an attempt to satisfy Mr. Wilensky. Wilensky was not satisfied with the additional work performed by Respondent and their previously good relationship deteriorated rapidly. Wilensky called Florida Power & Light Company to complain about the high electric bills and an inspector went out to his home. The inspector informed Wilensky that the wiring leading to the air conditioning/heating unit was not done properly. On March 4, 1985, at the request of Mr. Wilensky, Benny Biscotti, an electrical building official for the City of North Miami Beach, performed an inspection at the Wilensky residence. In his inspection, Biscotti confirmed that the wiring leading to the air conditioning/heating unit was hooked up "ahead of the main." The wiring in Wilensky's home was corrected by AVI/AMEX Electric Company on January 16, 1986. The City of North Miami Beach has adopted the South Florida Building Code (SFBC). The SFBC required that a mechanical permit be obtained for the installation of the air conditioning/heating unit. The SFBC did not require an electrical permit in this instance because there was no showing that the installation of the unit required new permanent wiring or an alteration or change to the existing electrical system. The evidence did not establish that electrical upgrading (an increase in capacity for voltage and amperage) was required to accommodate the new air conditioning/heating unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as not supported by the weight of credible testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Mr. Wilensky's testimony that he saw Respondent connect the switch to the fuse box is unpersuasive, particularly in view of the fact that he did not observe all of the work performed by Respondent, his admitted lack of knowledge of air conditioning and electrical matters and his intense negative feelings regarding Respondent resulting from this entire incident. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Biscotti's testimony that the wiring was "recent" was based on the history of the work related to him by Mr. Wilensky. Although Biscotti testified that it looked as if "recent work" had been done, the admitted that his opinion was primarily based on Wilensky's statement to him that Respondent had installed new wiring. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusion of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (The Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order is written in the form of Conclusions of Law only and includes no specific findings of fact upon which a ruling can be made.) COPIES FURNISHED: Gus Vincent Soto, Esq Joe Sole, Esq. Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Edward Bringham, Esq. Fred Seely 25 West Flagler Street Executive Director City National Bank Bldg. Department of Professional Suite 933 Regulation Miami, FL 33130 P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not Respondent violated the Construction Industry Licensing Law as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on June 27, 1987, to wit: proceeding to work without obtaining a timely permit, violating local law either deliberately or through improper supervision, gross negligence and/or incompetence in connection with said job or through his failure to supervise, inspect, improper electrical wiring, poor duct design, damage to a customer's ceiling, failure to supply warranty papers and inadequate cooling.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Respondent, Frank W. Hudgens, at all times relevant hereto was licensed as a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license number CA C032442. During times material, Respondent was the sole qualifier for Tampa Bay Cooling, Inc. On June 15, 1987, Respondent, through Tampa Bay Cooling, entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Jack Davis to install a two and one-half ton York heat pump with a horizontal air handler and five kilowatt auxiliary heat strip with the required thermostatic controls and fiberglass and flex ducts, including registers, grills, refrigerant lines and PVC drain lines to the Davis residence for the sum of $3,214.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.). Respondent installed the equipment as contracted. Respondent subcontracted with a licensed electrician for the installation of the required electrical work on the project. Respondent commenced performance of the installation prior to the time that he obtained a permit as required by local ordinance. However, Respondent applied for a permit at about the same time that the work started, in St. Petersburg, Florida, whereas the Davis' reside in the City of Pinellas Park, and it was therefore necessary for him to obtain a permit from Pinellas Park. Respondent in fact obtained a permit from the City of Pinellas Park later in the day that he commenced work at the Davis residence. When the Davis' contracted with Respondent for the installation of the central air conditioning system in their home, a major concern was that they be able to keep their "computer room" sufficiently cooled to avoid damage to the computers. Following the installation of the system by Respondent, Mrs. Davis complained to Respondent on several occasions concerning the fact that the "computer room" was not sufficiently cool. During Respondent's installation of the system at the Davis', a stop- work order was placed on the job based on Respondent's failure to have the required electrical permit and an employee was observed unwinding electrical wire that would be used to make the electrical connections for the system. Respondent was paid $1,607.00 by the Davis' on June 15, 1987, at the commencement of the installation of the system with the balance due upon completion. The Davis' had refused to pay Respondent the remaining balance for the system. Based on the Davis' refusal to tender Respondent the remaining one half, i.e., $1,607.00 for payment of the system, Respondent has refused to provide them the extended warranty papers for the system. Following Respondent's completion of the installation of the system, the Davis' contacted Donald W. Branch, a factory trained technician employed by Gorman Air Conditioning, the supplier of the system at the Davis' residence and complained about the fact that the system was not keeping the computer room as cool as the Davis' desired. Branch, who was tendered and received as an expert in air conditioning, made a survey of the Davis residence and issued a field report regarding the system. Branch found the system installed by Respondent to be producing within the factory specifications and found that the system was operating satisfactorily and in conformance with factory specifications. Branch found that there was a need for a return air grill to be added to the "computer room" area, such that, when the door was closed in that area, there would still be correct air flow. For appearance sake, Branch determined that the outdoor unit needed leveling and that the drainline from the indoor unit to the outdoors needed to be insulated, possibly, if attic temperatures are too extreme which would prevent condensate from the drainline from dripping and wetting the ceiling. While Branch questioned the appearance of Respondent's insulation of the system, he found it to be operating efficiently and in conformance to specifications. Respondent dispatched a plasterer to the Davis' residence to repair a damaged ceiling inadvertently caused by one of its employees. York Air Conditioning, the supplier of the system, replaced the compressor in the heat pump with a new one in an attempt to appease Mrs. Davis, although this was not done based on any finding by either Branch or Respondent that the compressor which was not the original compressor, was not performing according to factory specifications. Respondent, based upon the suggestion of Don Branch, installed an additional return in the computer room in an attempt to alleviate Mrs. Davis' discomfort in the computer room and was sufficient to satisfactorily cool the computer room. A two and one-half ton air conditioning unit is sufficient to cool a home the size of the Davis residence, which is approximately 1,100 square feet in size, provided the system was correctly designed. Respondent, with the exception of having to reroute a return line from one of the other rooms, properly designed the system in the Davis residence, and additional tonnage was not required to adequately cool their home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of five hundred ($500) payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its final order. Petitioner enter a final order issuing a written reprimand to Respondent based on his failure to timely obtain a permit prior to commencement of a work project where a permit is required. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 1107 E. Jackson Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 Larry L. Dillahunty, Esquire 780-94th Avenue North Suite 108 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue This matter began when Respondent, a certified air conditioning contractor, was charged by Petitioner in an administrative complaint with violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, through the commission of gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in connection with a certain job undertaken by the air conditioning business for which Respondent was responsible as the qualifying agent. Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing. This proceeding followed. At hearing, Petitioner presented testimony of two witnesses and six evidentiary exhibits. Respondent presented testimony of two witnesses, including himself, and three evidentiary exhibits. Petitioner was granted leave to submit a post hearing exhibit no later than March 3, 1989. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order. No proposed findings were received from Respondent by the required deadline or at the time of the preparation of this recommended order. Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Steven E. Taucher, a certified air conditioning contractor and the qualifying agent for Discount Air Conditioning & Heating Services, Inc., at all times pertinent to these proceedings. He has been licensed by Petitioner since 1985 and holds license CA-CO36835. His address of record is Tampa, Florida. In May of 1987, Janet Daniels contracted with Respondent's company for the installation in her home of a heat pump system. The system was to consist of one supply duct and a filter back return; a three ton condenser heat pump; a three ton air handler; a 3 ton coil; and a heat strip, thermostat and outdoor slab. The unit was to fulfill heating and cooling functions. Installation work was to be completed in a "substantial and workmanlike manner"; using existing ductwork and electrical connections. Upon execution of the written agreement, Daniels paid Respondent $2,000. A sales rebate of $525 was also signed over to Respondent by Daniels, leaving a total owed to Respondent of $125. This amount was to be paid by June 30, 1987. Daniels never paid this final sum to Respondent because she was not satisfied with his work and eventually had to pay another contractor $420 to make certain repairs to the system. Respondent, by his own admission, failed to timely pull the permits for the project; however, he did install the system, connecting it to existing ductwork and electrical connections as specified in the contractual agreement. Within two and a half hours after installation, the temperature gauge reflected that the unit was not cooling the Daniels' house to the desired 76 degree thermostat setting. Respondent informed Daniels that the unit's capacitor wasn't functioning. Respondent replaced the capacitor. The unit did not function properly and Respondent attempted other repairs at later dates varying from replacement of the thermostat to installation of a sump pump for removal of condensation from the unit. Daniels was still unable to get the unit to cool the residence to the desired thermostat setting. Further, there was a disparity in the temperature between rooms in the residence. On July 23, 1987, Respondent, accompanied by a factory representative from the manufacturer of the heat pump system, returned to the Daniels home. It is undisputed by the parties that the factory representative found that a portion of the unit, the vertical air handler, was not level and not well mounted and, as a result, was poorly installed. He further determined that the unit contained an excess amount of freon, a refrigerant gas. Respondent maintains that he performed the installation task strictly in accordance with the contract between the parties. It is his position that the installation of the air handler without a new wooden support base under it or replacement of the leaking existent return air plenum was in compliance with the parties' agreement to use existing ductwork. Respondent's position as to compliance with contractual terminology is supported by testimony of Petitioner's expert that the meaning within the trade of the terminology "use of existing ductwork" ordinarily includes the existing return air plenum as part of that ductwork. However, testimony of Petitioner's expert also establishes that Respondent's failure to realize and advise Daniels that the existing ductwork was obviously inadequate and might not permit the system to function effectively, demonstrated incompetence with regard to his ability to properly design and install a relatively simple system. The overall sloppiness of the workmanship in the system installation also reflects incompetence on the part of Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing the Respondent an administrative penalty of $500 in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in section 21E-17.001(19)(b), Florida Administrative Code. RECOMMENDED this day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 15th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5193 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-6. Addressed and adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33617 Steven E. Taucher Post Office Box 271581 Tampa, Florida 33688 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
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 issue is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner the right to take the state air conditioning contractor examination for lack of good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The National Assessment Institute ("NAI") provides examinations to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, including the examination given for certification as a state air conditioning contractor. Petitioner has unsuccessfully taken the state air conditioning contractor examination approximately four times in the past. Petitioner has reviewed previous examinations and is familiar with procedures imposed pursuant to Section 455.229(2), Florida Statutes. No part of the examination may be copied, including any part of the questions or answers. Loose-leaf student manuals purchased from NAI may be taken into a review and retained by the student after the review is completed. Scratch paper provided by NAI officials during a review must be turned in at the conclusion of the review. On April 23, 1993, Petitioner reviewed a recent state air conditioning contractor examination. Petitioner reviewed the examination at a branch office of the NAI. Prior to April 23, 1993, Petitioner purchased a student manual. Petitioner placed one piece of carbon paper over one piece of blank paper and inserted the carbon set between two pages of the student manual. Petitioner taped closed the two pages of the student manual and tabbed the taped pages of the student manual ("altered pages"). Petitioner inserted three more carbon sets inside the student manual in identical fashion, producing a total of four altered pages. During the examination review on April 23, 1993, Petitioner placed a blank sheet of scratch paper on top of the first altered page of the student manual. Petitioner wrote the answers to the first part of the examination on the scratch paper. The answers were copied on the carbon set underneath the scratch paper. In a similar manner, Petitioner copied answers to each of the remaining three parts of the examination on the carbon sets inside each of the remaining altered pages in the student manual. Petitioner used a numeric code of "1-4" to represent answers "a-d" on each part of the examination. Petitioner used arithmetic symbols and other lines to disguise his effort by making it appear he was writing down mathematical formulas. However, the sequence of numbers "1-4" correspond to the correct answers "a-d" for each part of the examination reviewed. Petitioner copied 200 examination answers. During his testimony at the formal hearing, Petitioner explained: I did do something wrong. Transcript at 47. What I was trying to do was take down all the different letters. . . . I wanted to see if there was some kind of sequence where there were more A's, B's, more C's or more D's used. Transcript at 49. I was desperate. My whole life is air conditioning and refrigeration. * * * I've been trying to pass that test for at least the last two years, maybe more. . . . I believe it's been at least four times, maybe more. Transcript at 47. NAI representatives monitoring the examination review telephoned local police, and Petitioner was arrested pursuant to Section 455.2175, Florida Statutes. The materials used by Petitioner to copy examination answers were confiscated by police. Criminal charges were dismissed without conviction. Each examination question costs the state approximately $200. The 200 questions corresponding to the 200 answers copied by Petitioner will no longer be used by the state. Petitioner testified that he has dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. However, Petitioner has never requested additional time for an examination, never notified Respondent of Petitioner's disability, and never requested Respondent to provide special examination facilities or procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to take the state air conditioning contractor examination for the reasons stated herein. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1766 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance Rejected as conclusion of law 3.-8. Accepted in substance 9.-12. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 13. Accepted in substance 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 17.-18. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial and as recited testimony Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-8. Accepted in substance Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 11.-13. Accepted in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James W. Kline, Esquire P.O. Drawer 30 180 South Knowles Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Deptartment of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section Suite PL-01, The Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license No. C-2805 (Exhibit 1). From 1984 to June 29, 1992, Respondent was the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibits 1 and 2). On December 11, 1991, Respondent and Vincent Tipaldo executed a contract for the sale and purchase of certain goodwill and inventory of Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, of Pinellas County, Florida from the Respondent to Tipaldo. (Exhibit 4). Paragraph 5 of the above agreement stated that Respondent agreed to allow Vincent Tipaldo to use Respondent's contractor license until the buyer, Vincent Tipaldo, obtained his own. Vincent Tipaldo transferred $18,000.00 to Respondent as consideration for the contract with the remaining $10,000.00 to be paid to Respondent in installments of $318 per month for three years. Respondent authorized Vincent Tipaldo and other uncertified and unregistered persons to pull and obtain permits under his license for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration from December 11, 1991 to May 5, 1992 (Exhibit 5). Shortly after the sale of the business Respondent was injured in a vehicle accident and was unable to work. Tipaldo stopped the monthly payments to Respondent and Respondent ceased supervising the projects. The situation deteriorated and civil litigation is ongoing. On May 5, 1992 and thereafter, Respondent no longer authorized anyone to pull permits or act under his license for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration using license No. C-2805 (Exhibit 5). On June 29, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a change of status no longer acting as the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibit 2). Respondent did not supervise and had no active participation in the operation, management or control of the business from shortly after December 11, 1992 to June 29, 1992. Tipaldo was not licensed and has never been licensed as an air conditioning contractor by the PCCLB (Exhibit 3). After Respondent no longer authorized Tipaldi or anyone else to pull permits for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration in May 1992, Joe B. Hutson became the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibits 6, 7 and 9).
Recommendation It is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the license of Jay W. Beckner as a certified air conditioning contractor be suspended for a period of six months under such conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 6th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jay W. Beckner P.O. Box 20573 Bradenton, Florida 34203 William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road - Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643 5116
