The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner herein, seeks to revoke the general contractor's license of Roy G. Runken, Respondent herein, based on allegations set forth in specific detail hereinafter, that he (Respondent) engaged in acts and/or conduct violative of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Chapter 10, Sections 10-22(a)(g), which amount to specific violations of Chapter 468.112(2)(a) and (e). Based on the entire record compiled herein including the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact Roy G. Runken (Respondent) holds certified general contractor's license no. CGC002558 which is presently current and inactive. On September 21, 1973, Respondent, d/b/a Triple "R" Construction entered into a contract with Mrs. Lydia E. Walker to build a funeral home at 11000 SW 216th Street, Goulds, Florida. Mrs. Walker applied for and secured a construction mortgage loan from the First National Bank of Homestead, Florida, in the amount of $105,000. She additionally deposited $7,000 of her funds into the construction draw account of which approximately $103,701.55 was withdrawn either by Respondent or by the bank to satisfy bills which were paid directly to suppliers by the bank. When construction was completed, the entire funds available in the construction draw account were exhausted plus an additional $600. which was paid by the owner (Mrs. Walker). (Testimony of Shirley Pluto, Vice President and senior loan officer of First National Bank of Homestead) Mrs. Walker testified and indicated that she met Respondent through one of his former employees who had served as a building code inspector. She testified that she entered the construction agreement with Respondent because she was desirous of obtaining quality construction work and Respondent enjoyed a good reputation in the community as a quality builder. The proposal submitted to the bank by Respondent and Mrs. Walker contained an agreed upon contract price of $114,500. A later executed agreement contained an amount of $72,980. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5). Sometime during May, 1974, Respondent advised Mrs. Walker that his National Guard company was being reactivated and that he was leaving the area. Fred Runken, Respondent's son, took over the project and Respondent advised Mrs. Walker that his son (Fred) was as qualified as he. (Testimony of Mrs. Walker). She learned approximately one year later that Respondent's son was not "qualified". During the course of the construction, Mrs. Walker voiced numerous complaints concerning the quality and progress of the construction. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7). As an aside, it was noted that Mrs. Walker received a judgement from Respondent in the amount of $25,000 plus costs. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). During April, 1974, Respondent was issued a permit to construct the funeral home for Mrs. Walker. On May 6, 1974, the foundation was poured without incident. During July, 1974, the Dade County Area encountered a steel strike which created a problem for Respondent in obtaining "bar joists". During the construction of the funeral home, Respondent's son served as job foreman under the supervision of two licensed certified general contractors (Messrs. Benton and Habday [phonetic]). The evidence reveals that the plan as submitted by Mrs. Walker had to be modified in several aspects including joist beams, store front plans, all of which had to be revised by an architect. Respondent expressed difficulties with Mrs. Walker respecting allowances and selections and that when selections were made by Mrs. Walker, she failed to diligently pursue which in some instances resulted in price increases. He further testified to changes in brick work, cabinetry and the air conditioning systems. Additionally, the evidence reveals that all liens and/or notice of intent to file liens were satisfied. As best a can be determined by the record herein, it appears that Mrs. Walker only paid an additional $600 over and above the agreed upon price which in terms of the changes submitted to Respondent, would appear to be minimal. Moreover, it is uncontroverted that the contractor was forced from the building before construction was completed and that all draws were made per agreement with Mrs. Walker and the bank. Finally, there was no testimony or evidence of any municipal code violations. 1/ Based on the foregoing, I shall conclude and recommend that insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent engaged in any acts and/or conduct violative of Chapter 10 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County or Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, as alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a registered general contractor by the State of Florida, Construction Industry Licensing Board, having been issued license number RG 0014645. Respondent's address is 2533 Green Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. On or about October 30, 1985, Willie McFarland (McFarland) contracted with Virgil Fleming (Fleming) to perform certain improvements to Fleming's home located at 9008 Broken Lance, Tallahassee, Florida. The contract price was $24,600.00. There was no contract between Fleming and Respondent. Fleming paid McFarland $16,500.00 of the contract price. Most of this money was paid in advance of work being performed. MoFarland was not, at any time material to this proceeding, a licensed contractor in the State of Florida and both Fleming and Respondent knew that he was not a licensed contractor. McFarland was not authorized to pull a permit to complete the work and Fleming, upon finding this out, started to pull the permit as a homeowner but changed his mind. Respondent agreed to pull, and did pull, the permit for this job, after checking on McFarland and with the understanding that he would have to be involved with McFarland on the job. Without the permit, McFarland could not have continued with the job. Fleming did not pay any money to Respondent for pulling the permit or for anything else and there was no evidence that McFarland paid any money to Respondent for pulling the permit or anything else. McFarland partially completed the work contracted for with Fleming. The Respondent went to the job site on several occasions but was unable to make contact with McFarland. Respondent did make contact with McFarland on one (1) occasion after he had pulled the permit and obtained some promises from McFarland concerning the job but McFarland did not "live up" to those promises. There was credible testimony from Respondent that McFarland was not an employee of Respondent's business but that one of the conditions for pulling the permit required McFarland to be an employee of Respondent only on this job. Respondent had no knowledge of the financial arrangements between McFarland and Fleming until after the permit was pulled and McFarland had "skipped." The parties have been unable to locate McFarland.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting under license number CR C056639, based on violations of subsections 489.129(1)(h)(2), (m), (n), and (k), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a contractor, having been issued license number CR C056639, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 22, 1993. Respondent is the licensed qualifier for Accurate Development Inc., a Florida corporation. On or about December 23, 1994, the Respondent contracted with Joseph and Kathleen Hauser to construct a 2,000 square foot house on lot 15 of the Iroquois South Subdivision, (606) Jillotus Street in Merritt Island, Florida. The contract between Respondent and the Hausers was for the construction of a house only. The real estate upon which a house was to be built was already owned by the Hausers. The construction contract between the Hausers and Accurate Development was executed on December 23, 1994. Respondent presented the contract to the Hausers, who affixed their signatures to the contract first. They then gave the contract back to Respondent for his signature, whereupon he signed it and then he inserted the six percent commission provision in favor of Castle Real Estate. The contracted price for the construction was $147,800.00. The Hausers paid the Respondent $6,940.00 by check as a deposit when they signed the contract on December 23, 1994. The check was payable to Accurate Development. At no time during the transaction between Accurate Development and the Hausers did the Hausers meet a representative of Castle Real Estate in any capacity, nor were the Hausers ever represented by a real estate agent of their own choosing or one furnished by Accurate Development or Castle Real Estate. The Hausers did not discuss a six percent commission for the benefit of Castle Real Estate with the Respondent at any time prior to signing the contract, and they did not initial the six percent provision to approve it. But the Hausers did not object to the insertion of the commission at the time of the signing of the contract or at a later time. The check was endorsed and deposited by Accurate Development on December 23, 1994. On or about February 2, 1995, the construction contract was amended to increase the size of the house. Mr. And Mrs. Hauser applied for a construction loan in the amount of $150,750.00 from the Space Coast Credit Union in Melbourne, Florida. Upon approval of said loan, they paid Accurate Development an additional deposit of $6,940.00 on March 3, 1995. On or about March 3, 1995, the construction contract was revised to separate the construction contract from the spa contract with Aqua-Blue Pools to build a pool. On the date the construction loan was closed, a payment was made by Space Coast Credit Union directly to Castle Real Estate in the amount of $9,045.00 as a six percent commission on the construction contract between Accurate Development and the Hausers. This amount was shown on the closing statement, and no objection was raised by the Hausers. The Respondent was at all material times a director of and closely affiliated with Castle Real Estate. Respondent's spouse was the owner/broker of the real estate company. All of Accurate Development's sales went through Castle Real Estate who provided sales personnel at the Respondent's company's model homes. Respondent did not pull the permit to construct the Hauser's home. During several meetings between the Respondent and the Hausers in May and June 1995, Respondent informed the Hausers that he was having financial difficulties and cash flow problems. At that time, he asked the Hausers if they would pull the permit for the construction of their home or if they would become an owner/builder. Respondent stated that he did not have the money to pull the permit and begin construction. On May 26, 1995, at a meeting between Respondent and the Hausers, Respondent suggested that the Hausers become owner/builder or that they have their home built by Andy Barber, a general contractor and friend of the Respondent or that they take a second or third mortgage on other property that Respondent owned for the amount of the deposit. On or about June 10, 1995, the Hausers contacted Andy Barber about building their home, but he informed them that he was too busy and would not be able to build their house. The Hausers contracted with another builder (Gary Shaul) to build their house, and Mr. Shaul pulled the permit and constructed the house. On June 7, 1995, the Hausers asked the Respondent for an itemized list of what had been done with their up-front money. Respondent informed the Hausers that he had paid general bills. Respondent did not provide an itemized list of his expenses. On August 7, 1995, Mr. Hauser informed the Brevard County Building Department that Respondent was no longer their contractor. Respondent did not object to the Hausers' notice to the Brevard County Building Department that Gary Shaul of Shaul Builders would be constructing the Hausers' home. Respondent has not refunded any portion of the monies paid to him by the Hausers as deposits or the six percent commission paid to Castle Real Estate. Respondent is defending the disciplinary action against him by relying on paragraph 16 of the contract, a liquidated damages clause, to justify retaining the Hausers' deposit money. Paragraph 16 of the contract upon which the Respondent relies, provides in part that "In the event of Purchaser's default hereunder, contractor shall have the option to terminate this contract and retain all monies previously paid by purchaser as its liquidated damages upon five (5) days written notice to purchaser, or contractor may sue for damages or pursue any other legal remedy it may have." Respondent never notified the Hausers in writing that he considered them to be in breach of their contract with him and that he therefore intended to retain the $13,880 deposit they had paid. The Hausers were ready, willing and able to live up to their contract responsibilities. Respondent abandoned the Hausers' job without just cause causing them financial harm.
Recommendation Upon 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 subsections 489.129(1)(h)(2), (k), (m) and (n), Florida Statutes; it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board impose an administrative fine in the amount of $6,500, require Respondent to make restitution to the Hausers in the amount of $13,880, require Respondent to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this case, and that Respondent's license be SUSPENDED for five years. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of October, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe Street Suite 60 DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 16th day of October, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert E. Poindexter 2545 Burns Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32935 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact Robert Queen, Respondent, was during all times material herein a registered general contractor and is the holder of license no. RG0011043. On May 5, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Paul B. Stuewe, of Delray Beach, Florida, a 100 percent disabled veteran-service connected, entered into a contract with Robert Queen then d/b/a Queen Construction Company for construction of a home. The home was to be completed within 45 days. Construction commenced as scheduled, however within 60 days following commencement of construction, the Stuewes became concerned about the progress of construction and notified the Respondent of their concern. During this period, the Stuewes had received liens and notices of intent to file liens from various suppliers and materialmen. To finance the project, the Stuewes obtained a $55,000.00 construction loan commitment from First Federal Savings and Loan Association. As of August, 1975, approximately $41,000.00 of the available $55,000.00 construction loan commitment had been withdrawn by the Respondent. The remaining balance of approximately $14,175.00 was frozen by the lender based on its receipt of liens or notices of intent to file liens in the amount of $23,243.84 from various suppliers and mechanics. Based on the monies available in the construction loan, it is apparent that when all liens are satisfied, a deficit of approximately $9,000.00 will be created. The Stuewes took possession of their home on December 9, 1975, at which point the construction had not been completed as per the plans. When they took possession, Respondent advised that he had monies due from other projects and that upon receipt thereof, the construction for the Stuewe residence would be completed. Mr. Stuewe testified that when he took possession, the home was not carpeted nor did the Respondent install special railings in hallways and baths that were required by the contract and which the Stuewes requested based on his disability. Maynard Hamlin, the construction loan supervisor for First Federal Savings and Loan Association, testified and was in all respects corroborative of the testimony given by Mr. Stuewe. Edward Flynn, Director of the Construction Industry Licensing Board for Palm Beach County testified that he Investigated various complaints that he had received against Respondent during late 1975 and early 1976. During that board's public meeting of February, 1976, the board considered Mr. Flynn's investigation of various complaints received by Respondent. Respondent was noticed but failed to appear at the hearing. The board did however receive a letter from the Respondent's attorney advising that he felt that his presence was unnecessary at the February meeting inasmuch as he was no longer the qualifying agent for Queen Construction Company, a Florida corporation. Minutes of the board's February meeting revealed that there were outstanding liens on two homes under construction by Respondent in excess of approximately $33,000.00. At that meeting, the board suspended Respondent's certificate of competency for an indefinite period of time. Terry Verner, an investigator for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, investigated the instant complaint filed against the Respondent. Mr. Verner was shown an application for the building permit obtained by Respondent for the Stuewe residence and noted that the permit was obtained by Respondent who qualified Johnson Builders as the qualifying contractor. Investigation of Petitioner's files reveals that Respondent qualified Johnson Builders as the qualifying entity under which he would pull all construction contracts but failed to register the Queen Construction Company, Inc. as required by the Board's rules and regulations. (See Petitioner's Exhibit #4). Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The action of the Respondent in abandoning a construction project for which he contracted leaving a lien balance in excess of $9,000.00 which monies were received by him for completion of a specified construction project and his failure to fulfill the terms of his obligations pursuant to the contract he entered with the Stuewes amount to conduct violative of Chapter 468.112(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Evidence adduced at the hearing established that the Respondent had been disciplined by the County's construction industry licensing board which action is reviewable pursuant to Chapter 468.112 (2)(f), Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby issue the following:
The Issue Whether Rocco R. Sodomire (Respondent) violated Section 489.129(1)(c) and (r) and Section 455.227(l)(o), Florida Statutes, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice contracting.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a Certified Residential Contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO57213. At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed to do any swimming pool/spa contracting in the State of Florida. On or about November 1996, Respondent submitted a proposal to Vincent Neglio for the construction of a 28' x 14' in-ground swimming pool, a deck, and a screen enclosure at a cost of $15,000.00. Shortly thereafter, pursuant to the proposal, Respondent began construction of a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Neglio's residence. Prior to completion of the pool project, Mr. Neglio paid Respondent a total of $14,200.00. Although Respondent received $14,200.00 from Vincent Neglio, he never completed the pool project. Respondent presented the proposal for the pool project to Mr. Neglio; accepted money from Mr. Neglio as payment for work on the project; distributed funds to other contractors who worked on the pool project; and performed work on the pool project at Mr. Neglio's home. On August 4, 1997, the County Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, Small Claims Division (Case Nos. 97-2569SP-RRS and 97-2570-SP-RRS), entered a Record of Agreement between Respondent and Mr. Neglio whereby Respondent was to pay Mr. Neglio a total of $2,600.00 to settle the dispute involving the aforementioned pool project. On January 13, 1998, the County Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, Small Claims Division, in the above-referenced cases entered a Final Judgment by Default against Respondent in favor of Vincent Neglio in the amount of $2,600.00, the payment amount required in the Agreement, as a result of Respondent's failing to pay monies based on the Agreement referenced in paragraph 6. To date, Respondent has failed to make any payments to Vincent Neglio based on the Small Claims Court Record of Agreement, referenced in paragraph 6 or the Final Judgment by Default referenced in paragraph 7.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order that: (1) finds Respondent committed the offenses alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and imposes a $500.00 fine for these violations; (2) requires Respondent to pay restitution to Vincent Neglio in the amount of $2,600.00; and (3) requires Respondent to pay to Petitioner $858.97, the costs incurred by Petitioner in the investigation and prosecution of this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Leonardo N. Ortiz, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rocco R. Sodomire 3520 Southeast 2nd Avenue Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Victor S. Davis, held a registered general contractor's license, numbered RG 0013635 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board in April, 1973. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent's general contractor's license, number RG 0013635, was in a delinquent status and had been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1977. Respondent failed to renew his license after June 30, 1975 but in May, 1976 made application to reinstate license number RG 0013635 which was approved and reinstated on an active status by Petitioner in May, 1976 and issued to Respondent, Victor S. Davis, qualifying Conch Construction Corp., of Key West, Florida. There was no evidence that the reinstated license was issued for Monroe County, Florida or that Respondent ever held a certificate of competency for Monroe County, Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was an officer (Secretary) of Classic Marketing and Development, Inc. (Classic). On July 28, 1983, the Respondent, as Secretary of Classic, entered into a contract with William Dees to construct a shell home on the Dees' property located at Lot 14, Block 7, Breezeswept Estates, Ramrod Key, Florida for a contract price of $27,000.00. On September 13, 1983, William Dees applied for and obtained building permit No. 10902-A as owner/builder for the construction of the Dees's home. Construction of the Dees home began on or about September 13, 1983. Gregory H. O'Berry, President of Classic had knowledge of, and approved of, Respondent entering into contracts for construction of homes in Monroe County, Florida, including the contract with Dees. O'Berry was aware that Respondent did not hold a certificate of competency in Monroe County, Florida and that Respondent's registered general contractor's license did not cover contracting in Monroe County, Florida. O'Berry understood that Phillip A. Braeunig, a properly licensed general contractor in Monroe County, Florida, was acting as the general contractor for Classic- in the construction of homes by Classic, including the construction of the Dees home. Braeunig did not act as general contractor on the construction of the Dees' home. Respondent supervised the contraction of the Dees' home, until Respondent abandoned the construction of the Dees' home, and in performing these supervisory duties fulfilled the responsibilities of a general contractor. No other officer or authorized agent of Classic had any responsibility for the supervision of, or acted in any manner as a general contractor, in the construction of the Dees' home. Braeunig prepared and submitted to Respondent an application to qualify Classic with Petitioner using Braeunig's license but this application was never filed with Petitioner during- anytime material to these proceedings. Classic was never qualified by anyone, including Respondent or Braeunig, at any time material to these proceedings. Braeunig~acted as general contractor for Classic on the Conti home, which was in the beginning stages of Classic and prior to the Dees' job. Braeunig was brought into Classic for the purpose of acting as general contractor because of the Respondent's invalid license.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order Dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and for such violation it is RECOMMENDED that the Board suspend the Respondent's registered general contractor's license for a period of two (2) years and assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00, stay the suspension and place Respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years, provided the Respondent pays the $500.00 fine within ninety (90) days. Respondent's failure to pay the $500.00 fine within the time specified will result in his registered general contractor's license being suspended for a period of two (2) years with the requirement that when the fine is paid and the suspension lifted, the Respondent must appear before the Board for reinstatement of his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. Victor S. Davis, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-1963 Ruling on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1 except for the statement that "Respondent's license was issued for Okaloosa County only" which is rejected as not being based upon competent substantial evidence. Hearsay alone is not sufficient to support a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1 except for statement that "said license has been delinquent since July, 1981" which is rejected as being contrary to the evidence in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 which shows delinquent status as of July 1, 1977. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 3. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Considered as background information and not as a finding of faet. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 5 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of feet No. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 10 Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Respondent did not submit Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Victor S. Davis 2169 North Hercules Avenue Clearwater, FL 33575 and 6290 Sandcrest Circle Orlando, FL 32819
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 41 and 48 on the February 2000 Construction, Building Contractor (Contract Administration) examination.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The examination for licensure of a general contractor in the State of Florida is administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Technology, Licensure and Testing. Chapter 455.217, Florida Statutes. A written examination is authorized by Rule 61G4-16.001, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent contracts with Professional Testing, Incorporated, 1200 East Hillcrest Street, Orlando, Florida, which develops tests for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. This practice is approved by Section 455.217, Florida Statutes. Professional Testing, Incorporated, ensures that questions and answers are not ambiguous through a number of methodologies. Petitioner has been an "original" candidate for the construction, building contractor examination twice. The examination has three sections: business finance, project management, and contract administration. A candidate may retake any section three times before the entire examination has to be retaken. One of the questions Petitioner is challenging is the same question he had on the June 1999 examination, that is, the "S mortar" question. This question was repeated on the August 1999 and the February 2000 examination. The copies of the "S mortar" question and answers on the August 1999 and February 2000 examinations which were accepted into evidence were identical. Petitioner maintains that the August 1999 examination question and answers accepted into evidence is not the same as the one he had on his examination. Petitioner agrees that the answer he gave, 20.74, was an incorrect answer and that 46.67 (the "graded correct" answer) was correct. Petitioner maintains that the 20.74 answer he gave on the February 2000 examination was a result of having been advised that 46.67 was an incorrect answer on the August 1999 test. Petitioner examined his original answer sheet form both examinations (August 1999 and February 2000) at the hearing. Petitioner's original answer for the August 1999 examination showed his answer to be "B", an incorrect answer, not the "graded correct" answer "C" (which was 46.67). The second challenged question is question 48 which deals with a "critical activity list" also called a "critical activity interval" or "critical path." Petitioner's answer is 106 days; the "graded correct" answer is 86 days. Question 48 asked the test taker to identify "the latest day work must begin on the roofing activity." One-hundred and six is the number of days the roof must be completed by (not when work must begin). Since this roofing activity takes 21 days it must begin on the 86th day to be complete on the 106th day. The psychometrician expert witness testified that both questions (and answers) were within acceptable statistical ranges as valid. That opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 41 and 48. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jermado Emmanuel Turner 6511 John Aldan Way Orlando, Florida 32818 Cathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Martin Gold is now, and has been since July, 1986, licensed by Petitioner as a Registered Specialty Contractor authorized to do painting and waterproofing work in Dade County. He holds license number RX 0051718, which expires June 30, 1989. Since receiving his license he has been disciplined twice by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Gold is the President of Team Leisure Corp., a construction company, and is also its "qualifying agent." On August 14, 1986, Team Leisure Corp. entered into a written contract with Terry Dudley and his wife, Patricia, in which it agreed, for $12,000, to build a two-room, 27-foot by 13- foot addition to the Dudley home located at 15510 Leisure Drive in Dade County and to install new windows in the existing structure. According to the terms of the agreement, Team Leisure was to do "no painting." In his capacity as President of Team Leisure Corp., Gold hired William Sernaker to directly oversee the completion of the construction work specified in the Dudley contract. At the time, Sernaker was licensed as a general contractor in Dade County. As part of his arrangement with Gold, Sernaker assumed responsibility for ensuring that all work permits and inspections necessary to complete the Dudley project were obtained. On September 4, 1986, Sernaker obtained a building permit for the Dudley project. Thereafter, work on the project commenced. The foundation for the addition was laid and, on September 10, 1989, it passed the inspection of James Tucker, a Dade County building inspector. Fifteen days later, Tucker conducted a tie beam inspection. This phase of the project also received his formal approval. Sernaker obtained a roofing permit on October 14, 1986. The exterior of the roof was inspected by Russell Bergsma, another Dade County building inspector, on October 21, 1986. It too passed inspection. An electrical permit was obtained for the Dudley project on November 17, 1986, by Robins Electric, a subcontractor. When the electrical work was initially inspected by Grant Morse, another Dade County building inspector, it was rejected because there were a "few outlets missing." The record is unclear as to the results of any subsequent electrical inspections. Morse also conducted an inspection of the framing work done on the Dudley project. He did so on or around November 21, 1986. In his view, the framing was "not to code." Accordingly, he left a "tag" at the job site on which he gave the following written explanation for his rejection of the framing work: All window bucks must be tight with caulking, no gaps. When the stucco meets the window frame, it should be set back at approximately a 45-degree angle at a width of one quarter to provide a groove to be filled with caulking. Continuous back bed of caulking must be maintained. A follow-up inspection of the framing work was performed by Bergsma on December 1, 1986. In Bergsma's opinion, while some corrections had been made, deficiencies remained. He therefore issued another rejection. A third framing inspection was conducted on December 3, 1986. Tucker was the inspector who performed this inspection. He approved the work that had been done. Prior to this inspection, Gold had paid another contractor $600 to "redo" the framing. This additional expense was not passed on to the Dudleys. Morse attempted to conduct a final building inspection on December 22, 1989. He was unable to do so, however, because "[n]o one was home." From the outset, Gold kept abreast of the progress that was being made on the Dudley project by communicating with Sernaker. He also visited the job site on at least a weekly basis. Gold also heard from the Dudleys concerning the status of the project. The Dudleys closely monitored the work of Sernaker and his crew. If the work was not done to their satisfaction, they expressed their disapproval to Sernaker and, if he did not rectify the matter, they complained to Gold over the telephone. The following were among the complaints made by the Dudleys: the foundation was not level; the roof did not contain any fiberglass material; the window frames did not fit properly; the wood used for the open beam ceilings had cracks in it and was unsightly; the walls in the den were not level and had cracks in them; the linoleum on the Dudleys' screened-in porch was ripped by workers putting up a wall; the outside stucco was cracking and peeling; and trash was left on the property. An effort was made to address the Dudleys' concerns. For instance, in response to the Dudleys' complaints, a "thin cap" was placed over the foundation to make it level. The roof was redone with fiberglass material. The Dudleys were reimbursed for the linoleum they needed to replace on their porch. A contractor was hired to correct the framing problem. Nonetheless, the Dudleys became increasingly dissatisfied with Team Leisure Corp.. Sometime shortly before January 6, 1987, they became so dissatisfied that they ordered Sernaker and his crew off their property and refused to make any additional payments. Following this incident, Gold met with the Dudleys and attempted to mollify them. This was his first face-to-face meeting with them. He offered to send another contractor to the Dudleys' home to perform the work the Dudleys believed needed to be done to satisfactorily complete the project. The Dudleys accepted this offer. On January 6, 1987, Gold sent the Dudleys a letter which read as follows: As per our mutual agreement, these are the items you requested be taken care of. Once taken care of, you agree to sign completion certificate so we can be funded. COMPLETED (please check upon satisfaction) 1.) Touch up outside windows. 2.) Windows to be locked in. 3.) Walls in den to be taken down and leveled out. 4.) Frame around closet door. 5.) Fix two windows; replace concrete in doors and windows. 6.) Clean up. 7.) Replace vinyl, in rear den. 8.) $100.00 dollars to Mrs. Dudley, for clean-up. 9.) 10 year guarantee- roof and release of lien [sic]. 10.) Concrete over build. 11.) Crack under window sill. 12.) Nail in door frame. 13.) Gaps in drywall bedroom. 14.) Stucco cracking outside. 15.) Electrical inspection. (not to be Mike Charles.) Accepted and Approved: x x After receiving this letter, Mr. Dudley checked all but items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 on the letter's "completion certificate." Neither he nor his wife, however, signed this "completion certificate." Although the cracks in the outside stucco had been repaired at the time Dudley checked item 14, the stucco subsequently started cracking again. A final building inspection of the Dudley project was conducted by Tucker on January 13, 1989. The project was "turned down" by Inspector Tucker because it was unpainted. Under their contractual agreement, the Dudleys, not Team Leisure Corp., were responsible for the painting of the project. The painting was not done because the Dudleys noticed cracks reappearing in the outside stucco. On or around March 4, 1987, Mr. Dudley telephoned Inspector Bergsma and asked him to conduct an informal field inspection of the project. Bergsma complied with Dudley's request. When he arrived at the Dudley home, Dudley showed him a "gap on the rear of the house ... where the two roofs are at different levels and come together." Bergsma told Dudley that "[i]t didn't belong there" and that it would have to be eliminated if the structure was to pass a final building inspection. As of the date of the hearing, the structure had not passed such an inspection. Team Leisure Corp. received $10,200 for the work done in connection with the Dudley project. The remaining $1,800 of the $12,000 that the Dudleys were to pay pursuant to the contract was held in escrow by a bank. Ultimately, this $1,800, along with approximately an additional $500 from Team Leisure Corp., was given to the Dudleys as part of a settlement between them and Team Leisure Corp.. The money was to be used by the Dudleys to pay another contractor to complete the project to their satisfaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of contracting outside the scope of his license in violation of Section 489.129(1) (j) , Florida Statutes; (2) imposing a $750 administrative fine upon Respondent for said violation, and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent set forth in the instant administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 30th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 323399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Carlos Garcia, Esquire 8603 Dixie Highway Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33143 =================================================================
