The Issue Whether Petitioner, William P. Pearson, Jr., is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111 Florida Statutes and Rule 221-6,35. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of William P. Pearson, Jr. and had admitted five exhibits. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Richard Hartog, Investigator, and Douglas A. Shropshire, the Department of Professional Regulation's senior attorney for the prosecution of all Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board cases, and had admitted five exhibits. At close of formal hearing, Petitioner elected to make oral closing argument and to file no post-hearing proposals. Respondent elected to file a transcript of proceedings and written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 10 days of filing transcript. Respondent's proposals are ruled on within the appendix to this recommended order pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs associated with his defense against charges contained in an administrative complaint filed and prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation which was styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industrv Licensing Board v. William P. Pearson, Jr., DOAH Case No. 85-0672. The administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-0672 contained two counts. Count I alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(c) through violation of Section 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1983), which statutory section addresses making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in the practice of the profession of construction. Count II alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1983) by not complying with the specific escrow requirements imposed by the consumer protection Statute, Section 501.1375(2) Florida Statutes and violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), which latter statutory section addresses gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The state agency was therefore not a nominal party only but was an accusing and principal party. Petitioner seeks an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $3,568.75 together with costs of $11.10. Respondent, in its Amended Response to Petitioner's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, did not challenge the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs set forth in Petitioner's affidavit attached and incorporated in his Amended Motion and specifically stipulated to reasonableness and necessity at formal hearing. Accordingly, the foregoing amounts are found to be necessary and reasonable. Pearson Construction Co., Inc.'s domicile during the whole of DOAH Case No. 85-0672's initial prosecution was Charlotte County, Florida. It had no employees other than William P. Pearson, Jr. and his wife, who worked without compensation. William P. Pearson, Jr. was the president and qualifying agent of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. which was a Florida corporation at all times material to the initial prosecution. The combined net worth of William P. Pearson, Jr. and of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. never exceeded two million dollars and presently petitioner Pearson's personal net worth does not exceed two million dollars. In early 1986, prior to initiating this instant fee and costs recovery case, Mr. Pearson failed to update payment of his corporate fees and Pearson Construction Co., Inc. was automatically dissolved by the secretary of State. Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) notified John Vlasek of its intent to investigate his complaint against Petitioner in late July 1984. DPR's investigation was conducted by Investigator Richard Hartog. Mr. Hartog has been employed by the Respondent since November 1982 and has been its investigator since March 1983. He has a degree in criminal justice and 23 years prior experience as a detective with the Police Department of Nassau County, New York. Investigator Hartog was first made aware of vlasek's complaint against Pearson Construction Co., Inc. by way of a memorandum dated July 16, 1984 received directly from the State Attorney's Office for the 20th Judicial Circuit. Attached to the State Attorney's memorandum was a 6 page consumer complaint form signed by John A. Vlasek. Hartog determined that William P. Pearson, Jr. was the qualifying agent for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. and then telephoned DPR's complaint section in Tallahassee, giving the complaint section the basis of the information received from the State Attorney's Office and statutory citations for alleged violations of sections 489.129(1)(m), 455.227(1)(a) and 501.1375 Florida statutes. His purpose was to obtain a complaint number to continue the investigation. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Petitioner William P. Pearson, Jr. regarding the allegations underlying Vlasek's complaint. Upon completion of the investigation the Department's investigator prepared an investigative report. The investigative report includes a narrative summary of the investigator's interview with Pearson. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the investigator's interview of Pearson: Mr. Pearson states he built a good number of homes a year. Last year he built thirty-nine (39) homes. Mr. Pearson was readvised of the allegations made by Mr. Vlasek, a prospective buyer of one of Pearson's spec homes. Mr. Pearson maintains the reason the house was not completed on June 12, 1984, the date originally stipulated in the contract, was the fact Mr. Vlasek was not in a hurry to have the house completed. Mr. Pearson stated he is not aware of the requirements of P.S. 501.1375, therefore, he did not handle the deposit according to the requirement set forth. The money was used to complete the spec house for Vlasek. Mr. Pearson states he received a letter from the First Federal Savings and, Loan of Charlotte County indicating Mr. Vlasek obtained an extension of his loan commitment with the bank. Mr. Malone, who was present, verifies that such a letter was received by Mr. Pearson. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Barbara Lowe, a loan officer for the First Federal Savings and Loan of Charlotte County. The investigator interviewed Ms. Lowe to determine "whether the bank had, in fact, sent a letter to Mr. Pearson indicating that an extension to Mr. Vlasek's 45-day loan had been extended." The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the interview of Ms. Lowe: Barbara Lowe, who states she handled the transaction, states no such letter was mailed to Pearson Construction. It would not be appropriate to grant an extension in this type of action. Mr. Vlasek would be required to enter into a separate agreement for an additional forty-five (45) days thereby nullifying the original commitent. This was not done by Mr. Vlasek, therefore, the original commitment expired 5/31/84. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Tom Hannon, a loan officer with the First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Charlotte County. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following finding: Mr. Hannon contacted this office to relate that the loan commitment obtained by Vlasek was for a period of forty-five (45) days between 4/19/84 and 5/31/84. There is no record a thirty (30) day extension was asked for or granted according to the records. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Jack R. Malone who was a salesman for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation relates that Malone stated the deposit money was not required to be deposited in an escrow account but when referred to section 501.1375 Malone stated money might have been given to an attorney, presumably for escrow, and further Malone related that: Mr. Vlasek became very impatient because he said very little was being done to complete his house. He was concerned because the terms of his loan agreement was a commitment which expired June 1, 1984. The completed investigative report as forwarded by the investigator to the Department's legal section consisted, in part, of the following: a three page narrative summary of the investigator' s findings; a copy of the memorandum and accompanying executed consumer complaint form; a First Federal savings and Loan Association loan transfer commitment to John and Madelyn Vlasek; a copy of section 501.1375, Florida statutes; a copy of the April 1984 contract between Pearson Construction Company and John and Madelyn Vlasek reflecting a completion date altered from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Douglas A. Shropshire was the DPR attorney responsible for reviewing the investigative report with regard to making a recommendation to the probable Cause Panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The complaint against Petitioner was a "case of first impression" in that DPR had not previously investigated a complaint alleging a violation of the escrow requirement of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes. As a result of the complaint against Petitioner, Mr. Shropshire requested that a law clerk prepare a memorandum of law with regard to the relationship between Section 501.1375, Florida Statutes and the regulation of licensed contractors under Chapter 489 Florida Statutes. On or about September 21, 1984 the law clerk provided Mr. Shropshire with a two page memorandum of law exploring the relationship between Chapter 501, Florida Statutes and the regulation of the construction industry. The memorandum reached the general conclusion that licensed contractors were subject to the provisions of Chapter 501 Florida Statutes. In preparing his recommendation to the Probable Cause Panel, Shropshire reviewed both Hartog's investigative report with all attachments and the law clerk's memorandum of law. On January 10, 1985 DPR, through Mr. Shropshire, made a probable cause recommendation to the Construction Industry Licensing Board Probable Cause Panel. Prior to January 10, 1985 DPR had provided each panel member with a copy of the DPR's probable cause package. The probable-cause package as reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel consisted of the following: a cover sheet setting forth the Subject's name, case number and statutory violations; a proposed administrative complaint; a copy of the narrative portion of the Department's investigative report. The Probable Cause Panel did not review a copy of the Vlasek-Pearson contract which provided it was not contingent on financing, which provided for forfeit to Pearson of Vlasek's deposit upon Vlasek's default, and which provided for escrow of Vlasek's deposit pending closing of the transaction. However, this item was reviewed by the DPR attorney before making the probable cause recommendation and the copy of this item reviewed showed that the completion date had been altered, allegedly by Malone. Petitioner stipulated to the correctness of the procedure employed in impaneling the Probable Cause panel. Each panel member had the opportunity to review the probable cause package before the Probable Cause Panel was convened. Each panel member had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the probable cause materials prior to the meeting. The Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel was Mr. Roy Adams. Mr. Adams is a certified general contractor. The other probable cause member was Mr. Joseph Richards. Mr. Richards is a pharmacist and is a public member of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Neither Mr. Richards nor Mr. Adams is an attorney. The Construction Industry Licensing Board is not involved in the investigation or prosecution of a complaint. In making the determination of probable cause the panel members discussed the allegations contained in the complaint with both DPR's prosecuting attorney and their independent advisor from the Department of Legal Affairs. On January 10, 1985 the Probable Cause Panel found probable cause to believe Petitioner violated Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The panel's finding of probable cause included, but was not limited to, the violations alleged by DPR in its recommendation. The Probable Cause Panel directed DPR to file a formal complaint. On January 16, 1985 DPR's Secretary signed a formal administrative complaint charging Petitioner with violating the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes reviewed by the panel plus Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes. Petitioner denied all the allegations in the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On August 20, 1985 a formal hearing was conducted before the undersigned hearing officer. Petitioner interposed the defense that Section 501.1375 Florida Statutes did not apply to him because he had constructed less than 10 houses in the year 1984 despite constructing more than 20 homes per year in most years. Section 501.1375 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Building Contractor" means any person who, for compensation, constructs and sells one-family or two-family residential dwelling units, except for a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. "Developer" means either a building contractor who offers new residential dwelling units for sale or any person who offers a new one-family or two-family dwelling unit for sale except a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. The Recommended Order entered December 20, 1985 found as fact that: On April 12, 1984 John and Madelyn Vlasek contracted with Pearson Construction Company for the purchase of a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. . . .The contract specified a $2,000 escrow deposit on the purchase price of $68,500. On April 12, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearson Construction Company with $200 in cash toward the escrow deposit. On April 13, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearso Construction Company with a check in the amount of $1,800 toward the escrow deposit. The contract specified the deposit was to be held in escrow pending closing of the transaction. . . .The contract referred to above was not contingent on the buyer obtaining financing. However, the deposit was not placed in escrow as specified in the contract and as required under the terms of the contract. Instead, it was used by the Respondent in purchasing lighting fixtures, carpeting, tiling and other accoutrements in colors and styles selected by John R. Vlasek. On April 23, 1984, the Vlaseks executed the loan transfer commitment. . . .After executing the loan transfer commitment, Vlasek realized that the commitment would expire prior to the June 12, 1984 closing date. Vlasek then notified Pearson Construction Company of the discrepancy between the expiration date of the loan commitment and the actual closing date. Upon being informed of the discrepancy, Jack R. Malone agreed to modify the closing date. Malone expressly modified the contract by changing the closing date from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Vlasek subsequently informed the Respondent of the change of the closing date. When informed of the change, Respondent indicated the home would be substantially completed by June 1, 1984. . . .Vlasek was repeatedly assured by Malone and other members of the construction team (not Pearson) that the home would be completed by June 2, 1984. . . .the Vlasek contract was rescinded . . .Pearson Construction Company, Inc. and William P. Pearson constructed a total of 8, possibly 9 houses during the calendar year of 1984. In most previous years he has constructed in excess of 20 houses per year. The findings and conclusions of law of the recommended order are replete with analyses of credibility of witnesses. The conclusions of law discuss such diverse legal concepts as the differences in actual versus apparent authority and ratification of an agent's/employee's misrepresentations by his employer, reasonable reliance thereon, and whether section 501.1375 should be applied annually (10 houses constructed per year) or upon a pattern of annual house construction (8-9 houses in 1984 versus more than 20 houses each previous year). The recommended order determined that DPR had failed to establish Count I (misleading, deceptive or fraudulent representations) by clear and convincing evidence and found only a "minimal" violation of Section 429.129(1)(m) had been established within Count II due to the petitioner's failure to escrow. By Final Order dated March 17, 1986, the Board adopted the findings of fact in toto. The final order rejected the conclusions of law and dismissed the administrative complaint. No evidence was introduced to indicate or otherwise explain why the Board rejected the hearing officer's conclusions of law.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the contracting license of the Respondent Konrad v. Ising should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined by the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2(a)-(g) were offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Konrad V. Ising is licensed to practice contracting in Florida, and is a licensed certified general contractor holding license number CG C009669, a license current and active from 1982 through the present. The Respondent qualified Master Craft Constructors using license number CG C009669. During 1982, the Respondent entered into an association with Carlton Mosher whereby the Respondent would use his contractor's license to obtain building permits for construction projects which Mosher had contracted. The Respondent hoped his association with Mosher would lead to a partnership and assist him in obtaining practical experience in the construction field. During his association with the Respondent, Mosher was not a licensed contractor. In December 1982, Mosher, doing business as Re-Builders, contracted with Russell Hirstins to construct a room addition on his home at 4034 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. On December 3, 1982, an application for a building permit for the job was submitted to the City of St. Petersburg and permit number 88638 was issued. The permit was obtained using the Respondent's license number and Respondent is listed as the job contractor. However, the Respondent performed no work on the Hirstins job, maintained no control over Mosher's work, failed to adequately supervise the project, and failed to qualify Re-Builders with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since becoming licensed in 1975, the Respondent has not been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings. At the final hearing, the Respondent candidly acknowledged that his association with Mosher was a regrettable mistake. The project was completed by Mosher to the apparent satisfaction to the Hirstins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board finding the Respondent Konrad V. Ising guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $250 administrative fine. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Konrad V. Ising Post Office Box 1023 Maitland, Florida 323751 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C003076. This license was suspended on March 4, 1977, for three years, and was reinstated in March of 1980. On March 21, 1980, the Respondent became the qualifier for WWRS Enterprises, Inc. This corporation had been formed in 1978 by the Respondent and his partner, William Rymers, for the purpose of engaging in the general contracting business. Mr. Rymers became president of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and the Respondent acted as secretary, supervisor of construction, and manager of financial matters. Although the Respondent did not hold any direct stock ownership, his share of the corporate stock was registered in his wife's name. The Respondent knew that under the law WWRS Enterprises, Inc., needed to have a qualifying agent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and the Respondent and his partner discussed this subject. Since the Respondent's license was under suspension during 1978 and 1979, it was proposed that a Max Dunaway would become the qualifying agent for WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but the necessary paperwork to register him as qualifying agent for the company was never filed. Thus, until March of 1980, the company was not qualified to engage in general contracting. In November, 1979, the Respondent negotiated a contract on behalf of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., with Wilhelm Hackenberg and his wife, for the construction of an addition to their home in Ormond Beach, Florida. Since the Respondent's license was suspended, Max Dunaway pulled the building permit for the company, but the job was supervised by the Respondent, not Max Dunaway. WWRS Enterprises, Inc., was the contracting company to which at least one subcontractor submitted invoices, Mr. Dunaway's company, Southwide Builders, Inc., was not involved in this transaction. At least four construction jobs were performed by WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but only the Hackenberg job was identified by a precise time-frame during which the company had no qualifying agent. The Respondent does not challenge many of these facts. Instead, he contends that he never held any stock in WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and was only a managing employee of the company, not responsible for its policies. These contentions, however, are not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, and have been discounted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CG C003076 held by the Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21 day of May, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire May, 1981. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Neil Wayne Smith 14 Rain Tree Drive Port Orange, Florida 32019
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-licensed roofing contractor and general contractor. He received his roofing contractor's license on August 10, 2004, and his general contractor's license on October 13, 2005. At all times material to the instant case, GGC has held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been the primary qualifying agent for GGC. On January 5, 2007, GGC, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Assad and Millicent Thompson, agreeing, for $37,135.00, to construct a rear porch lanai addition to the Thompsons' single family home in Royal Palm Beach, Florida (Project). The Thompsons paid GGC (by check) $11,140.50 at the time they entered into the contract. They made three subsequent payments to GGC (by check) totaling $21,232.50. The last of these payments was made on or about April 17, 2007. On January 9, 2007, GGC, through Respondent, applied for a permit from the Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Building Department to perform the work it had agreed to do on the Thompsons' home. The permit was subsequently issued. In or around March of 2007, GGC began work on the Project. Dissatisfied with the progress GGC was making on the Project, the Thompsons, on June 5, 2007, sent the following letter to Respondent: With reference to the delay in completing the above construction, we are writing to request your immediate attention. We would like to know specifically: The reason for the delay[.] Your intention in writing as to your estimated time of completion of [the] specified project. Please note we have not physically seen you since April 19, 2007. We understand that inspection of the roof on May 10th resulted in certain violations and as per your conversation with Assad [Mr. Thompson] (when he called you on May 20th), you had problems contacting the Engineer. Please note that his name, telephone and fax are clearly indicated on the plan[s]. Per telephone conversation with him, he has not heard from you recently. You have indicated impatience and anxiety on our part, quite frankly the patience of JOB would have run out long ago. The pile of rubbish is a breeding room for all kinds of creatures and has been a disgusting sight not only for us, but for our neighbors. The open roof has created a vulnerable situation for us and can only deteriorate as we are now in hurricane season. We urge you to contact us urgently with your plan of action. Not having received a written response from Respondent, the Thompsons, on June 25, 2007, sent a follow-up letter to Respondent, which read as follows We note that you have ignored our previous letter of June 5th and you have also failed to honor your telephone promises of June 8th and June 19th to proceed with stucco/electric/rubbish removal etc. In fact absolutely nothing has been done on this job since May 18th. This is totally unacceptable. We have arrangements in place for use of the patio July 14th, cancellation of which will result in serious inconvenience for us. Please be advised that if no progress is made by June 30, 2007, we will be forced to seek all measures at our disposal to have the patio satisfactorily completed. We once again request your urgent co-operation in this matter. The next day, June 26, 2007, the Thompsons received a letter from Respondent (sent by facsimile transmission) acknowledging his receipt of the Thompsons' June 25, 2007, letter. In his letter, Respondent explained that he was "in a bad situation financially" due to circumstances "out of [his] control" related to another project, and he asked the Thompsons to "help [him] resolve[] this matter" by paying the "stucco man" $1,000.00 for materials and an additional $1,000.00 "when [the stucco work] was completed," as well as paying $400.00 for a dumpster to be brought to the Project site (which payments would go towards the monies the Thompsons had to pay for the Project under their contract with GGC). The Thompsons wrote back to Respondent that same day (June 26, 2007), advising him that they would pay for the materials for the stucco work "upon presentation of the invoice, then pay $1,000 for the job on completion as [Respondent had] requested," and that they also would "pay the dumpster charges on completion of the clean-up." Ernest Joseph was the "stucco man" that GGC sent to the Thompsons' home to work on the Project. He last worked on the Project in mid-July 2007. The Thompsons paid Mr. Joseph (by check) a total of $2,000.00 for labor and materials. They also paid Onyx Waste Services (by check) $416.91 to have a dumpster brought to the Project site. Neither GGC, nor anyone acting on its behalf, did any work on the Project after Mr. Joseph left the site in mid-July 2007. The Project was incomplete when the work ceased.2 GGC provided the Thompsons no explanation for the stoppage. In fact, the Thompsons did not hear from GGC at all. The Thompsons were anxious for the Project to be completed, and they did nothing to prevent GGC from accomplishing this objective. After more than 90 consecutive days had passed without any work having been done on the Project, the Thompsons hired another contractor to finish the Project. The Project was ultimately completed. The Thompsons paid $17,540.00 for the additional work that was necessary to complete the Project. The total amount that the Thompsons paid for the Project was $52,329.91 ($32,373 to GGC; $2,000 to Mr. Joseph; $416.91 to Onyx Waste Services; and $17,540.00 to finish the work GGC had failed to do). This was $15,194.91 more than the contract price. Petitioner has incurred a total of $182.90 in investigative and prosecutorial costs in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), as alleged in Counts II and IV, respectively, of the Administrative Complaint; (2) suspending his license for a period of two years; (3) fining him $7,500.00; (4) requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $15,194.91 to the Thompsons; (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department $182.90 for investigative and prosecutorial costs; and (5) dismissing Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of August, 2008.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Bobby D. Patton, was a certified general contractor, qualifying Bellavia Construction, Inc. (sometimes referred to as Bellavia) and has been issued license number CGC011543. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material hereto, John Bellavia (Bellavia) was not licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, as a contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material hereto, Allstate Interiors, Inc., was not qualified with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On October 12, 1982, Bellavia Construction contracted with Mrs. Mei Lin Eisen to construct a fast food restaurant within the confines of Aventura Mall for a cost of $37,000.00. Bellavia executed the contract on behalf of Bellavia Construction as it's president. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On October 15, 1982, Mrs. Eisen gave to Bellavia Construction a down payment of $7,400.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Bellavia Construction was to complete the construction within four weeks after the issuance of the building permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Mrs. Eisen emphasized to Bellavia that the construction phase of the restaurant had to be completed within the stated period in order that her business could be operating at the time of the Mall's grand opening. Mrs. Eisen also advised Bellavia that if she did not have her business operational at the time of the grand opening, she would be assessed a daily penalty by the Mall's owner for every day she was not in business beyond the grand opening. (TR 21, 35). On October 15, 1982, a building permit was issued to Respondent for the construction improvement work by Bellavia Construction on the Eisen job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR43). For the three week period following the issuance of the building permit (October 15, 1982), there was virtually no progress on the job with the exception of the drilling of three holes for plumbing and the placement of metal studs; which holes were incorrectly drilled and had to be relocated because they did not comport with the schematic drawings as depicted in the plans. During the three week period following the issuance of the permit, Bellavia was observed performing construction at another business in the mall. During that time, Mrs. Eisen inquired of Bellavia as to the lack of progress on her job and was told that there was no money to be made on the project. At the conclusion of the three week period subsequent to October 15, 1982, Bellavia quit Mrs. Eisen's project and did not return the deposit monies. Mrs. Eisen therefore had to obtain the services of another contractor to complete the job. As a result of this delay, her business was not open at the time of the mall's grand opening. (TR 22, 36). Mrs. Eisen was assessed a civil penalty of $16,800.00, payable over a seven year period at $200.00 a month. (TR 23) Neither during the negotiation of the contract nor during the performance of the contract did Mrs. Eisen or her architect have any knowledge of Respondent. Their entire contractual dealings were with Bellavia. (TR 23, 24, 38 and 39). Bellavia was also the president of Allstate Interiors, Inc., which attained corporate status on May 2, 1983. On May 4, 1983, a building permit for construction work by Bellavia Construction for Aventura Travel was issued to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). On May 11, 1983, a building permit for construction work by Bellavia Construction for Dentaland was issued to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). During February, 1983, Respondent moved from his address of record with the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, which was 8698 S.W. 50th Street, Cooper City, Florida. In July, 1983, the Department became aware of Respondent's move from the above location during the investigation of the instant case. (TR 50, 53/54, 56/58). Respondent, during the license renewal process period for 1985/1987, notified the Department of his address change to 1005 N.E. 143rd Street, North Miami, Florida, which became his address of record. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). As stated in the background, Respondent did not appear at the hearing except through counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Bobby D. Patton, license number CGC 011543, be suspended for a period of one (1 year. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Erroll Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven M. Rosen, Esquire 5601 Building 5601 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether a certified general contractor's license issued to Francisco Vincente De Moya (Petitioner) that has been classified null and void should be reinstated pursuant to the "hardship" provision of section 455.271(6)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency that regulates general contractors in the State of Florida. In 1998, Respondent issued Petitioner certified general contractor license CGC 05992. Certified general contractors are required to take a total of 14 hours of continuing education courses in specified categories each biennial period.2 Credit is generally posted for the biennial period during which the course was taken. All continuing education courses discussed in this Recommended Order were taken by Petitioner using the internet and reported electronically. Respondent typically posts and maintains such credits electronically. Credits are typically posted for the biennial period in which the credits are earned. If a licensee had been deficient for a prior biennial period, Respondent's staff can manually post-date credits from a subsequent biennial period to the biennial period that is deficient. 2004-2006 Biennial Period On August 23, 2004, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a personal check in the amount of $209.00 as payment of renewal fees for his general contractor's license for the biennial period 2004-2006. Petitioner's general contractor's license was not renewed for the 2006-2008 biennial period because Petitioner had not completed sufficient continuing education hours during the 2004-2006 biennial period to meet his continuing education requirements. On September 1, 2006, Respondent classified the status of Petitioner's as "expired/delinquent." As of September 1, 2006, and as of the date of the formal hearing, Respondent's records reflected that Petitioner was deficient in his continuing education requirements for the biennial period 2004- 2006 by a total of six hours in three categories.3 One hour of the deficiency was in the category of advanced building code. Four hours of the deficiency were in the category of general. One hour of the deficiency was in the category of workers' compensation. 2006-2008 Biennial Period On September 29, 2006, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a payment in the amount of $309.00 for renewal fees and late fees for his general contractor's license for the biennial period 2006-2008. On October 20, 2006, Petitioner completed a four hour continuing education course in "core training." Petitioner testified that this credit was intended to be for the 2006-2008 biennial period. Prior to the renewal deadline of August 29, 2008, Petitioner requested and obtained from Respondent an extension of 30 days to submit proof of completion of continuing education credits for the 2006-2008 biennial period and payment of renewal fees for the 2008-2010 biennial period. 2008-2010 Biennial Period On September 29, 2008, Petitioner paid Respondent $209.00 as payment for renewal fees for his general contractor's license for the 2008-2010 biennial period. On September 28 and 29, 2008, Petitioner completed 14 hours of continuing education credit and submitted the certificates of completion for each course to Respondent with the notation "Please find Certificates of Completion for my G.C. license # CGC 059992 for 2006-2008." Respondent received the certificates of completion on October 1, 2008. These hours satisfied Petitioner's continuing education requirements for the 2006-2008 biennial period. On October 2, 2008, Petitioner's certified general contractor's license became "null and void."4 With knowledge that his contractor's license was considered null and void,5 Petitioner took 26 hours of continuing education credit between November 24, 2008, and August 7, 2009, and submitted his certificates of completion to Respondent. Respondent did not apply any of the 24 credits Petitioner earned between September 29 and December 11, 2008, to the 2004-2006 biennial period, nor was there any evidence that Petitioner requested Respondent to do so.6 In 2006, Petitioner's mother-in-law (Ms. Careaga) was diagnosed with degenerative dementia and began to deteriorate physically and mentally. From 2007 until her death on December 15, 2008, Ms. Careaga became immobile, more disoriented and confused, and required 24 hour supervision. Petitioner had a close relationship with his mother-in-law. Petitioner and Petitioner's wife became Ms. Careaga's 24-hour primary caregivers so she would not have to go to a nursing home. Petitioner continued to work full-time and serve as a primary caregiver until Ms. Careaga's death. During this period, Petitioner assisted other family members in closing down the restaurant that his mother-in-law had owned and operated. On January 12, 2011, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for the reinstatement of his general contractor's license. The Notice of Denial was not admitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. However, a "Notice of Intent to Deny," purporting to be the Respondent's proposed denial, was attached to the Petition for Formal Hearing. That Notice of Intent to Deny recites that the Petitioner's license expired due to "non payment" [sic] of renewal fees. That statement is incorrect. The license became null and void because of the deficient continuing education requirements for the 2004-2006 biennial period. The Notice of Intent to Deny also found that Petitioner failed to establish hardship within the meaning of section 455.271(6)(b). Petitioner is eligible to obtain a new license by retaking the licensure exam and by establishing that he is of good moral character and financially stable and responsible. His experience has been established by virtue of his prior license. Petitioner also holds licensure as an architect. That license also became null and void during the same time frame as his contractor's license. On February 17, 2011, the Florida Board of Architecture, considering the same facts described above, approved Petitioner's application for reinstatement of his architecture license.
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 denying Petitioner's application for reinstatement of his certified general contractor's license based on the hardship provision set forth in section 455.271(6)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2011.
