The Issue Whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should permit the development authorized by Monroe County Building Permit No. 9110002601 and, if so, upon what, if any, conditions and restrictions.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The property that is the subject of the development order under review in the instant case (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") is an 18.85-acre parcel located on No Name Key in unincorporated Monroe County within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. Since 1985, the Property has been owned by Respondent Florida Keys Investment Properties, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "FKIP"). The Property is the site of a borrow pit that currently occupies 9.65 acres of the Property's surface area. Since the early 1970's, Rudolph Krause & Sons of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Krause & Sons") has been operating the borrow pit and excavating fill from the Property for sale to the public pursuant to permits issued by the County. Both Krause & Sons and FKIP are owned by Rudolph Krause, his wife, Roseann Krause, and other members of the Krause family. Since 1975, Roseann Krause has assumed primary responsibility for obtaining from the County the permits necessary to perform the excavation work on the Property (hereinafter referred to as the "excavation permits"). Such excavation permits have been issued by the County each year from 1975 to 1991, with the exception of 1988. 1/ Each of these excavation permits contained language indicating that the permit was a renewal of at least one previously issued permit. No excavation permit other than the 1991 permit, which is the permit under review in the instant case, has been appealed by the Department. Although the excavation work on the Property has been conducted with the approval, and to the apparent satisfaction, of the County, in 1985 the United States Army Corps of Engineers filed a complaint in federal district court against Mr. and Mrs. Krause, FKIP and Krause & Sons alleging that certain work had been done in the wetlands portion of the Property without the requisite dredge and fill permit and therefore in violation of federal law. Neither the County nor the Department were parties to this federal district court proceeding, although the County, at least, was aware of the proceeding. In September of 1985, the federal district court entered a final consent judgement, the first eight numbered paragraphs of which provided as follows: This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties thereto. The provisions of this Final Judgment shall be binding upon the Defendants; their successors and assigns; and all persons, firms and corpora- tions in active concert or privity with the Defendants who have actual or constructive notice of this Judgment by personal service or otherwise. All references to geographical locations with respect to this dredge and fill/restoration on No Name Key shall be directed to the attached sketch entitled "Florida Keys Investment Properties, Inc. Restoration Plan." (Exhibit A). Exhibit A is merely an enlarged view of a portion of Exhibit B, which is a jurisdictional determination by Curtis Kruer, dated June 3, 1983. Within 18 months of entry of this Final (Consent) Judgment, the Defendants shall remove all fill material located in the area indicated on Exhibit A (the south side and southern portion of east side of the existing borrow pit) down to the adjacent wetland elevation. All spoil material so removed will be placed on upland areas on site or at the Defendants' option, may be trucked off site. Spoil material may be stockpiled in areas designated as wetlands immediately adjacent to the areas of the borrow pit to be excavated. Defendants shall notify the Big Pine Key regulatory Field Office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers upon commencement and completion of this phase of the earthmoving work. Within three years of the entry of this Final (Consent) Judgment, the Defendants shall be allowed to enlarge the existing borrow pit as shown on Exhibit A to a maximum depth of -60 feet MSL. Within 120 days from completion of the excavation work described in paragraph 5 above or within 40 months after entry of this decree, which- ever date comes first, the Defendants, shall complete the creation of the wetland shelf area on the eastern and western sides of the borrow pit (excluding that portion of the pit to be excavated in the uplands, i.e. Section "C" on Exhibit B) by grading the area down to the adjacent natural wetland elevations as shown on Exhibit A. All spoil material will be placed on an upland site or, at Defendants' option, may be temporarily stored on site, and then trucked off site within the period set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph. Defendants agree to conduct the above-described restoration measures in an environmentally-sensitive manner and shall use their best efforts to avoid damage to adjacent wetlands or water areas (other than the borrow pit) during this process. In addition, a low fill berm 6-feet wide and 2-feet high shall be constructed and remain around the immediate edge of the pit as shown in Exhibit A at all times during excavation of the pit. This berm shall be extended around the immediate edge of the pit's final configuration. This allows Defendants to continue excavation of the pit in a northerly direction into the existing uplands shown as "C" on Exhibit B. Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from conducting any further dredging, filling or construction activities at No Name Key, adjacent to Big Spanish Channel in any wetland or water area, above or below the mean high water line, without the prior issuance of a Department of Army permit. The only exception to this provision is the work described herein. Only that portion of Defendants' property depicted as Section "C" on attached "Sketch of Jurisdictional Determination" (Exhibit "B" hereto) is agreed to be uplands, not subject to Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Mrs. Krause had submitted an application for a renewal excavation permit in February of 1985, prior to the entry of the federal district court's final consent judgment. The application, as originally submitted, did not specify the total amount of fill Krause & Sons expected to excavate during the year. In a letter dated March 12, 1985, that she sent to the County's Building Director, Mrs. Krause acknowledged that she did not include this information in the application. The body of the letter read as follows: I applied for renewal of our excavation (borrow pit on No Name) permit in February. I wish to keep current this permit but at the present time I cannot supply you with any additional informa- tion since it is in litigation with the Corps of Engineers. As soon as this litigation is resolved, I will supply you with the needed information as to width, length and depth to be dug as well as total amount of cubic yards. I do not wish this permit to lapse in any way and therefore request that you issue a renewal based upon this information at this time. If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I certainly appreciate your understanding. The following month, Mrs. Krause supplemented the application she had submitted in February by providing the County with two sketches of the Property which were similar, but not identical, to the one appended to the final consent judgment and identified as Exhibit B. On one of these sketches, she had made the following handwritten notations: "proposed 25,000 yds. 25'x750'x35,'" which notation appeared next to the southwestern edge of the borrow pit; and "uplands to be dug," which notation appeared in the same area on the northerly portion of the Property that is depicted in the final consent judgment's Exhibit B as Section "C" (hereinafter referred to as the "Uplands"). It is apparent from a review of the two sketches that the "proposed 25,000 yds" were to come from an area on the western side of the pit and not from the Uplands. On April 29, 1985, the County issued the excavation permit (Building Permit No. 13289A) for which Mrs. Krause had applied on behalf of Krause & Sons. In issuing this permit, the County used a printed building permit form which contained the following language: THIS PERMIT SHALL ALLOW WORK (AS DEFINED UNDER WORK DESCRIPTION BELOW AND AS SHOWN AND SPECIFIED ON PLANS SUBMITTED AND ON FILE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICES) TO BE PERFORMED ON THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BY THE OWNER LISTED: Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on the form was the following: "Renewal of Excavation Permit, Supplement to 11332A, 10203A, 9543A, 7791A, 6498A, 4884A, 3492A." Recipients of permits issued on these printed building permit forms are also furnished "permit cards" that they are instructed to post in an appropriate location at the work site. Each "permit card" contains the following advisement: The person accepting this permit shall conform to the terms of the application on file in the office of the Zoning Department of Monroe County and construction shall conform to the requirements of the Monroe County Codes. In or around early 1986, Krause & Sons hired E.I. DuPont De Nemours (hereinafter referred to as "DuPont") to blast, as a preliminary step in the resource extraction process, portions of the Property that had not yet been excavated (hereinafter referred to as the "Unexcavated Areas"), including the entire uplands area referred to as Section "C" in the federal district court's final consent judgment. Thereafter, DuPont, on behalf of Krause & Sons, applied to the County for a permit authorizing such blasting. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 14835A) was issued on February 20, 1986. In issuing Building Permit No. 14835A, the County used the same printed building permit form that it had used in issuing the 1985 excavation permit referenced in paragraph 15 above. It also provided an appropriate "permit card" for posting. Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on Building Permit No. 14835A was simply the following: "Blasters and Users Permit." No further indication was given as to the nature or scope of the work authorized to be performed. Following the issuance of Building Permit No. 14835A on February 26, 1986, Dupont began its blasting of the Unexcavated Areas. The work was completed later that year. Mr. Krause was on site during the blasting and provided assistance to DuPont. Krause & Sons paid Dupont a total of $267,131.58 for the blasting. In addition, it purchased or leased equipment to be used in the excavation of the blasted material. It would not have made these expenditures had it known that it would be prevented from completing the excavation of those areas of the Property that the County had authorized it to blast. In April of 1986, before the completion of the blasting, Mrs. Krause, on behalf of Krause & Sons, sought to renew Building Permit No. 13289A, the excavation permit she had obtained for the Property the previous year. The application she submitted indicated that Krause & Sons proposed to "[e]xcavate approx. 25,000 cu yds." Along with the application, she submitted a copy of the sketch of the Property containing her handwritten notations that she had sent to the County to supplement the previous year's application. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 15276A) was issued on April 30, 1986. In issuing Building Permit No. 15276A, the County used the same printed building permit form that it had used in issuing the blasting permit and the previous year's excavation permit. In addition, it provided an appropriate "permit card" for posting. Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on Building Permit No. 15276A was the following: "Renewal of Excavation Permit- Approximately 25,000 CY FILL Supplement to 13289A, 11332A, 10203A, 9543A, 7791A, 6498A, 4884A, 3492A." On September 15, 1986, after DuPont had completed its blasting, the County's current land development regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") became effective. Section 9.5-231(a) of the Regulations provides that "[n]o structure or land in Monroe County shall hereafter be developed, used or occupied unless expressly authorized in a land use district in this division." Under the Regulations, the Property is in a "Native" or "NA" land use district. 2/ Section 9.5-239 of the Regulations lists the uses that are allowed in "NA" land use districts. "Resource extraction," which is defined in Section 9.5-4 of the Regulations as "the dredging, digging, extraction, mining and quarrying of limerock, sand, gravel or minerals for commercial purposes," is not among the uses listed. "Resource extraction" is permitted as a major conditional use in Industrial land use districts under Section 9.5-249(c)(2) of the Regulations, however. Sections 9.5-431, 9.5-432 and 9.5-433 of the Regulations specifically address the subject of resource extraction. They provide as follows: Section 9.5-431. General. All resource extraction activities in the county shall comply with the provision of this division in order to ensure that such activities do not adversely affect long-term ecological values in the county and that abandoned extraction sites will be restored. Section 9.5-432. Resource extraction standards. All resource extraction activities shall: Be designed so that no area of excavation, storage area for equipment or machinery or other structure or facility is closer than: Two hundred (200) feet to any property line; and Five hundred (500) feet to any residential nonresource extraction related commercial use in existence on the date the permit is issued; Be located on a parcel of at least twenty (20) acres; Be fenced or blocked so as to prevent unauthorized entry into the resource extraction operation through access roads; Will not involve excavation below sixty feet; Will not cause the introduction of saline aquifer waters into fresh water aquifers; Will involve restoration of disturbed areas at the completion of the resource extraction operation in accordance with section 9.5-433, and the implementation of the restoration plan is secured by a surety bond or other guarantee of performance approved by the county; and Operate solely between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Section 9.5-433. Restoration standards. All parcels of land which are used for resource extraction operations shall be restored as follows: Restoration shall be a continuous process, and each portion of the parcel shall be restored within two (2) years after resource extraction is completed for that portion; Topsoil shall be restored in approximately the same quality and quantity as existed at the time the resource extraction operation was initiated; Any body of water created by the resource extraction operation shall have a graded shoreline with a slope not to exceed one (1) foot vertical to five feet horizontal; All equipment, machinery and structures, except for structures that are usable for recreational purposes or any other use authorized in the area, shall be removed within six (6) months after the resource extraction operation is terminated and restoration is completed; and Reclamation shall to the maximum extent practical result in the reestablishment of the vegetation association which existed prior to the extraction activity. A "nonconforming use," as that term is used in the Regulations, is defined in Section 9.5-4 thereof as "any use lawfully being made of any land, buildings or structure, other than a sign, on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment thereto, rendering such use nonconforming, which does not comply with all of the regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto. Section 9.5-143(a) of the Regulations provides that "[n]onconforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provisions of this section." Among "the provisions of this section" are the following found in subsection (c) thereof: Extensions: Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be construed so as to prevent: Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the structure in which the nonconforming uses are located; or Occupancy of additional lands. According to Section 9.5-141 of the Regulations, the purpose of the provisions relating to "nonconforming uses" is to regulate and limit the continued existence of uses and structures established prior to the enactment of this chapter. Many nonconformities may continue, but the provisions of this article are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities and to bring about their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of this chapter. Section 9.5-115 of the Regulations is entitled "Expiration of building permit." Subsections (a) through (d) of this section provide as follows: A building permit shall automatically expire and become null and void if work authorized by such permit is not commenced within sixty (60) days from the effective date of the permit, or if such work, when commenced, is suspended or abandoned at any time for a period of one hundred twenty (120) consecutive days. The effective date of a building permit authorizing land clearing or which authorizes development as defined in chapter 380, Florida Statutes, shall be as provided in rule 9J-1.03, Florida Administrative Code, as long as the parcel is located within an area of critical state concern. If the work covered by the permit has not commenced or has commenced and been suspended or abandoned, the building official may extend such permit for a single period of sixty (60) days from the date of extension is [sic] made prior to the expiration date of the initial permit. If the work covered by the permit has commenced, is in progress, but has not been completed and in the opinion of the building official and the director of planning, is being carried on progressively in a substantial manner, the permit shall remain in effect until completion of the job. If work has commenced and the permit becomes null and void or expires because of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work under regulations in effect at the time the new permit is issued. Section 9.5-115 of the Regulations makes no reference to "renewal" permits. The first excavation permit Krause & Sons received after the effective date of the Regulations (Building Permit No. 17487A) was issued on May 1, 1987. In issuing Building Permit No. 17487A, the County used the same printed building permit form that it had used in issuing the 1986 blasting permit and the 1985 and 1986 excavation permits. In addition, it provided an appropriate "permit card" for posting. Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on Building Permit No. 17487A was the following: "Excavation Pit- RENEWAL- Supplement to Permit #13289A, 11332A, 10203A, 9543A, 7791A, 6498A, 4884A, 3492A." Typed in under "REMARKS" on Building Permit No. 17487A was the following: APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR A BLASTING PERMIT IF THIS ACTIVITY IS REQUIRED Issued under the condition that restoration required from Army Corps be completed. Biologist recommends approval as per Monroe County Code. On April 26, 1988, Mrs. Krause, on behalf of Krause & Sons, filed an application to renew Building Permit No. 17487A. Accompanying the application was a sketch of the Property. On the sketch, Mrs. Krause had drawn an arrow pointing to the southern portion of the Uplands. Above the arrow she had written, "proposed to dig approx 19,444 cu yds," and in the area to which the arrow was pointing, she had written, "Approx. 19444 cu yds to be dug." There was a delay in the issuance of the requested permit. On April 4, 1989, the permit (Building Permit No. 8910000731) was finally issued. An application to renew Building Permit No. 8910000731 was filed on April 3, 1990. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 9010000645) was issued on June 21, 1990. The effective date of the permit was August 28, 1990. An application to renew Building Permit No. 9010000645 was filed on April 16, 1991. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 9110002601) was issued on July 11, 1991. In the "Remarks" section of the permit the following was typed: RENEWAL OF PERMIT 90-10000645, 89-10000731 AND 17487A. PLANNING APPROVAL 6-25-91 AG BIOLOGIST RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PER MONROE COUNTY CODE. THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE BLASTING. A SEPARATE PERMIT IS REQUIRED. Neither the application nor the permit specified the amount of fill to be excavated or where on the Property the excavation was to occur. There was only one area of the Property however, where there was further excavation to be done. This area was the Uplands. Respondents had hoped, pursuant to the authorization provided by the permit, to merely remove the already blasted fill material that remained there. 3/ No further blasting was needed. The Department appealed Building Permit No. 9110002601 to the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order (1) granting Respondents permission to engage in the resource extraction activity they seek to undertake pursuant to Building Permit No. 9110002601, to wit: the completion of the excavation of the Uplands, and (2) specifying that Respondents shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 9.5-432 (resource extraction standards) and 9.5-433 (restoration standards) of the Regulations to the extent that these provisions do not operate to effectively prevent them from excavating any land that, on the effective date of the Regulations, was being lawfully used for resource extraction activity. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of December, 1992. 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 17th day of December, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be disciplined for reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated November 30, 1987.
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: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry and is responsible for prosecuting administrative complaints issued pursuant to Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. At times material hereto, Respondent, George Walton, was licensed as a Certified General Contractor in Florida and holds License No. CG C031400. (Petitioner's exhibit E.) At all times material hereto, Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for AMI Improvements Incorporated (AMI). On March 10, 1987, David Lee entered into a contract with AMI to remodel his bathrooms. The scope of the job entailed tearing out interior walls to accommodate a new bathroom, remove a closet to fit a newly installed tub, installation of a marble tub with pad and step, installation of a vanity and tile floors, mirroring the walls, installation of lights over the sink and tub, installation of new faucets and tape and finish the walls. (Petitioner's exhibit 1.) The total contract price was $6,332.50. Pursuant to the contract, AMI was required to obtain the necessary building permits for the job. On April 7, 1987, AMI began remodeling the Lee's bathroom and was paid all but $502.27 of the total contract price by that time. Respondent did not obtain a permit prior to commencement of the work on April 7, 1987. A building permit was required to remodel a bathroom in Broward County in 1987. (Testimony of Susan Marchitello, Custodian of Records for the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division.) On April 23, 1987, a notice of violation from Broward County was issued to David Lee requiring that he cease and desist from continuing the remodeling work in his home, which work was being performed by AMI. AMI suspended work on the Lee residence on approximately April 23, 1987, and it remained dormant until he applied for a permit on May 7, 1987. While the work was stopped by the cease and desist order, Lee had no bathroom in his home. Upon issuance of the cease and desist order, Lee contacted Richard Bird of AMI, who advised that AMI customarily does not pull permits for inside work as they are normally in and out before anything is seen by building officials. AMI refused to pull the building permits and Lee therefore applied for, and obtained the building permits. AMI's plans and intentions were to complete the construction work at the Lee's home without a building permit. An Owner-Builder permit was issued to Mr. Lee on May 7, 1987. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) Mr. Lee was without a toilet for 21 days and without a tub and shower for approximately six weeks. AMI promised Mr. Lee that the work would be completed within two weeks after the permits were obtained. Despite this promise, the bathroom did not pass final inspection until July 21, 1987, approximately two months after the permits were obtained. Mr. Lee communicated his concern to AMI in the form of a "punch list" of items to repair. AMI refused to repair those items and Lee, in turn, contacted Daniel Durbano Construction during August 1987 who provided Lee with a proposal to complete those items either that were not completed or to complete/repair those items that were not of workmanlike quality. Durbano presented Lee with his proposal on August 4, 1987, with an estimated cost (to repair the Lee's home) of $3,858.75. (Petitioner's exhibit 3.) After Durbano's proposal was presented to Lee, AMI returned to install the mirror around the tub and the shower stall enclosure. During the time when Lee was negotiating with Durbano about completing the project undertaken by AMI, Respondent was never at the subject site. When a final inspection was called for by Lee, the work completed by AMI did not pass the final inspection. Among the items listed in Lee's "punch list" were (1) the shower stall failed to drain properly as the pitch was almost flat and water settled around the bottom of the shower instead of draining, (2) the marble tub step is crooked and is larger on one end that on the other, (3) the knee wall is crooked and is approximately one inch thicker at the top than at the bottom, (4) the bathroom window does not open properly, (5) the door jam going into the master bedroom is improperly installed, and (6) the plastic caps that affix the toilet to the floor were lost. Lee prepared a second "punch list" and presented it to AMI during August 1987. Among the items listed as deficient were that the floor was uneven and the carpet or tile flooring could not be installed without correcting the floor. Daniel Durbano, a general contractor who is licensed in Florida, performed an inspection of the subject work performed by AMI during September 1987. Durbano found that the tile was not properly laid and the floors were "bumpy and wavy." He also found that the drywall was "wavy" and needed preparation to install wallpaper, there was no casing on the door entrance from the bathroom to the master bedroom, and that the cost would be approximately 20% less than the original estimate of $3,800 that he provided Lee. (Petitioner's exhibit 5.) Respondent is 64 years old and has been a certified contractor since 1954. He is licensed in the states of Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida. Respondent has apprenticed as a carpenter, brick layer, electrician and a plumber. He has been licensed in Florida since 1969. Respondent has twice been a qualifier, once for AMI and with a present engagement, Fixel's Fix It, Inc. As a qualifier for AMI, Respondent pulled permits and supervised construction during the periods of January 1987 through August 1987. Respondent no longer is qualifier for, or is otherwise affiliated with, AMI. Respondent was not aware of the work being performed at the Lee residence, although he was engaged, as a qualifier, to supervise all jobs where AMI was required to obtain a permit. Respondent first learned of problems with the Lee job when he was contacted by Petitioner during December of 1987. Respondent admits that although some of the work done in the Lee's home was probably up to industry's standards, there were areas of workmanship that should have been performed better. Respondent also admits that he relied on Richard Bird, a builder/developer affiliated as a coordinator with AMI and AMI's principal/owner, Tony Enzo, to inform him of projects that needed his supervision or assistance in obtaining permits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that 1/ Petitioner enter a final order imposing an Administrative Fine in the amount of $1,000, payable to Petitioner within thirty days of entry of its final order, for the above-referenced violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1989.
The Issue Whether or not the business Respondent was associated with exceeded the scope of his contractor's license concerning the type of work undertaken, as described in the Amended Administrative Complaint, thereby violating Sections 489.129(1)(j), 489.115(1) and 489.117(2), F.S.? Whether or not Respondent failed to properly supervise the job site activities on that job, thereby violating Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j); 489.119, and 489.105(4), F.S.? Whether or not Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in connection with said job in violation of Section 489.129 (1)(m), by failure to supervise the contracting activities of the contracting business he was responsible for, so that Jorge Otero, President of Deluxe Construction Co., could obtain a building permit, exceed the scope of Respondent's license, and perform work that exhibited numerous defects? BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At the commencement of formal hearing, the parties stipulated ore tenus that Paragraph 6 of the Amended Administrative Complaint would be further amended to read: The business Respondent was associated with exceeded the scope of his license concerning type of work, violating Section 489.129(1)(j); 489.115(1)(b); 489.117(2). Thereafter, they entered into certain stipulated facts which are reflected among additional facts as found in this recommended order. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Lolv Jaramillo, Herbert Gopman, Jorge Otero, and Frank Abbott, and had admitted four exhibits. Respondent presented neither oral testimony nor offered any exhibit. No transcript was provided. Respondent late-filed its post-hearing proposals, but each party's proposed findings of fact have been considered and are ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a licensed certified building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CB C002799 and was listed as the sole qualifying agent for Deluxe Construction Company. Deluxe could have had more than one qualifying agent but it did not. Jorge Otero was the sole owner, officer, and director of Deluxe Construction Company (Deluxe). He is not now, and never has been, a licensed contractor. Deluxe was formed in 1986, and Otero operated the company out of his home. In August 1986, Deluxe contracted with Lolv Jaramillo to remodel the Jaramillo residence in Miami for $23,800. Prior to the Jaramillo job, Deluxe had remodeled or added to several other residences. On those jobs, Respondent signed the building permit applications brought to him by Otero and made periodic inspections of the work, but Respondent never accepted any compensation from Deluxe for his services as qualifying agent of the company. Respondent was employed full-time otherwise. Before the Jaramillo job, Otero had had similar relationships with other contractors. Prior to beginning construction, Respondent met the Jaramillos at their residence at the request of Otero to discuss the possibility of the Jaramillos arranging a second mortgage through the brokerage firm which was Respondent's regular full-time employer. The Jaramillos were not told, and were not aware, that Respondent was affiliated with Deluxe. They relied on no representations of Respondent in eventually selecting Deluxe to do their construction job. The eventual contract between the Jaramillos and Deluxe was not conditioned on borrowing from Respondent's regular employer, and, in fact, the Jaramillos did not borrow from Respondent or his employer and obtained their financing elsewhere. The Jaramillos eventually instructed Otero to begin work, which he did. Otero first obtained the necessary building permit by going to the building department, filling in Respondent's contractor's license number on the application there, and signing his own name as qualifier. When Otero signed for the building permit, Respondent was out of town. Otero did not inform Respondent in advance of what he was going to do nor did Respondent discover Otero had done this until much later. On all previous contracts, Respondent had signed the permit applications and made the inspections in the manner described in finding of fact 5, supra. Respondent had done nothing to encourage Otero to think he could obtain a building permit as he did for the Jaramillo job. After Deluxe began construction at the Jaramillos' home, Otero was the sole supervisor on the job. After the Jaramillos paid Deluxe $14,000 of the contract price, they became dissatisfied with the pace and quality of the work done by Deluxe and they terminated the contract. According to Harry Gopman, structural engineer, the work done by Deluxe contained violations of local construction codes, but there is no evidence that Otero, Respondent, or anyone associated with Deluxe was convicted or found guilty of any crime. The work undertaken by Deluxe included plumbing work which Respondent was not licensed to perform. The work done by Deluxe and subcontractors under its supervision contained deviations from acceptable industry practice, including rendering a major load-carrying girder useless by penetrating it for the insertion of an air duct for the central air-conditioning system; cutting a concrete doorway lintel for insertion of another air duct, thus destroying the structural integrity of that lintel; and creating a structural hazard by placing a flat roof on the rear addition which severely "ponded" in rainstorms. From the evidence as a whole, it may be inferred that Respondent originally knew he was the sole qualifying agent for Otero/Deluxe. Otero did not affirmatively tell Respondent he had another qualifying agent for the job. However, since Otero kept telling Respondent that the Jarmillos were still having trouble getting financing, it was reasonable for Respondent to believe a building permit was not needed and construction would not begin until financing was found. It was after the commencement of construction, but prior to the termination of the contract by the Jaramillos, that Otero finally informed Respondent that he had begun work on the Jaramillo residence. It is not clear whether Respondent knew that the building permit bore his license number until after the termination of the contract. Respondent never visited the Jaramillo job site during construction. Respondent did not monitor the company finances, did not review subcontractual agreements, did not review invoices from subcontractors and materialmen, and did not call for inspections on the Jaramillo job. There is unrefuted expert testimony by Frank Abbott, architect and licensed general contractor, that a qualifying agent should do the things, but there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent had a clear understanding that such was his position for the Jaramillo job.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0654 The following constitute rulings pursuant to S. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner PFOF: 1-7, and 9-15. Accepted as modified to more exactly reflect the unrefuted testimony. 8. Accepted except for hearsay and subordinate and unnecessary material. Respondent's PFOF: 1-5, 7, 9. Accepted as modified to more exactly reflect the unrefuted testimony. 6. Rejected as stated. FOF 7 and 12 more correctly reflects the state of the record as a whole. 8. Rejected as stated because as stated it is a legal conclusion. A finding of fraud requires a finding of an affirmative intent which cannot be made upon the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 103 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lance Armstrong, Esquire 1035 Northwest 11th Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Sections 489.119(2), 489.124(2), 489.129(1)(n) and (p), and 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes (1999) (hereinafter, "Florida Statutes"), respectively, by: engaging in contracting as a business organization without applying for a certificate of authority through a qualifying agent and under a fictitious name; failing to notify Petitioner of the mailing address and telephone number of the certificate holder or registrant; committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; proceeding on a job without obtaining applicable building permits and inspections; and failing to provide a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund (the "Fund").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a contractor with license number CC C018992. At all relevant times, Respondent was registered or certified with Petitioner as the qualifying agent for Earl Benjamin and Company, Inc. ("EBCO"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of EBCO's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority from Petitioner. On April 4, 1998, EBCO entered into a contract with Mr. Joseph Chapman ("Chapman") to repair a leak in the roof of Chapman's residence at 1880 Jessica Road, Clearwater, Florida. On the advice of Mr. Dale Edwards, a representative of EBCO, Chapman entered into a second contract with EBCO to repair the entire roof for an additional cost. None of the contracts or other documentation provided by EBCO to Chapman contained a notice explaining the consumer's rights under the Fund. The contract prices for the first and second contracts were $4,500 and $7,500, respectively. After completing the work, Respondent sent another bill to Chapman for $1,750 for additional materials and repairs. Chapman paid, and Respondent accepted, $13,210 as payment in full of all amounts owed to Respondent. The checks signed by Chapman were made payable to "Earl Benjamin and Company and/or EBCO." After EBCO completed the work on the Chapman residence, the roof leaked in four places and continued to leak as of the date of hearing. Chapman contacted Respondent and other EBCO representatives repeatedly in attempt to stop the leaks. EBCO has been unable to stop the leaks in Chapman's home. The Pinellas County Building Department (the "Building Department") never performed a final inspection approving the work performed by Respondent. The Building Department issued building permit number 175919 to Respondent on April 23, 1998. On May 26, 1998, Chapman indicated to the Building Department that the roof leaked, and an inspector for the Building Department inspected the roof on the same date. The inspector found that the birdcage was not reassembled, some flashing was too short, and other eaves and rates were not constructed properly. The inspector issued a red tag for the violations. On June 16, 1998, the inspector inspected the roof again and issued a second red tag for some violations that remained uncorrected. On November 16, 1998, the inspector inspected the roof again and issued another red tag because the roof still leaked. On January 14, 1999, the inspector met with Chapman and representatives for EBCO to address the continuing problems with the roof. The inspector instructed Respondent to update his address and licensing information. On January 26, 1999, the inspector inspected the roof for the last time. The roof still leaked. On May 9, 1998, EBCO entered into a contract with Jack and Dawn Wilcox ("Wilcox") to repair the roof and install roof vents in the Wilcox residence at 247 144th Avenue, Madeira Beach, Florida. The contract price for the Wilcox job was $1,800. The Wilcoxes paid, and Respondent accepted, $1,800 as payment in full of all amounts owed to Respondent. The checks signed by the Wilcox's were made payable to "EBCO" or "EBCO Roofing." After EBCO completed the work on the Wilcox residence, the roof leaked around the vents installed by Respondent. The work performed by Respondent suffered from incompetent workmanship including ragged and non-uniform holes cut into the roof for the vents. Mr. Wilcox attempted to contact Respondent and other EBCO representatives repeatedly in an attempt to correct the leaks in the roof. No one from EBCO returned the messages from Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox attempted to physically locate Respondent at Respondent's business address, but Respondent's address was incorrect. The Wilcoxes incurred additional expenses of $1,500 to correct problems caused by Respondent. On October 24, 1998, Mr. Wilcox entered into a contract with Kurt Dombrowski Roofing Contractor ("Dombrowski") to repair the leaks in the roof and to re-install the vents in the roof. Dombrowski correctly performed the work, and Wilcox paid Dombrowski $1,500. The Wilcoxes have no further problems with the roof. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the work performed on the Wilcox roof. The Wilcox home was located within the jurisdiction of the City of Madeira Beach (the "City"). The City no longer has a building department. The Pinellas County Building Department assumed the responsibilities of the City. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the Wilcox job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.119(2), 489.124(2), 489.129(1)(n) and (p), and 489.1425(1), imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,200, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Chapman and Wilcox in the respective amounts of $13,210 and $1,800, and requiring Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $690.40. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 9th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney L. 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 Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Earl Henry Benjamin 9914 Connecticut Street Gibsonton, Florida 33534
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Glenn Singer (Petitioner or Singer) is entitled to attorney's fees and costs from the Complainant/Respondent, Robert Nieman (Respondent or Nieman), pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact On June 10, 2002, the Respondent executed a Complaint that was filed with the Ethics Commission against the Petitioner. At the time of the filing, the Respondent was on paid administrative leave or suspension from the Police Department of the Town of Golden Beach (Town). Nevertheless, the Respondent remained employed by the Town and at the time of hearing in this cause the Respondent was employed as a police sergeant. Immediately prior to filing the Complaint against the Petitioner the Respondent served as the interim police chief for the Town. At all times material to this case the Petitioner was a councilman serving on the Town’s governing council. As such, the Petitioner was subject to the ethics provisions governed by the Ethics Commission. The Petitioner and the Respondent have known one another since childhood. Prior to the incidents complained of herein the two had considered themselves cordial acquaintances. The Respondent’s Complaint itemized four concerns that he believed demonstrated violations of ethics provisions. The specifics of the Complaint are set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. In general, the Respondent believed that the Petitioner had used his position as a Town councilman to obtain a building permit at a lesser value than should have been reported. He based this assertion on information told to him by persons working within the Town who overheard comments made by the Petitioner and a building official. The Respondent believed that Linda Epperson, who has 20-plus years of experience in the construction business, had opined that the value of the work to be performed at the Petitioner’s home greatly exceeded the value set forth in the permit sought. Ms. Epperson’s comments regarding the permit issue were overheard by another Town employee, Rosemary Wascura. At hearing, Ms. Epperson denied making the comments. Ms. Epperson is still employed by the Town and would like to continue her employment until her retirement vests (another four years). Ms. Wascura (who is a personal friend of the Respondent’s) does not work for the Town any longer. Ms. Wascura’s testimony was credible and persuasive as to the incident regarding the conversation between the Petitioner and a building official. Although it is not concluded the Petitioner used his position to influence the building official and receive a reduced permit cost, it is found that the factual information upon which the Respondent relied in making such assertion was grounded in an eyewitness account of an incident and not mere speculation. The second allegation of the Complaint also dealt with a subcontractor who had performed services for the Petitioner at his home. That subcontractor was subsequently awarded a Town contract for brick pavers to be installed at the entrance to the Town. The basis for the Respondent’s concern regarding this allegation stemmed from unsealed bids that were submitted for the brick paver project. According to Ms. Wascura the subcontractor who had provided a favorable job for the Petitioner was to receive the bid on the Town job. Although wrongdoing on the Petitioner’s part was not substantiated, the basis for the Respondent’s assertion was supported by the information he received from Ms. Wascura. In as much as Ms. Wascura was privy to comments from the building officials at the time, it was reasonable for Respondent to believe that something untoward had occurred when the same subcontractor received the Town’s bid, especially when the bid amount was later changed to cover a shortfall on the construction cost (the increased amount would have resulted in the subcontractor not being the lowest bidder after all). As to the third assertion in the Complaint, the Respondent claimed that the Petitioner had physically assaulted a temporary security guard employed by the Town while the Police Guardhouse was being built. The Respondent based this claim on the personal observations he made when the security guard reported the incident, the pictures he took of the guard (depicting the damaged shirt), and the identification of the Petitioner as the perpetrator that the victim made from a photograph. Although the assault was never fully investigated (the security guard could not be located and the matter was dropped), the Respondent had a reasonable basis to believe some inappropriate act had occurred and that the Petitioner could be involved. Finally, the fourth claim set forth in the Respondent’s Complaint alleged that the Petitioner had changed a vote on a variance request after being called aside by someone known as “Vinnie” in this record. According to eyewitnesses to the incident, the Petitioner voted against Vinnie’s variance then changed his vote after Vinnie whispered something in the councilman’s ear, and the two left the room briefly. When the Petitioner returned to the council table, he changed his vote to favor Vinnie’s variance. Although it is not concluded the Petitioner did anything improper in changing his vote, or that the variance would not have received sufficient favorable votes to pass even without the Petitioner’s vote, it is clear that the Respondent thought the activity was highly unusual and suspect. The Town council meetings are videotaped. A videotape of the proceeding disproving the account of the witnesses was not provided. It is unusual to allow anyone to approach the council seats to privately discuss anything with a council member during a council session. As for why the Petitioner would change his vote, the Respondent believed it had to do with a boat mooring that the Petitioner sought. Although the Petitioner did not own a boat at the time, the gossip among Town workers had been that the Petitioner wanted to be able to moor his boat at a certain angle to avoid an impeded view of the waterway. In return, he allegedly supported Vinnie’s variance. Although the rumor was unfounded, when the story was viewed in light of the Petitioner’s actions with Vinnie at the council meeting, it formed a reasonable basis for Respondent’s concerns. On July 9, 2002, the staff attorney for the Ethics Commission sent Respondent a letter requesting additional information regarding the Complaint. The forms included with that letter constitute the Complaint Amendment that was executed by the Respondent on July 19, 2002. Sometime in August 2002 the Respondent was fired from his position with the Town. He filed an appeal of the termination and ultimately won his job back. At that time he desired to drop the entire matter against the Petitioner. To that end he executed and filed with the Ethics Commission a Request to Withdraw the Complaint. The Request to Withdraw was denied on December 9, 2003. Also on December 9, 2003, the Ethics Commission issued a Public Report that dismissed the Respondent’s complaint against the Petitioner. On January 4, 2004, the Petitioner filed a Fee Petition pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes. The Fee Petition asserts that the Respondent acted with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of the Petitioner. The Respondent’s intent was to bring to light the allegations against the Petitioner because he believed the information he had been given was accurate. It proved to be inaccurate. He did not investigate each of the claims before filing the Complaint and Complaint Amendment but believed his sources to be credible Town employees. In retrospect, the Respondent believes he could have avoided the professional pitfalls that befell his employment had he not filed the Complaint. Nevertheless, based on the information he had at the time from credible Town employees, the Respondent acted to cause some investigation of the Petitioner’s activities. The Respondent did not know that the comments from Town employees were false or not subject to confirmation. The Respondent personally observed Vinnie’s intervention at the council table. Had it not dovetailed with the rumor regarding the Petitioner’s proposed boat issue, the conversation would have still appeared unusual at best. Coupled with the other unverified information, it gave the appearance of impropriety warranting investigation. Similarly, none of the other allegations could be easily discredited. The Respondent relied on comments attributed to Ms. Wascura and Ms. Epperson. He had no reason to doubt the veracity of his friend. Further, he could not foresee that Ms. Epperson would not acknowledge making statements pertaining to the permit issue. The original documents pertaining to the permits pulled for the Petitioner’s property are in storage and were not available at the hearing. A computer-generated report was provided to the Ethic Commission’s investigator. That report does not contain the detail and dates that might have verified the account provided by Ms. Wascura. The Respondent’s efforts to obtain copies of public records were thwarted. The Petitioner’s efforts to paint Ms. Epperson as a gossip whose alleged statements should not have been credited is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence. Ms. Epperson was an experienced person whose knowledge in the construction industry made her a credible source for information. She was employed in a position that made her privy to the activities of the building department. She now disavows making the comments that were the subject matter of the Complaint. Nevertheless, the Respondent believed the comments attributed to her and believed they were from a credible source. If attorney’s fees and costs are entered in this cause the beneficiary of an award will be the Town. The Petitioner has incurred no expenses or costs associated with the defense of the Complaint. The Town agreed to pay and has paid all attorney’s fees and costs associated with this case. The Petitioner presented several invoices from the Law Offices of Stuart R. Michelson that were alleged to pertain to the instant case. One invoice dated January 6, 2004, set forth 25.00 hours had been expended by Ilene L. Michelson (partner) at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The invoice also noted 5.50 hours had been expended by Stuart R. Michelson (senior partner) also at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The total of the first invoice including costs was $6,594.54. The second invoice, dated June 10, 2004, itemized time expended by James Birch (associate attorney) billed at the rate of $125.00 per hour; Michael Torres (law clerk) billed at the rate of $75.00 per hour; Robert J. Longchamps (law clerk 2) also billed at the rate of $75.00 per hour; and Stuart R. Michelson (senior partner) billed at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The total attorney’s fees for this second invoice equaled $3,232.50; with costs the second invoice was $3,772.38. A third invoice dated September 9, 2004 documented $1,187.50 in fees for time expended by James Birch, Michael Torres, Robert J. Longchamps, and Stuart R. Michelson. The total for fees and costs for the invoice were $4,308.85. The costs and fees claimed in this cause are set forth in detail in Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. However, bills attached to invoices identify other parties not related to the instant case. For example, an invoice from United Reporting, Inc., references the case James Vardalis v. Robert Neiman. The Petitioner’s case is not the same matter. Similarly, a second invoice from United Reporting, Inc. (dated June 16, 2004) references Michael Addicott v. Neiman. The Petitioner did not delineate which of the costs were solely attributable to this case. It is unclear whether the fees were also incurred for other cases related to this Respondent (but not the Petitioner herein). The Petitioner also presented testimony from an expert witness who was to be paid by the Town. That witness, an attorney, was to be paid $200.00 per hour for his efforts in this matter. In connection with his work in this matter and other cases the expert billed the Town a total of $8,050.00. Exactly what portion of that amount is attributable to solely this case is unknown (see page 77 of the transcript in this case). Although the Petitioner’s expert testified that the hourly rates for fees applied in this cause were reasonable, there was no evidence that the time was actually expended in connection with the instant case. There is no way to know if the services were performed for the defense of the Respondent’s Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Fee Petition in this case. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James J. Birch, Esquire Law Office of Stuart R. Michelson 200 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33133 Robert Nieman 9731 Southwest 12th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the violations alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate building contracting. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C058340 in 1996. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. McKinney owned and resided in a house (the House) in Opa Locka, Florida. Ms. McKinney’s mother, Mattie P. Mathis, also lived in the House. In 2001, Ms. McKinney solicited bids for an addition she wanted to put on the House. Ms. McKinney and her mother, Ms. Mathis, planned to pay for the addition with life insurance proceeds on the life of Ms. Mathis’s deceased daughter (Ms. McKinney’s sister). On the recommendation of a colleague at her work, Ms. McKinney asked Willie Muse, Jr., to bid on the work. Based on the bids she received, Ms. McKinney hired Mr. Muse to construct the addition to the House. Ms. McKinney told Mr. Muse that she wanted all work to comply with all applicable permitting requirements and laws. Mr. Muse represented to Ms. McKinney that he would get the necessary building permits and that the work would comply with all applicable laws. On July 18, 2001, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis entered into a written contract with Mr. Muse whereby Mr. Muse agreed to construct the addition for the sum of $45,000.00. Mr. Muse has never been licensed as a general contractor in Florida. Ms. McKinney thought Mr. Muse was a licensed contractor and would not have entered into a contract with him if she had known that he was not licensed. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis paid Mr. Muse the following amounts on the following dates: $6,000.00 on July 20, 2001; $7,500.00 on October 10, 2001; and $13,500.00 on November 2, 2001; for a total of $27,000.00. On or about August 21, 2001, Mr. Muse brought to Ms. McKinney a building permit application form for her to sign. The application form had been filled out before Mr. Muse presented it to Ms. McKinney. Respondent was not present when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Respondent’s name, signature, and contractor’s license number appeared on the application form when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Ms. McKinney signed the form on August 21, 2001. Ms. McKinney saw Respondent’s name for the first time when she read the building permit application form. Prior to that time, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had never known or heard of Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Muse was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Muse submitted the building permit application form to the Miami-Dade County Building Department (Building Department), which issued a building permit for the work on the House on October 5, 2001. Mr. Muse commenced working on the House in October 2001, but he never finished. After he received the payment in November 2001, Mr. Muse stopped working on the House for an extended period of time. During that time, Ms. McKinney attempted on several occasions to persuade Mr. Muse to resume work on the House. Prior to stopping work on the House, Mr. Muse removed a portion of the roof of the existing structure, which exposed the interior of the House to the elements. That exposure resulted in extensive damages to the House, including the collapse of the kitchen ceiling from water intrusion. By letter dated April 15, 2002, the Building Department advised Ms. McKinney that her building permit would expire in approximately 30 days. That letter prompted Ms. McKinney to contact the Building Department, where she was told that Respondent was her contractor, not Mr. Muse. Ms. McKinney secured information (from the face of the building permit) that enabled her to contact Respondent’s mother.3 That contact resulted in two meetings between Ms. McKinney and Respondent towards the end of April 2002. During the first meeting, Ms. McKinney related to Respondent the history of the project, including the amounts that had been paid to Mr. Muse. She also showed him the work that had been done and the damages that had occurred. During the second meeting, Mr. Muse was in attendance. Ms. McKinney, Ms. Mathis, and Respondent reached a verbal understanding that was not reduced to writing. They agreed that Respondent would finish the work on the House for the unpaid balance of the contract price $45,000.00 less $27,000.00 paid to Mr. Muse, which equals $18,000.00.4 The parties agreed that Respondent would pay for labor and that Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would pay material suppliers directly and receive credit toward the contract price for such payments. The parties contemplated that Mr. Muse would perform most of the labor because of the monies he had already received. On the basis of the verbal contract, Respondent resumed the work on the House. On June 12, 2002, Respondent presented a draw request for $3,500.00 for electrical, plumbing, and roofing work that had been performed. Ms. Mathis wrote Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500.00 for that work. Ms. McKinney was opposed to paying Respondent the sum of $3,500.00 because she believed he had not completed the work for which he was billing. Ms. Mathis paid that sum despite Ms. McKinney’s opposition. At some undetermined time following June 12, 2002, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Mr. Muse working on the House. Respondent then asked to be paid in advance for work to be done on the House because he would have to pay his laborers. Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would not agree to payment in advance. In July 2002, the project was not complete and Respondent’s progress on the work on the House became unsatisfactory to Ms. McKinney. On October 14, 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner, claiming, among other things, that Respondent had abandoned the project. Her complaint alleged that work ended on the project in July 2002. At some undetermined time between June and October 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, which resulted in criminal misdemeanor charges being filed against him in Miami-Dade County Court. After she filed the criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she wanted to wait to proceed with the project until she knew what was going to happen with her criminal complaint. In the criminal proceeding, the Court ordered Mr. Muse on April 11, 2003, to pay restitution to Ms. McKinney in the amount of $16,008.04, payable in monthly installments of $300.00. On March 2, 2004, the Court reduced the amount of restitution to $4,000.00, payable in monthly installments of $50.00 beginning April 1, 2004. As of the date of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Muse had paid Ms. McKinney restitution in the total amount of $750.00. As part of the criminal proceeding, Respondent was asked to give his opinion as to the value of the work completed by Mr. Muse and his estimated cost of completing the work. Respondent valued the work completed by Mr. Muse at $14,073.75 (labor and materials). Respondent estimated that it would cost $22,200.00 to complete the project. Both estimates were dated March 23, 2003. On October 1, 2003, Theodore R. Gay, Assistant General Counsel for Petitioner wrote Ms. McKinney the following letter pertaining to the complaint she had filed in October 2002: The Legal Department has evaluated your complaint against the above named contractor [Respondent]. After reviewing the evidence gathered during the investigation of the referenced matter, we have determined that in accordance with the rules and policies of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, this case is appropriately closed with the issuance of a Letter of Caution to the contractor. Because this case has been dismissed without a finding of probable cause, the file will remain confidential and exempt from the public records. On January 6, 2004, Ms. McKinney wrote Mr. Gay a letter that provided, in part, as follows: This letter is a request to re-open the case [against Respondent] because as prior conversation (sic) when I spoke to you in late August 2003 or early September 2003, I informed you that Mr. Jones told me that he would help me as much as possible to complete the construction on my property. Since your letter that stated you didn’t find any error on Mr. Jones’ behalf, I have not heard or seen him since October 2003, nor has any work been performed on my property. . . . Respondent came back to the House after October 2003 and talked to Ms. McKinney about the work. Ms. McKinney told him that she would pay up to a total of $45,000.00 for the work, but that she would not pay above that figure. Because of the estimate Respondent provided in the criminal proceeding dated March 23, 2003, Ms. McKinney believed that Respondent wanted $22,0000.00 to complete the work. However, Respondent never told her that he would not complete the work for a sum equal to $45,000.00 less the sums that had already been paid. Ms. McKinney would not pay Respondent for work until after the work was completed. After Mr. Gay’s letter dismissing the complaint that Ms. McKinney had filed, Respondent did no further work on the House, but he did have further conversations about the project. Ms. McKinney and Respondent could not agree on payment terms for Respondent to complete the project. Ms. McKinney testified that she did not fire Respondent. However, it is clear that she would not let Mr. Muse do further work on her house and she would not pay Respondent until after the work had been done. Ms. McKinney changed the terms of her verbal contract with Respondent by prohibiting Mr. Muse from working on the project. In November 2003, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had an argument over the money that had been spent on the house. Ms. McKinney talked to Respondent about his helping her obtain a mortgage on the house to pay for the balance of the work on the House. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Respondent to ask her mother for any more money. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she would use him as the contractor to complete the work if she obtained the financing. Ms. McKinney was unable to get the financing due to the condition of the House. The permits obtained by Respondent are still valid. Ms. McKinney has hired various workers on her own in an effort to complete the work on the House. As of the final hearing, the work on the House had not been completed. As of May 19, 2005, Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with attorney time, totaled $920.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Final Order: Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and impose against him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, but impose no additional administrative fine for that violation; Find Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; Order that Respondent be jointly and severally liable to Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis with Mr. Muse for restitution in the amount of $4,000.00, minus $750.00 paid by Mr. Muse; and Order Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter in the amount of $920.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Arthur Signore committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Arthur Signore (Respondent) was licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner) as a certified general contractor. He received his license in 1969, qualifying Deluccia Construction. Respondent was issued license number CG CA01004. Subsequently, in 1976, Respondent qualified Construction By Scott (CBS). He was issued license number CG CB01004. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifier of CBS, and the sole owner and president of CBS. At all times material hereto, Respondent's belief was that Petitioner permitted a general contractor to use his/her license to obtain building permits for construction projects for which the general contractor had no contracts through the business that he/she qualified. Respondent practiced his belief frequently by applying for and obtaining building permits for construction projects for which companies or individuals other than CBS had contracts. Collins Job (Case No. 97-1436) Sometime after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Respondent made an oral agreement with Harold Bader to go into partnership with Bader and form a construction company, with Respondent qualifying the company. Respondent provided his name, his company's name (CBS), and his license number to Bader in order for the qualifying documents to be completed and submitted to the Petitioner. However, the company was not formed and the qualifying documents were never submitted. At no time material hereto was Bader licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Bader was not licensed by the Petitioner. In March 1994, Thomas Sherry of American Building Industries, Inc. (ABI), began negotiating with Maria and Wayne Collins, husband and wife, for the remodeling of their home, located at 7417 SW 140th Court, Miami, Florida. On March 24, 1994, the Collins entered into a contract with ABI for the remodeling of their home at a cost of $12,500. Bader was the owner of ABI. Sherry was a salesperson for Bader. Sherry provided the Collins with a business card which showed, among other things, ABI's name, address and telephone number, and license number. The license number on the business card was Respondent's license number. All business cards were provided to Sherry by Bader. At no time material hereto, did Sherry talk with or meet Respondent. The records of the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department reflect, among other things, Respondent's name, his company's name (CBS) and license number on the building permit application for the construction to the Collins' home. However, the address listed for Respondent and his company was the address for ABI. Further, the said records reflect, among other things, that aforementioned information provided, as to Respondent, was used to obtain the building permit. Respondent did not complete the permit application for the building permit to remodel the Collins' home. The Collins paid $6,875 to ABI. Any and all checks were made payable to ABI. No money for the construction on the Collins' home was paid to or received by Respondent. In May 1994, problems developed on the job site between the Collins and ABI. The work performed by ABI failed numerous inspections. Mr. Collins wanted to talk with Respondent who was listed as the contractor on the permit and requested Bader to contact Respondent. Bader refused, indicating to Mr. Collins that all communication should be with him (Bader). Finally, in August 1994 the Collins fired ABI after more problems had developed. At that time ABI had completed some of the work. On August 29, 1994, Mr. Collins met with Respondent at Respondent's place of business. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Collins had called Respondent numerous times regarding his problems with ABI and Bader and requesting assistance from Respondent. Each time Respondent denied having any knowledge of the work being performed. When Mr. Collins met with Respondent, Mr. Collins discussed the problems that he had experienced with ABI and Bader. Respondent continued to deny knowing anything about the construction project but agreed to send his employees to examine the job and determine what could be done, if anything. The following day two of Respondent's workers came to the Collins' home and examined the work completed and the work remaining. Subsequently, Respondent contacted Mr. Collins. Respondent indicated to Mr. Collins that he could complete the job for $5,000. Mr. Collins refused to pay the additional monies since it would extend the remodeling cost beyond the contracted cost and since he was now directly paying the subcontractors. At no time did Respondent or his business (CBS) have a contract with the Collins. Until being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had no knowledge that Bader used his name, business name and license number to contract with the Collins and to obtain the building permit for the remodeling of their home. However, prior to being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had been contacted by other persons who had contracts with ABI, who had been informed by Bader that Respondent was the contractor for their jobs, who had problems with ABI, and who wanted assistance from Respondent. Furthermore, the building permits for the construction jobs of those persons reflected Respondent and Respondent's company as the contractor. At no time material hereto was Bader or ABI licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Bader nor ABI was licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent was placed on notice of their unlicensed activity after the contacts by the homeowners prior to the contact by the Collins. Even with the knowledge of the homeowners' complaints prior to the Collins' complaints, at no time did Respondent notify Bader to stop using his (Respondent's) name, company's name and license number. Further, at no time did Respondent notify the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department of Bader's misuse of his (Respondent's) name, company's name, and license number or to no longer issue permits to ABI under his (Respondent's) name, company and license. Walsh Job (Case No. 97-1435) In the Fall of 1995, Patrick and Susan Walsh entered into an oral agreement with John Petracelli for an addition to and the remodeling of their home, located at 761 Glen Ridge Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. On October 16, 1995, the Walshes entered into a verbal agreement with Petracelli for an engineer to produce a set of plans at a cost of $2,250 for the construction to their home. The Walshes paid Petracelli the $2,250 on October 16, 1995. On December 7, 1995, the Walshes entered into a written agreement with Petracelli for the construction work on their home at a cost of $84,000. Pursuant to this written agreement, the Walshes paid Petracelli $16,800 on December 7, 1995. Petracelli contacted Respondent and requested Respondent to be the contractor for the construction work on the Walshes' home. Respondent and Petracelli had met one another previously when Petracelli was a salesperson for Bader. Petracelli informed Respondent that he (Petracelli) had already told the Walshes that Respondent was the contractor. To the contrary, Petracelli had not informed the Walshes that Respondent was involved in the construction to their home. Respondent agreed to be the contractor but informed Petracelli that, until a set of plans was approved by the Village of Key Biscayne Building Division (Building Division), he could not provide Petracelli with a cost figure for the construction work. Petracelli informed Respondent that the plans were being prepared, but did not inform Respondent that the Walshes had paid for the preparation of the plans. Respondent agreed further to submit the completed plans to the Building Division for a "dry run" only. After the dry run, Respondent would provide a cost figure for the construction work. A dry run is a process in which a contractor, who has a complicated job which requires an engineer, submits a set of plans, together with an application for a building permit, to the Building Division for approval. The plans may be subject to several modifications requested by the Building Division before they are approved. As a result, the contractor does not know the estimated cost of a job until the plans have gone through the requested modifications, if any, and approved by the Building Division. After the plans are approved by the Building Division, the contractor is notified to come to the Building Division and sign for and obtain the building permit. Pursuant to the agreement between Respondent and Petracelli, on or about December 11, 1995, Respondent completed an application for a building permit for the addition to and the remodeling of the Walshes' home and gave it to Petracelli. The application reflected, among other things, CBS (Respondent's company) as the contractor, and Respondent as the qualifier. Respondent provided the application to Petracelli for the dry run process only. Further, Respondent reiterated to Petracelli that, once the plans were approved by the Building Division, he (Respondent) would meet with the Walshes and agree on a cost for the construction work on their home and that, after agreeing on the cost he (Respondent) would sign for and obtain the building permit for the construction to begin. Respondent was not aware that Petracelli and the Walshes had a signed agreement for the construction work. Petracelli submitted the plans, along with the permit application, to the Building Division for approval. The plans were modified several times to meet the approval of the Building Division, but were never approved. The Building Division considered the plans submitted to be substandard. Since no plans were approved, no building permit was issued. On or about January 3, 1996, the Walshes met at the Building Division with some of the Building Division's officials, Petracelli, and the engineer who prepared the plans. As a result of the meeting, among other things, the Walshes were able to review the permit application and discovered that Respondent, not Petracelli, was licensed and the contractor for the construction work; concluded that the engineer's work was considered so substandard by the Building Division that any modification produced by the engineer would not be approved by the Building Division; and determined that they no longer wanted Petracelli to perform the construction work on their home. Within 24 hours of the meeting, the Walshes telephoned Petracelli and terminated his services. Also, the Walshes requested the return of all of the monies paid to Petracelli by them; however, Petracelli did not return any of their money. At no time material hereto was Petracelli licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Petracelli was not licensed by the Petitioner. At no time material hereto did Respondent or his company (CBS) have a contract with the Walshes. At no time material hereto did Respondent have any communication or contact with the Walshes. Biscayne Kennel Club Job (Case No. 97-2998) The Biscayne Kennel Club (BKC), located at 320 NW 115th Street, Miami Shores, Florida, was a track for greyhound racing. On October 30, 1995, the last race was run at BKC. In February 1996, the BKC sold its Pari-Mutuel license. On or about December 11, 1996, the BKC, by and through its representative, Carl Spitzer, entered into a written contract with Cuyahoga Wrecking Corporation (CWC), by and through its representative, Thomas Schwab, for, among other things, the removal of asbestos and the demolition and removal of BKC's grandstand structure and viewing area. The contract was prepared by Schwab, who had 25 years of experience in the demolition business, with 20 years of that experience in the State of Florida. All contract negotiations were between Schwab and Spitzer. At no time was the President and CEO of BKC, Kay Spitzer, involved in the contract negotiations. As to cost, the contract provided at Article 4 that the cost was $37,500 and that the $37,500 was "dedicated to the removal of the described ACM." Further, Article 4 provided that the "balance of the work to be paid for by the sale of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals by the contractor." In addition, the contract provided in Article 7 that, among other things, all permits were included in the contract price and that BKC and the "contractor" would share "equally all the proceeds of the non-ferrous metals minus whatever costs are incurred bringing it to market." The contract did not restrict or prohibit CWC from engaging the services of any individual or subcontractor to perform the work required in the contract. The grandstand structure and viewing area were one structure. Attached to the roof of the structure was a small building which was used by BKC personnel for viewing the races. The roof was the highest part of the structure, except for the small building. The distance from ground level to the top of the roof was 69 feet and 10 inches; and the top of the small building was approximately 15 feet higher than the top of the roof. CWC contracted with Sal's Abatement to perform the asbestos removal. Schwab was licensed by Dade County, Florida, as a specialty contractor. He was notified that the work for the BKC job was outside the scope of his license and that a contractor, licensed by the Petitioner, was required for the BKC job. Schwab contacted Respondent to be the general contractor. Schwab had worked with Respondent before on other, but smaller, jobs. Respondent agreed to be the general contractor in return for a percentage of the contract. Per the agreement, Respondent would obtain the necessary permits, provide the equipment necessary for the demolition, and supervise the workers on the job. On March 6, 1997, Respondent completed an application for a building permit with Miami Shores Village, Florida, for the demolition of the BKC grandstand. The application reflected Respondent's company (CBS) as the contracting company and Respondent as the qualifier. Carl Spitzer signed the permit application on behalf of BKC. On March 17, 1997, a building permit (permit number 41084) was issued by the Village of Miami Shores for the demolition of BKC's grandstand. On April 29, 1997, the cost of the permit, $566.50, was paid. At no time material hereto was Schwab or CWC licensed by Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Schwab nor CWC were licensed by Petitioner. At no time did a contract exist between Respondent or his company with BKC for the demolition job. Respondent supervised CWC's preparation of the grandstand for demolition. In preparing the grandstand for demolition, Respondent and Schwab met at the site at least 3 times to discuss the demolition and its progress. On May 16, 1997, the grandstand was scheduled to be demolished. On the morning of May 16th, as Schwab was leaving BKC, Respondent arrived. Shortly thereafter, the grandstand accidentally collapsed--the beams supporting the roof of the grandstand failed, and the roof collapsed. Two of CWC's workers were killed and three were seriously injured. After the collapse, BKC contracted with another company, Omega Contracting, to complete the demolition job. The Petitioner submitted documents reflecting that its costs of investigation and prosecution of the complaints against Respondent, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, to be $1,017.25. On May 22, 1997, pursuant to an Emergency Suspension Order, on May 22, 1997, the Petitioner suspended Respondent's license. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing all counts in Case Nos. 97-1435 and 97-1436. Finding that Arthur Signore violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (e), and (j), 489.1265(3), and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Revoking Arthur Signore's certified general contractor's license. Requiring Arthur Signore to pay all reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution associated with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Case No. 97-2998.3 DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1998.
