Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto. His license number is RC-0035594. On or about April 26, 1985 Respondent, doing business as Pinellas Roofing Service, contracted with Bausch and Lomb to reroof their plant in Manatee County, at a contract price of $31,150. Respondent admits that at no time material hereto was he licensed to engage in contracting in Manatee County. Pinellas Roofing thereafter began, and partially performed, this job for which it was paid a total of $28,035. Petitioner alleges, and Respondent denies, that Respondent diverted funds received from this job for other purposes, and was thereafter unable to fulfill the terms of the contract with Bausch and Lomb. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence in support of this charge. Respondent never completed this job and took no steps to inform Bausch and Lomb that he would not complete the contract or make other arrangements for its completion. He left several thousand dollars worth of material on the roof, exposed, when he walked off this job, and this resulted in these materials being substantially destroyed. During the job, he did not take precautions to assure that the roof did not leak during heavy rainstorms. In fact, on at least three occasions, leaks caused damage to the interior of the plant and Respondent could not be reached. Therefore, Bausch and Lomb had to have another roofing contractor make emergency repairs on June 25, July 15 and September 3, 1985, at a total additional cost of $4,150. Since Respondent did not complete the contract, and left the roof unfinished, Bausch and Lomb contracted on September 17, 1985 with Bernard J. Lozon, Inc., to complete the job, and make certain additional repairs, at a cost of $24,000. In the opinion of Bernard J. Lozon, who was accepted as an expert in roofing contracting, the actual work that was done by Pinellas Roofing was satisfactory. However, Respondent's actions in walking off the job and leaving the roof unattended without completing the job is an unacceptable practice in roofing contracting, and constitutes incompetence and misconduct. Respondent failed to properly supervise this job. He relied upon his son to hire the necessary crews, pay them, handle financial aspects of the job, and assure its completion. His testimony indicates he fails to understand his own responsibility for supervising and completing the work for which he contracted, and which was performed under his license. At no time material hereto did Respondent qualify Pinellas Roofing Service with Petitioner. Respondent failed to apply for and obtain a Manatee County building permit for the roofing job in question, and also failed to request the county building department to perform inspections of the work performed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County has adopted and follows the 1979 edition of the Standard for Installation of Roof Coverings, Southern Building Code, as amended in 1981. This Code requires all contractors performing work in Manatee County to be registered in Manatee County, and to obtain permits for all roof replacements and repairs in excess of $200, as well as obtain inspections of all such work to insure compliance with the Code. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the local building code. When Respondent submitted his proposal on April 16, 1985 for the Bausch and Lomb job, he specifically acknowledged, in writing, that "all work (is) to be done according to owner specifications sheet." (Emphasis supplied). At hearing, Respondent contended that when he submitted his proposal he never saw the project specification sheet which was thereafter attached to his contract with Bausch and Lomb and made a part thereof. Rather, he testified that his proposal referred to certain specifications that appeared on project drawings which he reviewed prior to submitting his proposal. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and all of the evidence presented, and particularly the fact that Respondent referred to the "specifications sheet" and not "drawings" in his proposal, it is specifically found that Respondent had knowledge of, and did in fact submit his proposal based upon the "specifications sheet" which ultimately became a part of his contract. As such, he was bound thereby in the performance of work under this contract. In pertinent part, the "specifications sheet" requires that the contractor obtain all necessary permits from Manatee County, that notice be given to the owner in advance of work that will produce excessive amounts of dust or tar fumes so proper precautions could be taken, that roofing materials be stored in a manner that protects them from damage or adverse weather conditions during construction, and that the contractor provide a two year written guarantee at the conclusion of the job. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of ninety (90) days and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3698 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5,6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 5-7 Addressed in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 5. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Michael Schlesinger, Esquire 655 Ulmerton Road Building 11-A Large, Fl 33541 Fred Seely Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Ronald E. Lotz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC0031773 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has been a licensed roofing contractor since February, 1978. His present address is 1650 Palm Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. In April, 1979 Lotz and Allen Hartwell entered into a contract whereby Lotz agreed to install a "new truss, and shingle roof" on Hartwell's house located at 4005 Northwest 19th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. The agreed upon price for the job was $1,225. As is relevant here, Lotz agreed, inter alia, that a "(n)ew exterior siding (would) be used on all gables". According to their agreement, Lotz was to purchase the plywood necessary to complete the work while Hartwell agreed to buy all their necessary materials. Section 6 of Marion County Ordinance 78-5, adopted on January 24, requires that a roofing permit be obtained on all jobs where the value of the work exceeds $100.00. Lotz did not obtain such a permit even though he conceded at the hearing that such a permit was required. Although the contract called for a new exterior side on all gables, Lotz did not install the same. Instead, he installed tongue and groove 3/4 inch boards which he felt were an adequate substitute. He discussed this with Hartwell at the time the job was performed and Hartwell did net object to this change in the contract. Hartwell, who filed a complaint against Lotz, was primarily dissatisfied with a wavy roof. However, that aspect of the job is not a part of this proceeding. The contract itself was modified by the parties a number of times. As a result, Lotz omitted certain requirements therein but added others without additional charge. In all, he was paid $1,125 for the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of failing to obtain a roofing permit in violation of Subsection 489.129(I)(d) Florida Statutes, and that he be given a public reprimand and fined $250. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Deaptment of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ron Lotz 1650 Palm Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0020923. On may 27, 1982, the Respondent, doing business as T & T Roofing Company, contracted with Jessie Reid, 1021 Abeline Drive, Deltona, Florida, to replace an existing shingle roof for a total contract price of $2,406.20. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as qualifying agency for A. L. Roofing Specialists. At no time has the Respondent qualified T & T Roofing Company. On August 26, 1982, when the Respondent completed work on Jessie Reid's roof, he was paid $2,406.20 which was the entire contract price for this job. The Respondent was to return to the job site to inspect the roof and correct minor remaining problems. However, when the Respondent would not return to the job, even after repeated calls, it was determined that there is a difference in shingle thickness at points on the roof, and the rain runs down over the gutters instead of into them. Further, the hip and ridge caps are of a different material than the major portion of the shingled roof; there are exposed nails; and the gutters are filled with roofing debris. The Respondent has not been responsive to communications and he has refused to make the necessary corrections to Jessie Reid's roof. The Respondent never obtained a permit for the reroofing work done for Jessie Reid at 1021 Abeline Drive, in Deltona. A permit is required to do reroofing work in Deltona, which is within the jurisdiction of Volusia County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Registered Roofing Contractor's license number RC 0020923 held by the Respondent, John W. Thorn, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 30th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John W. Thorn Post Office Box 1897 Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton, was licensed as a roofing contractor in Florida under license number RC0030867, but at the time of the misconduct alleged herein, the license was delinquent and invalid. Respondent's license was placed on delinquent status for non-renewal when it expired on June 30, 1987 and was considered invalid until reinstated in April, 1988. The Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for the licensing of contractors in this state. On August 27, 1987, John M. Mack and his wife contracted with Respondent, doing business as Roofing Enterprises, to replace the roof on their 70 year old house in Clearwater. The contract called for Respondent to remove the old roof, replace all rotten wood, and install fiberglass shingles as well as all other actions part thereof, including cleanup. For this, the Macks agreed to pay Respondent $2,930.00 to be paid one- third at commencement, one-third when dried in, and the balance due upon completion. The term "dried in" means to cover the roof base with felt and secure it so as to prevent moisture incursion. This constitutes the subsurface for the final roof surface. The contract did not provide a completion date. Respondent guaranteed his work for five years. Respondent started work on September 9, 1989 and was paid the first $1,000.00 by check. He started tearing off the existing roof and five days later, when only one quarter of the existing roof had been removed, requested the second installment of the contract price. Mr. Mack was out of town at the time, but Mrs. Mack gave him a second $1,000.00 check. At that time, far less than one third of the project had been completed. After that second payment was made, Respondent did "minimal work" on the project. He would appear at the job only intermittently and when he did, would leave after only a short while. When Mr. Mack asked about this, Respondent indicated it was too hot to work after 11:00 in the morning. He also complained that because the sub-roof was made of hard, old white pine, it was very difficult to remove the old nails. For several days in early November, 1987, Respondent did not show up for work and Mack's efforts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful. He finally filed a complaint with both the Better Business Bureau and the Department of Professional Regulation. Finally, on November 14, 1987, Respondent came to the work site and left after two hours indicating he had a meeting with other contractors on other jobs. The next day, when Respondent did not show up, Mr. Mack went to his house whereupon Respondent stated he had spent most of the $2,000.00 the Macks had given him on other projects and to pay his workers and did not have enough funds to finish the job. Mr. Archer, the only employee to work on the Mack property has not been paid at all for his work. Nonetheless, Mr. Mack instructed Respondent to do what he could with what was left and when that was gone, he would pay the balance. Though Respondent had previously indicated to Mr. Mack that he had secured all required permits, the day after the above discussion, he stated he had not done so and left the job site to get it without doing any work that day. Over the next 11 days, Respondent spent a total of 20 hours on the job. On November 17, 1987 it rained and because the roof was not secure, water leaked into the house. The following day, Respondent did not arrive for work until 10:00 AM. On November 19, 1987, when Mr. Mack called the lumber yard from which Respondent had ordered the shingles, he was told they were scheduled for delivery COD and were on their way. When they arrived, Mr. Mack refused to accept them and pay for them because he had already paid Respondent $2,000. Respondent, when told of this development, agreed to borrow the money for them from his brother but was unable to do so, and in order to get the job finally done, Mr. Mack agreed to pay approximately $200.00 for them. They were ultimately delivered. The next day, Respondent telephoned Mr. Mack and said he was coming to the site and would stay until the job was done. However, he did not get there until after 10 and left at 3:30 PM with the job incomplete. At 8:00 AM the following morning, Respondent again called Mr. Mack and reported he did not have enough money for the required flashings. He indicated he would come to work and finish up the shingling, but did not show up at all that day. On the day after, Respondent came with his wife who worked with him for a short while. On this occasion, Mack gave Respondent some more money for supplies, but Respondent left again before the job was complete. Respondent neither showed up for work nor called on both the next two days, but on the following day, November 25, 1987, he finally finished up the job except for the gravel roof on the rear house and the front part of the main house. Because the Macks had a tenant in the rear house who they did not want disturbed, they did not permit Respondent to work there, but he did finally finish up the front of the main house roof and the work that was accomplished was done satisfactorily. There was, however, an unused chimney on the main house which Respondent should have removed and roofed over. Instead, he improperly attempted to roof around it and since he was unable to make the area water tight, it resulted in severe leakage into the house which caused damage to several ceilings and some furniture. Throughout the entire course of the work, Respondent applied improper pressure to the Macks. He repeatedly threatened to file for bankruptcy and not complete the work, prompting the Macks to pay him before contractually called for. At the time for final payment, when Mr. Mack indicated he wanted to have the job checked before making that last payment, Respondent became angry and walked off. He has not been seen or heard from since. As a result of Respondent's failure to properly manage his funds and accomplish the job in a timely and professional manner, the Macks have sustained substantial damage to their property and have had to expend additional funds to get the work done properly. Respondent should have identified the unused chimney at the time he bid for the job and provided for its removal. If this would cost more, he should have so indicated. His failure to identify the problem and correct it constitutes negligence since it is impossible to properly roof around such an obstruction without leaks. Based on the information available to him, Mr. Verse, the Department's expert, concluded Respondent was guilty of gross negligence because: He was required to get a permit for this project and failed to do so, He was required to request inspections of the project as it progressed and failed to do so, He took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the job, (roofs are usually replaced in an expedient manner because re-roofing generates exposure of the house and contents to weather conditions), He failed to properly place the felt and thereafter cover it with the final coat in a timely manner (qualified roofers recognize that felt is insufficient roofing to prevent leaking), He diverted funds from this project to others for which they were not intended, He failed to properly supervise his employees, He did not complete the work called for under the contract, He failed to honor his warranty, and He failed to properly remove the old chimney as a part of the re-roofing process. With the exception of the failure to complete the job which was caused by Mr. Mack's refusal to allow Respondent to complete the roofing project on the gravel roof, Respondent's actions as outlined herein constituted gross negligence. In addition, he violated existing local law by failing to get a permit and have the required inspections made; he failed to perform in a timely manner; he diverted funds; he abandoned the job without it being completed; and he failed to honor his warranty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton's, license as a registered roofing contractor be suspended for three years under such provisions for reinstatement as may be deemed appropriate by the Board, and that he be fined $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce D. Gayton 15010 113th Avenue #32 Largo, Florida 34644-4305 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring general contractors. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Part and parcel of the Department's duties is the sanctioning of persons who practice general contracting without a license. Respondent is an individual living in Tampa, Florida. Respondent did not appear at final hearing and has not filed any post-hearing motions concerning his failure to appear. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Department makes the following allegations: Respondent was not registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent, doing business as J.D.S. Roofing, contracted with Vivian Virgil to perform certain roofing work, specifically, to remove and replace shingles and related work to reconstruct the roof on Virgil's home. A contract between the parties dated April 21, 2006, was signed by Virgil and Respondent (or his authorized representative). Virgil made two payments to Respondent in the amounts of $2,500.00 (via check number 1037) and $1,564.46 (via check number 1040). She also made a payment of $2,860.54 to The Home Depot to pay for materials ordered by Respondent for Virgil's roofing repairs. Respondent then made the contracted-for repairs and replacement of Virgil's roof pursuant to the contract.2 Virgil, however, was not pleased with the quality of the work. She is unable to get a warranty on the roof because Respondent's work was inferior. Virgil must have another contractor re-do the roof in order to get a warranty. Neither Respondent nor his company, J.D.S. Roofing, is or has ever been licensed by the State of Florida as a contractor. However, Respondent held himself out as a general contractor in his dealings with Virgil.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, James Delaughter, is guilty of the unlicensed practice of contracting and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 8th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as follows: License No(s): RC 0021957 Licensed as: Registered roofing contractor Address of record is in: New Port Richey, Florida A certain contracting job was undertaken as follows: Customer: Stella Domas Approximate contract date: 6-85 Approximate price: $600 Job location: New Port Richey, Florida Job generally consisted of: Repair roof of Customer's house Said job was undertaken by the contracting business Respondent was associated with and responsible for in his capacity as a licensee. Respondent proceeded without a timely permit having been issued, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j) 489.119; and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent proceeded without timely obtaining all required inspections, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j); 489.119; 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent gave a guarantee on said job to the Customer, and thereafter failed to reasonably honor said guarantee, in violation of 489.129(1)(m), (j); 489.119; 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent performed said work in a substantially deficient manner, therefore, violating 489.129(1)(m). Respondent previously has been disciplined by the State Construction Board. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Based on the Stipulated Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, the parties agree to the following disposition of the Amended Administrative Complaint: The Respondent shall pay a $1500 fine, payable within 60 days from entry of a final order approving this stipulated disposition; and The Respondent's registered roofing contractor license number RC 0021957 shall be suspended for 60 days, beginning 60 days from the entry of a final order approving this stipulated disposition.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order approving and incorporating the settlement stipulation between the parties. RECOMMENDED 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Lee Ellen Acevedo, Esquire 7716 Massachusetts Avenue New Port Richey, Florida 34653 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent conducted business through an entity known as C. J. Home Improvement Corporation, which was also not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. In 1995, Joseph Pallant was one of the owners and the manager of a commercial building located at 3700 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. In January 1995, Mr. Pallant entered into an agreement to lease the building for a term of ten years to a non-profit organization named PWAC, an acronym for People With Aids Coalition. PWAC had an office in the adjacent block and wanted to operate a thrift shop at the subject premises. The roof on the subject building leaked. The parties agreed that Mr. Pallant would pay to replace the roof and that PWAC would thereafter be responsible for maintenance. The officers of PWAC informed Mr. Pallant that they wanted Respondent to do the roofing work. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was unlicensed. It is clear that Mr. Pallant and Respondent knew one another prior to January 1995. Based on Mr. Pallant's testimony, which the undersigned finds credible, it is found that Mr. Pallant knew that Respondent was in the building repair business, but that he did not know Respondent was unlicensed. Respondent's assumption that Mr. Pallant knew he was unlicensed is not as credible as Mr. Pallant's direct, unequivocal testimony that he had no such knowledge. After having several conversations with Mr. Pallant by telephone and at the building, Respondent prepared a written proposal on his business form to do the work necessary to replace the roof. The proposal was submitted to PWAC. The proposal described in detail the work that would be done and the materials that would be furnished, the time frame for the work, and the price. The price was set at $6,183.00 plus $400.00 if certain additional work would have to be done on certain drains. PWAC was provided a copy of the proposal that was dated February 25, 1995. Respondent signed this proposal and affixed the corporate seal of his business entity. Under Respondent's signature was the phrase "personally individually guaranteed." At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Pallant was one of the owners of the building and that he would be paying for the roofing work. On February 27, 1995, Respondent and Mr. Pallant met. Respondent gave Mr. Pallant an unsigned copy of the written proposal (dated February 27, 1995, but otherwise identical to the form given PWAC, but dated February 25, 1995). After they discussed the work, Mr. Pallant accepted the proposal and gave Respondent a check made payable to C. J. Home Improvement in the amount of $3,100.00. Respondent accepted this check and deposited the proceeds of the check in his company's bank account. Without the prior knowledge or consent of Mr. Pallant, Respondent attempted to subcontract the roofing job to a licensed roofer named Don Palmier.1 No work was started on the job. In March 1995, Mr. Pallant met with representatives of PWAC and Respondent to discuss the lack of progress. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Palmier refused to proceed with the roofing job2 and Mr. Pallant learned that Respondent was unlicensed and could not do the work. During the course of the meeting PWAC cancelled its lease. Mr. Pallant subsequently filed suit against C. J. Home Improvement for the return of the $3,100.00. Despite obtaining a final judgment for that sum plus costs and fees, the Respondent has not satisfied any portion of the judgment. As of April 23, 1998, the Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $269.62.
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 fact and conclusions of law contained herein; finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; dismisses Count II of the Administrative Complaint; imposed an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00; and assesses costs against Respondent in the amount of $269.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1998
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a licensed specialty contractor in the State of Florida. He holds license number RX 0034241. He holds this license in his personal name. He does business as Rex Hawley Aluminum Contractor, of which he is the sole proprietor. He is not the qualifying agent for this entity. He is licensed in Pasco County, Florida, as a registered aluminum specialty contractor only. Respondent entered the aluminum contracting business in 1973. At that time, he bought shares in his brother-in-law's business, Dun-rite, Inc., which was then engaged in aluminum contracting. Respondent is one of 70 directors of the board of the Aluminum Association of Florida, which consists of 3000 members. He is the Secretary and Treasurer, as well as chair of the Code and Compliance Committee, of the Pasco County and Hernando County chapters of this trade association. From time to time, Herbert Wade ("Skip") Hunter works as an independent contractor for Respondent. Mr. Hunter initially met with Joyce E. Hamer in September, 1986, to begin negotiations concerning improvements to her mobile home in Pasco County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hunter acted as a duly authorized agent for Respondent when dealing with Ms. Hamer; however, Mr. Hunter had apparent but not actual authority to enter into a contract, on Respondent's behalf, to re-roof Ms. Hamer's mobile home with shingles. Mr. Hunter eventually submitted to Ms. Hamer a written proposal for the job. The proposal called for, among other things, a panel or pan roof, which is made of aluminum. Ms. Hamer never acted on this proposal. After several months, Mr. Hunter concluded that Ms. Hamer had no interest in the proposal that he had made. In February, 1987, Ms. Hamer contacted Mr. Hunter and expressed interest in the improvements that they had earlier discussed. Negotiations soon resulted in a new written proposal, which Ms. Hamer accepted on February 14, 1987. The new proposal differed from the old one in that, among other things, it called for a shingle roof rather than the more expensive pan roof. This provision was consistent with Ms. Hamer's concern during negotiations over the price of the job. Respondent had never met or communicated with Ms. Hamer prior to her acceptance of the second proposal. He was unaware that Mr. Hunter had proposed a shingle roof until Mr. Hunter returned to the office with the contract, which by that time had been signed by both parties. The contract was signed on February 14, 1987, which was a Saturday. On the following Monday or Tuesday, February 16 or 17, 1987, Respondent visited Ms. Hamer for the purpose of discussing her choice of roof. The parties disagree as to what was said during this discussion. Ms. Hamer testified that she had left the choice of roof to Mr. Hunter and that he selected shingles. Her testimony was unclear as to the purpose of Respondent's visit, although she implied that it was in preparation for the commencement of construction. Respondent testified that when he learned from Mr. Hunter that he had agreed to re-roof with shingles, Respondent told Mr. Hunter that they could not do such work. Respondent testified that he visited Ms. Hamer expressly for the purpose of convincing her that she should select a pan roof instead of shingles. Ms. Hamer's testimony is not credible on the selection of roofing materials. Her finances were tight. The job could not begin until she received a bank loan for the improvements. She had borrowed just enough to cover the improvements. The pan roof cost $2000 more than the shingle roof. Ms. Hamer naturally would have preferred the less expensive shingle roof, especially given her expressed preference for the appearance of shingles. On the other hand, Respondent's interests were better served by the installation of the more expensive pan roof, which he could do with his built-in profit margin. Respondent believed that he could not lawfully perform the shingle re-roofing job. Based on these facts, as well as the relative demeanor and credibility of the parties, as set forth below, the greater weight of the evidence supports Respondent's version that he tried to convince Ms. Hamer to agree to a pan roof, but was unsuccessful. Ms. Hamer had not lived in the subject mobile home at any time material hereto. When she first met Mr. Hunter, she was living with her elderly and infirm mother in a mobile home next door to the subject mobile home. Ms. Hamer desired the improvements so that she and her mother could move into Ms. Hamer's mobile home. Ms. Hamer testified that her mobile home was in habitable condition at the time of the negotiations. She expressly testified that the roof did not leak prior to the work performed by Respondent, although, after repeated questioning on this point, she admitted on cross examination that one wall in the bedroom had a single spot showing water damage prior to February, 1987. Respondent and Mr. Hunter disputed Ms. Hamer's testimony in this regard. They testified that the roof over the back bedroom showed evidence of serious leaking prior to the commencement of work. Mr. Hunter testified that the day that Ms. Hamer signed the contract they went into the back bedroom and discussed the water leakage from the roof and wall. He noted that the carpet was soaked and there were water stains on the ceiling. He also saw a plastic sheet on the bed. Respondent testified to seeing the same conditions later, but prior to the commencement of work. Respondent testified that the window frame in the bedroom was rotten. This conflict in testimony must also be resolved in favor of Respondent. Part of the reason is Ms. Hamer's demeanor and general credibility as a witness, as set forth below. In addition, Ms. Hamer testified reluctantly to any prior water damage in her bedroom. Although appearing to understand the questions, she tried on three or more occasions to avoid testifying to preexisting water damage to the wall. Ms. Hamer testified that she replaced the roof because it was seven years old and she wanted to coordinate it with the rest of the addition. She testified that when she first bought the mobile home she intended to replace the roof when it wore out with one of a lighter color in order to lower her cooling bills. She felt that seven years was the life expectancy of the roof. Respondent disputed whether the new shingles were lighter in color than the old shingles. Given her tight financial situation, Ms. Hamer probably would not have replaced the roof until it was necessary to do so--that is, when it began leaking. It is less likely that she would have prematurely replaced a serviceable roof merely for the sake of appearances or marginal savings on her cooling bills. On the other hand, Mr. Hunter's credibility on the issue of preexisting water damage was enhanced when he testified frankly on cross examination that he did not notice, prior to the re-roofing, all of the damage depicted in Petitioner's photographs. If he were lying, he would presumably have seized the opportunity to embellish the extent of preexisting interior damage. The work commenced as soon as Ms. Hamer received her loan proceeds, which was a few days after she signed the contract. The loan itself was based on an appraisal that was performed on January 22, 1987, and delivered on February 2, 1987. The appraisal found the value of the proposed improvements to be $17,399, which is considerably in excess of the $15,754 price of the first proposal (which included the pan roof) or the $13,895 price of the accepted proposal. Assuming that Ms. Hamer did not obtain the appraisal on the basis of the older proposal, the fair market value of the work performed by Respondent was about $3500 more than he charged her. On February 16, 1987, Kustom Koncrete applied for and received a building permit for the concrete work, which included the screened enclosure floor, a ramp to the carport, a carport floor, and the driveway. On February 18, 1987, C & H Jordan applied for and received a building permit for the electrical work. On February 25, 1987, Southern Pools applied for and received a building permit for the installation of the pre-plumbed spa. On the same date, Dun-Rite, Inc. applied for and received a building permit for the addition of screen walls. Dun-Rite, Inc. is the name that the Pasco County Building Department used for Respondent when issuing building permits. Respondent did not mark up any of the subcontractors' invoices in order to make a profit on their labor and materials. When inspecting the concrete foundation laid by Kustom Koncrete on February 18, 1987, Mr. Roger Groover, a building inspector for the Pasco County Building Department, noticed re-roofing activity for which no permit had been issued. He immediately issued a stop-work order. Respondent then applied for a building permit on Ms. Hamer's behalf, using a letter dated February 17, 1987, in which she had appointed him as her agent to obtain a permit to install shingles on her home. On February 18, 1987, a building permit for re-roofing was issued showing that the owner was the contractor. The testimony is in conflict concerning the circumstances surrounding the original re-roofing job. The dispute arises over what was agreed to at the meeting between Respondent and Ms. Hamer on February 16 or 17, 1987. Respondent testified that when he was unsuccessful in persuading Ms. Hamer to agree to a pan roof, even after he offered to do the work at his cost, he told her that he could not do the work. However, he testified that he agreed to obtain the shingles for Ms. Hamer and deliver them to the work site, but they would be installed by laborers who, although normally working for Respondent, would be working for her and not him. Consistent with Respondent's version, it was during this visit that Ms. Hamer signed the above-described February 17 letter. Respondent testified that he warned Ms. Hamer at that time that he would not be responsible for the roof. Respondent testified that he agreed to pay for the labor and materials on Ms. Hamer's behalf and then back out the amount of these payments from the contract price. Ms. Hamer disputed all of Respondent's testimony on this point. This dispute in critical testimony is the most difficult to resolve. Respondent's version lacks any internal inconsistencies. It is therefore necessary to rely upon the demeanor of the witnesses and their general credibility. Respondent and Mr. Hunter were frank and straightforward in their testimony. Not all of their testimony placed Respondent in the most favorable light and they recognized this fact. Ms. Hamer, by way of contrast, was evasive. Her answers frequently failed to respond to the question, even after warning. She contradicted herself many times in her own testimony. For instance, she testified unequivocally that Respondent was present when the contract was signed, then testified that he was not. She testified that she had not met Respondent prior to the signing of the contract, then testified that she had. She testified that she had not spoken with Respondent in the last eight months before the hearing, then testified that she had spoken with him within a couple of months prior to the hearing. Ms. Hamer's credibility was also damaged by her unsuccessful attempt to impose upon Respondent the responsibility for paying two invoices from Suburban Propane. Ms. Hamer produced these invoices from a carefully maintained notebook that she brought with her to the hearing. She testified that Respondent improperly failed to pay these bills. Upon further examination of the witness, it became clear that one of these items was for the filling of the tank that provided the fuel to heat her spa--an item for which Respondent was clearly not responsible. After much evasion, Ms. Hamer finally admitted that the second invoice was not to purchase the original propane tank but to replace it with a larger tank. Ms. Hamer's earlier testimony regarding Respondent's unsatisfied responsibilities as to these invoices appears to have been offered with either reckless indifference or conscious disregard to the facts. For these reasons, I expressly find Respondent's version of the facts in Paragraph 18 to be true. The re-roofing began on February 17, 1987, and was completed a few days later. There was no rain for the next six weeks. Although all the other work was completed during the greater portion of this time, Ms. Hamer did not move into the mobile home and offered no reason as to why she did not. One likely inference, given the circumstances, is that the interior had suffered such damage prior to the work that the mobile home was uninhabitable. When it finally rained on March 28, 1987, the roof leaked extensively. After several complaints from Ms. Hamer, Respondent contracted with Rathel's Roofing to re-roof the mobile home at Respondent's expense. Respondent paid Rathel's Roofing $1400 for the new roof. The re-roofing was accomplished on or about April 29, 1987. Ms. Hamer testified that there continues to be some leakage between the screened room and the main portion of the mobile home However, no evidence established the extent of this problem or that it was the responsibility of Respondent rather than the roofer, whom Ms. Hamer testified did all that she asked to be done. Mr. Hunter, who also works as a sales agent for one or more pool contractors in Pasco County, testified that it is the practice in Pasco County for a pool contractor to enter into a contract with a customer for the construction of a pool and then to enter into subcontracts with electrical and plumbing subcontractors for the electrical and plumbing work. Respondent testified that pool contractors in Pasco County and throughout the state customarily contract to build screened enclosures, even though not licensed to do so, and then subcontract the construction of the enclosure an aluminum contractor such as himself.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor and a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license numbers CC C027427 and CB C023123. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, MCI was a corporation engaged in roofing contracting, and Respondent was its qualifying agent. A re-roofing job by MCI on the shared roof of two townhouses located at 105 and 106 Woodland Road, the Village of Palm Springs, Florida (the Village), is at issue in this proceeding. These two townhouses are part of a building consisting of four townhouses. All four townhouses have a shared roof. Essentially, the work by MCI was to re-roof half of the entire roof. At the times material to this proceeding Lawrence Gauer owned the townhouse at 105 Woodland Road (Gauer townhouse) and RCM owned the townhouse at 106 Woodland Road (RCM townhouse). Both townhouses are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Village. Mr. Malt, Respondent's brother, owns RCM. Mr. Malt is a certified general contractor, developer, and real estate broker. Mr. Malt has extensive experience building townhouses, having built over 4,000 dwelling units, including the townhouses where the work at issue in this proceeding occurred. Mr. Malt also owns the company that manufactured the engineered pre-stressed concrete structural members that served as the foundation for the roof at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Malt is not a licensed roofing contractor, and his general contractor’s license does not authorize him to perform roofing work. In the fall of 1998, Mr. Malt determined that the RCM townhouse should be re-roofed. Mr. Malt contacted the owners of the other three townhouses to determine whether they wanted to re-roof their portions of the shared roof. Mr. Gauer decided to have his part of the shared roof re-roofed with Mr. Malt, but the owners of the other two townhouses declined. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent authorized Mr. Malt to act as an agent for MCI. On January 7, 1999, MCI contracted with Mr. Gauer and with RCM to perform the work at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Gauer signed the contract in his capacity as owner of his townhouse. Mr. Malt signed the contract on behalf of RCM as owner of its townhouse. Mr. Malt also signed the contract on behalf of MCI in his capacity as its agent. The total amount of the contract was $5,000, with each owner (Mr. Gauer and RCM) being responsible for payment of $2,500. The contract required each owner to pay $1,250 upon execution of the contract with the balance due within five days ". . . of completion (inspection by the Village . . .)". On or about January 7, 1999, Mr. Gauer paid $1,850 to MCI. There was no explanation as to why Mr. Gauer paid more than the contract required on that date. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract, and the contract did not contain a written statement explaining the rights of consumers under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. On January 13, 1999, Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, applied to the Village for the requisite building permits for the subject work. On January 13, 1999, the Village issued two separate permits, one for each townhouse, authorizing the re- roofing work contemplated by the subject contract. Each permit reflected that the valuation of the work was $2,500. Consistent with the applicable building code, the Village's building department issued a notice with each permit that because the roof was flat, the roof had to provide positive drainage to prevent the ponding of water or the roof had to be constructed of specific water retaining material. Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, hired the crew that performed the roofing work at issue in this proceeding. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Malt supervised the roofing crew that worked on the two townhouses. Prior to beginning work on the roof, Mr. Malt checked weather forecasts for the area. On January 13, 1999, the roofing crew removed the existing roofing material from the roof. At the end of the workday, the crew covered the exposed roof with plastic sheeting commonly referred to as Visqueen. For a flat roof, the accepted standard in the roofing industry is to remove only as much roofing material as can be replaced with finished roofing material the same day. A plastic sheeting such as Visqueen is inadequate to protect an exposed flat roof from a heavy rainfall. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof on January 13, 1999, constituted negligence. On the night of January 13, 1999, an unexpected heavy rainfall event occurred. As a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing extensive damage. The work crew spent most of January 14, 1999, cleaning up following the rain event the previous day. As of Friday, January 15, 1999, the roof was still exposed. On that date, MCI installed a base coat of hot asphalt and insulation, which was inadequate to waterproof the flat roof. At the end of the workday, the roofing crew covered the roof with Visqueen and left for the weekend. On January 16, 1999, additional heavy rains occurred. Again, as a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing additional damage to both townhouses. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof constituted negligence. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance company paid his policy limits for emergency services and repairs to his townhouse. The repairs were completed on or about February 19, 1999. Mr. Gauer subrogated his rights against MCI to his insurance company. There was a civil action pending by the insurance company against MCI at the time of the final hearing based on the subrogation rights. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance did not cover damages to his or Mr. Poitivent's personal property. The value of those losses was not established. During the week beginning January 18, 1999, MCI installed new roofing material on the roof. In doing so, the roofing crew covered the clothes dryer vent for each townhouse with roofing material. As a result, Mr. Gauer's clothes dryer did not vent properly, and he paid an independent contractor $250.00 to inspect and clean out the dryer vent. MCI promptly corrected the deficient work after Mr. Gauer told Mr. Malt that his dryer vent had been covered during the re-roofing. The accepted standard in the roofing industry is that roof vents are not to be covered over without some specific instruction to do so. MCI's failure to adhere to that standard constituted negligence. MCI asserted that it completed the roofing work in 1999. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Craig Johns was a building inspector for the Village. Mr. Johns inspected the subject roof on the following dates in 1999: June 15, July 15, August 12, and August 30. Following each inspection, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not pass inspection. Among other deficiencies, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not provide positive drainage, which was required for a flat roof covered in asphalt. 2/ As of the final hearing, MCI had not obtained a passing final inspection from the Village's building department. Mr. Malt established that Respondent had just cause to believe that MCI had completed all work on the project in 1999. Consequently, Respondent is not guilty of abandoning the work within the meaning of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997). As of June 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, totaled $794.23. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, V, and VI of the Administrative Complaint. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count I is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count II is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count V is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count VI is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay Mr. Gauer restitution in the amount of $250. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay investigative costs in the amount of $794.23. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 5th day of November, 2001.
