Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed as a general contractor in the State of Florida and registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That agency is the agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida and with monitoring the compliance of licensees with the various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and pertinent rules relating to licensure standards and practice standards of contractors. On April 23, 1980, one Terry Burch and Jim Goodman were operating a construction business under the fictitious name of "T. J. Associates." Neither Terry Burch or Jim Goodman, nor the entity known as T. J. Associates, was qualified or licensed with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at that time, nor at times subsequent thereto which are pertinent to this proceeding. On April 23, 1980, T. J. Associates entered into a written contract with homeowners Florence Martin and her husband to remodel their home at 120 Broadview Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. The original contract was for $26,615.00 with various addenda to that contract, such that the total net contract price, with modifications, ultimately reached $40,597.00. Both the contract and the modification agreements were signed by the Martins and Terry Burch of T. J. Associates. The Respondent, Steven Shields, was not a party to any of these agreements. Mr. Burch and Mr. Goodman of T. J. Associates, obtained the Martin contract entirely through their own efforts and after obtaining the signed contract, approached the Respondent, Steven Shields, to ask him to draft blueprints for the job, also proposing that the three of them enter into some sort of partnership or other business arrangement. During the meeting at which this business was discussed, it was revealed to the Respondent that T. J. Associates was unlicensed with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the three men agreed that they would obtain proper application documents from the Board's office in Orlando for filing so as to properly qualify the company. In the meantime, the Respondent agreed to obtain from the City of Winter Park Building Department, the necessary building permits and did so. The Respondent was ultimately paid $600.00 by T. J. Associates for labor he performed on the subject project and for obtaining a building permit in his own name. The Respondent ultimately decided not to enter into a business relationship with T. J. Associates, Burch and Goodman. He did, however, work on the "Martin project" as a sort of job supervisor or foreman, performing some labor on the job and going to the job site on possibly two or three occasions during the course of the construction effort of T. J. Associates. The Respondent initially intended to use his contractor's license to properly qualify T. J. Associates with the Board and obtain the papers to do so, but after he did not enter the formal business relationship with T. J. Associates, neglected to do so, nor did T. J. Associates make any further effort to qualify itself as a contracting entity with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Respondent did obtain the building permit for T. J. Associates for the Martin job on May 13, 1980, and obtained it under his individual name and contractor license number. T. J. Associates worked on the Martin job from May 6, 1980, to July 16, 1980. On July 16, 1980, after a dispute regarding the quality of the paint work and other matters, T. J. Associates and the Respondent stopped all work. At the time of the stoppage, the work was 90 percent complete. At the time the work was stopped, no more money was due to T. J. Associates for work already performed. The Martins, at that point, had paid T. J. Associates $35,900.00. The Martins had however, upon advice of their attorney, withheld sufficient funds at the point of cessation of work by T. J. Associates, to enable them to pay for the completion of the job by other labor and materialmen. Three subcontractors had been hired or contracted with by T. J. Associates for work which was performed by them on the Martin job. Those three subcontractors, Mr. Anthony Costa, Mr. Clyde Ray and Mr. Michael Ellis, had performed work for which they were owed, respectively, $531.00, $550.00 and $130.00. None of those three subcontractors have, as yet, been paid for these amounts. They repeatedly attempted to obtain payment from T. J. Associates, but were given no satisfaction in that regard. The Respondent never entered into any agreement or hiring arrangement with the three subcontractors involved, nor did the Respondent ever have possession or control of any funds paid from the Martins to T. J. Associates from which the subcontractors should have been paid. The Respondent only received the above- mentioned $600.00 from T. J. Associates for his services.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 489.129(1)(e) and (k), in that he aided and abetted an uncertified, unregistered person to evade the act and violated Subsection (k) by abandoning the project without just cause. The remaining charges in the Administrative Complaint should, however, be dismissed. In view of the violations proven, an administrative fine of $500.00 and a three (3) month suspension of his license, followed by a one (1) year period of probation is warranted. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles E. Hoequist, Esquire 301 North Ferncreek Orlando, Florida 32803 James Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Stephen M. Oliver, was both a registered roofing contractor, holding license RC 0042579, and a certified building contractor, holding license CB 025099. Both licenses were issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about July 3, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract with Betty Davis to remodel her house in Bradenton. The total contract price was $3,600. Work on the Davis job commenced on Wednesday, July 3, 1985, and proceeded on July 4 and 5 and July 9 through 12, 1985, before Respondent applied for and obtained a Manatee County building permit for the job. This is a violation of local law. Respondent was not attempting to avoid obtaining a permit for the work. He was just busy and did not timely get one. The building permit obtained does not reflect that the permit covered installation of an oven range hood. Although part of the contract, that work was not included on Respondent's application for a building permit. No separate mechanical permit was obtained for this work. Respondent willfully and deliberately installed the oven range hood on the Davis job without obtaining the required Manatee County mechanical permit. At all times material, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County had adopted the Standard Building Code and Standard Mechanical Code, with accumulated supplements, to govern construction in Manatee County. Under the applicable code provisions, installation of an oven range hood is mechanical work for which a mechanical license and mechanical permit are required. Respondent is not licensed or qualified by the State or by Manatee County to do mechanical work. Respondent willfully and deliberately did the mechanical work on the Davis job, i.e., installation of the oven range hood, without being licensed or qualified to do it and without a mechanical permit. Respondent's work on the Davis job was incompetent and grossly negligent in that some electrical wires were covered over by vinyl siding that Respondent installed without first being covered with protective coating to prevent safety hazards, in violation of the applicable building code. Otherwise, Respondent's workmanship was not the best, but it was not incompetent or grossly negligent. On or about March 22, 1985, Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation in which Respondent admitted to charges of not getting the required building permit for an August 25, 1983, contract until eleven months after work began. Respondent was fined $500 for that offense. Shortly before the final hearing in this case, Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation in which he admitted to charges of: (1) performing a February 18, 1985, contract without obtaining the required permit and inspections; (2) performing a March 6, 1985, contract by October 1, 1985, without having all necessary inspections done; (3) performing a January 22, 1985, contract without having all necessary building inspections performed, without correcting all violations cited during inspections, and falsely swearing by affidavit that the masonry contractor had been paid; and (4) not having the necessary final inspection done after performance of a March 16, 1985, contract. For these offenses, Respondent was fined an additional $1000 and placed on probation through February, 1988.
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 fining Respondent, Stephen M. Oliver, $1500.00. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1987 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 26th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-5035 Respondent filed no proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. This ruling complies with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Stephen M. Oliver 2423 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Fl 33505 Fred Seely Executive Director 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 The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensing of contractors in Florida and regulating the practice of contracting of all types. Specifically, the Petitioner is responsible for enforcing law which prohibits unlicensed persons from engaging in the business of contracting, or advertising themselves or business organizations as available to engage in contracting, without proper licensure. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida, who has embarked on a business of representing owners who desire to construct residences, acting as the agent of those owners in arranging for materials, labor, subcontractors, and the financing of construction. Upon the decision by the owner to construct a residence, the Respondent engages in drafting plans, to some extent, arranging for subcontractors, overseeing the details of the work and any changes or alterations in the work and plans as the project proceeds. The owner in this arrangement does not obtain workers' compensation coverage for the Respondent, as would be the case if the Respondent was an employee of the owner, nor does the owner withhold F.I.C.A. taxes from monies due the Respondent for his services. The Respondent is not licensed as a contractor in the State of Florida. On May 11, 1995, the Respondent signed a contract (hereinafter the "Kassiris Contract") with owner Gus Kassiris, to oversee the erection and construction of a new residence for Mr. Kassiris. The Respondent was to perform the following duties, pursuant to the Kassiris Contract: to make recommendations as to which subcontractor to hire; to inspect progress and review payments; consultations and solutions on construc- tion project; to engage in manpower tracking and coor- dination of resources; monitoring of contract compliance; to provide punch list services; and to engage in the preparation and de- fense of change orders, as well as cost accounting. The "punch list services" mean that the Respondent was to engage in insuring that no work was left undone or done incorrectly at the end of the project. The Respondent admitted that he conducted all inspections on the project and reviewed all requisitions for payment from the subcontractors. The amount he charged for his services was roughly equivalent to the amount a licensed contractor would charge for similar services. The Kassiris Contract did not meet the conditions for a homeowner's exemption, found in Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Kassiris Contract did not provide that the Respondent would work under the supervision of the homeowner. In fact, the Kassiris Contract provided that if the homeowner wanted changes made in the specifications, he could request a change order. The Kassiris Contract also did not provide that the homeowner would deduct F.I.C.A. and withholding taxes from the Respondent's fees or wages, as required in the homeowner's exemption standards. There was no provision requiring that the homeowner provide workers' compensation, as required by the statute, in order to make out the elements of the homeowner's exemption (from the requirement of having a contractor's license). The conditions for exemption from licensure were also not met in the implementation of the Kassiris Contract. Specifically, the homeowner did not act as his own contractor and provide all of the material supervision himself. Although he denies it, in fact, the Respondent negotiated the contracts with the subcontractors and, during the course of performance of the Kassiris Contract, the Respondent approved plan changes for the project, without the involvement or consultation of the owner. The Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor in the implementation of the contract by overseeing most details of construction of the residence. He performed the on-site inspections, dealt with subcontractors, approved the manner in which work was being performed, approved payment of subcontractors, and, in general, closely managed all details of the contracting effort. Practically, the only involvement the owner had, other than being present on the site frequently, was that the owner actually wrote the checks to pay the subcontractors and delivered them to the Respondent, who, in turn, delivered them to the subcontractors. The owner obtained the building permit at the commencement of the project. The Respondent advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, on or about June 25, 1995, that he offered services for hire as a construction consultant and for project management. On or about June 27, 1995, he entered into a contract with Paul and Valerie Stamper (hereinafter the "Stamper Contract"). The Respondent was thus charged with overseeing the erection and construction of a residence located at Lot 15 of Laurel Oak Estates Subdivision in Citrus County, Florida. He acted in the capacity of a contractor in the negotiation and formulation of this contract. According to the Stamper Contract, the Respondent's responsibilities were to include the following: make recommendations as to which subcon- tractor to hire; conduct progress inspections and payment reviews; consult concerning construction problems and arrive at solutions; engage in manpower and tracking and coor- dination of resources; monitor contract compliance; provide "punch list" services; prepare and defend any change orders; engage in cost accounting. The terms of the Stamper Contract indicate that the residence to be constructed was to be purveyed to the owner, rather than a case of the owner being the contractor actually creating the product. In order for the above- referenced exemption to apply, the homeowner must be the party functioning as a contractor on his own behalf. It is noteworthy in this regard that the Stampers gave the Respondent a $3,000.00 deposit. The Stampers later decided that they did not wish to proceed with the contract and requested return of that deposit. The Respondent refused to return the deposit money, although acknowledging that the Stamper Contract was no longer in effect. In his letter to the Stampers, responding to their request for return of the deposit, he proposed, instead, that they continue to proceed with the contract and the construction of the residence, which the Stampers no longer wished to own and occupy, in order that they could sell it. The intention to construct a residence for sale to another party directly belies the possibility that the homeowner can be his own contractor, constructing a residence for his own use in compliance with the homeowner-exemption law. It shows an intention to engage in contracting by the Respondent. The existence of facts supporting this exemption is also belied because the Respondent, in his contract with the Stampers, did not contract to have F.I.C.A. or income taxes withheld from any paychecks due him from the Stampers, nor did the Stampers contract to provide workers' compensation coverage for the Respondent. The contract also did not provide that the owners, the Stampers, would act as their own contractors and provide all material supervision themselves. In fact, the Respondent was to provide supervision. The Petitioner is responsible for enforcing the prohibition against unlicensed contracting in order to protect the public. There are frequent problems with unlicensed contractors in Florida in terms of their competence to provide quality work and their willingness to do so, as well as outright fraud and harm to the public. The contracts which unlicensed contractors enter into are illegal and unenforceable. Homeowners who contract with unlicensed contractors are not eligible for recovery under the Construction Industry Licensing Recovery Fund. On July 2, 1995, the Respondent again advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, advertising himself as available to manage the construction of residences. Based upon this notice and other information, the Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to the Respondent, ordering him to cease and desist the unlicensed practice of contracting. The Respondent contends that he is not a contractor and that he is, instead, a project manager or consultant and, therefore, not governed by the statutory provision authorizing the Notice to Cease and Desist.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 23rd day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-4534 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. 10. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. 11-14. Accepted. 15. Rejected, as being irrelevant. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Accepted, except for the next to the last sentence, which constitutes a conclusion of law. 19-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. 22-31. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the unrefuted evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law, but to the extent it might be a proposed finding of fact, as not in accord with unrefuted evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not representative of the unrefuted evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not itself being dispositive of material issues. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not being materially dispositive. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as, in part, being a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 10-12. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Mr. Mark P. Stanish 6041 Town Court Springhill, FL 34606 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, John Arena, was a certified residential contractor, the qualifying agent for Classic Industries, Inc. and held license number CR C021139 from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The President and sole owner of Classic was Anthony Manganelli. Mr. Manganelli was also the manager of Classic and the principal from whom Mr. Arena received his information about the contracts entered into by Classic. On or about July 30, 1988, someone contacted Ms. Solange Gaston of Hollywood, Florida, by telephone, and asked her if her roof needed repair. The solicitor represented himself as an associate of Classic and offered to come out and inspect her roof. Ms. Gaston, believing her roof was in disrepair, agreed to have the inspection completed and entered into a contract with Mr. Carlo Mangano, representing himself as an agent of Classic, to do the repair. With Ms. Gaston's agreement, the tile on her roof was replaced with shingle roofing and certain other repairs were attempted. A letter to Petitioner from the Chief Permit Processor of the City of Hollywood, Florida indicates that no roofing permit was issued for Ms. Gaston's address. The roof was leaking prior to the repair and continues to leak. Ms. Gaston paid the complete contract price of $3,500 to Classic, but has been unable to locate Mr. Mangano or to have her roof repair completed. In her attempts to achieve satisfaction, Ms. Gaston contacted Classic and asked to speak with someone in charge. She was under the impression that she was speaking with Mr. Arena; however, she never spoke to Mr. Arena. In fact, Mr. Arena was not aware of the contract with Ms. Gaston until the instant complaint was filed against him. Mr. Arena does not know Mr. Mangano. When Mr. Arena became aware of the problem, he attempted to contact Mr. Manganelli, but was told that Mr. Manganelli had moved. Ultimately, Mr. Arena located Mr. Manganelli at a new address. According to Mr. Arena, Mr. Manganelli produced a copy of what appeared to be a contract with Ms. Gaston which has the signature of Carlo Mangano on it, but it is marked indicating that Ms. Gaston's credit was turned down. Mr. Manganelli told Mr. Arena that Classic had not undertaken the job due to the refusal of credit. With that representation, Mr. Arena was under the impression that the work had not been done, as was the custom of dealing for Classic when credit was denied. The two papers purporting to be contracts, one which Ms. Gaston acknowledged as being the one which she signed and the other being the one which Mr. Arena obtained from Mr. Manganelli as the actual contract between Ms. Gaston and Classic through Mr. Mangano, appear to be altered. Although both documents contain the same information, including the date, parties, addresses, work to be completed and price quoted, the portion of the copy indicating the price is written in Arabic numerals on Mr. Arena's copy and by words on Ms. Gaston's copy. Mr. Arena's copy also has the indication that credit was turned down on it, although the cancelled checks paid to Classic by Ms. Gaston were received into evidence. It was Mr. Arena's arrangement with Mr. Manganelli that Mr. Arena was to be informed of every contract into which Classic entered. In this way, Mr. Arena knew which sites he was to supervise. Since he was not advised about the roofing job for Ms. Gaston, he made no attempt to supervise it and after he became aware that the credit for the job had been disallowed, he was under the reasonable impression that the job was not done by Classic. Further, he did not know Mr. Mangano, nor did he believe that Mr. Mangano had the authority to bind Classic. Mr. Arena believes that Mr. Mangano may have obtained a blank contract form of Classic and misrepresented himself to Ms. Gaston as an agent for Classic. Petitioner asserted, however, that Mr. Arena, nevertheless, was responsible for the job and that Classic did perform the job. Neither Mr. Manganelli nor Mr. Mangano were present or testified at the hearing. Given Mr. Arena's demeanor at the hearing and the conflicting and altered state of the alleged contract forms, Mr. Arena's testimony is deemed credible, and the proof failed to demonstrate clearly that Classic actually attempted to repair Ms. Gaston's roof or that Mr. Arena was responsible for the attempted repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this case against Respondent, John Arena. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of June, 1990. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 341 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John D. Arena 5961 Southwest 13th Street Plantation, Florida 33317 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Jose Ramone Garcia obtained a building permit for the purpose of aiding an uncertified or unregistered person to evade the provisions of Part 2, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Jose Ramone Garcia holds a license as a general contractor issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and is licensed as doing business as Gabros Construction. Jose Ramone Garcia, on or about April 26, 1974, obtained a building permit No. 74-1006 issued by Collier County Building Department to build a home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. The home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida, was built by Roger Dulaney, an unlicensed person, who had contracted verbally to build said home with Mr. William E. Young, the owner of the real property. Jose Ramone Garcia obtained the building permit No. 74-1006 with money given to him by Roger Dulaney, but Jose Ramone Garcia did not receive any compensation for his assistance to Roger Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with William E. Young to build the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with any of the subcontractors or materialmen for services or goods used in the construction of the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia was frequently at the construction site at 378 Seabee Avenue and did oversee the construction which Dulaney directed. Garcia did insure that all construction work done was in accordance with the specifications and plans and the building code of Collier County. All work on the home at 378 Seabee Avenue was inspected and approved by the building authorities of Collier County. With several minor adjustments, the construction was acceptable to the owners. The major problem involved with the house constructed at 378 Seabee Avenue involved the contract price of the home arrived at between Dulaney and Young. Garcia did not negotiate the contract of the construction of the house at 378 Seabee Avenue and had no knowledge of the contract price. The dispute between Dulaney and Young resulted in court action between these parties which resulted in a judgment by the court in the favor of Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia has been unable to obtain a building permit as a contractor in Collier County since the filing of the Administrative Complaint in January, 1976. Garcia currently resides in Collier County.
Recommendation Because the licensing privilege of Garcia has already been effectively suspended for 14 months, which is a substantial period of suspension, the Hearing Officer does not feel that a further suspension would be of any benefit. The Hearing Officer would recommend that a civil penalty of $500 be assessed against Garcia based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire Jacobs, Sinoff, Edwards, Alford & Burgess Post Office Drawer I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Jose Ramone Garcia 9341 S. W. 38th Street Miami, Florida J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken against the licenses of K. C. Moore as a registered builder contractor. In addition, the testimony at the hearing revealed that subsequent to the institution of this complaint that Dr. 0. Rao, M.D., did make application to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board for licensure as a contractor, that his application was approved, and that upon successful completion of the Board's examination he was licensed. If K. C. Moore is in fact guilty of aiding or abetting or knowingly combining or conspiring with a person to violate Part II, Chapter 468, the person with whom he combined or conspired or who he aided or abetted was Dr. John 0. Rao. Although the Board may be limited under the statutory provisions in denying Dr. Rao the license, assuming the Board rejects the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and finds the facts constitute a violation of the statutory provisions, there is an absence of essential fairness to proceed against the licenses of K. C. Moore while licensing the individual with whom he contracted. The disparity in treatment of K. C. Moore and Dr. John 0. Rao is a factor which must be considered by the Board. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 R. Stephen Miles, Jr., Esquire Mile and Cumbie Post Office Box 517 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner,
The Issue The issues in this matter are as established through an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against Johnny C. Fossett alleging various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, related to a job conducted for Joshua and Jacquelyn Williams. More specifically, Respondent is accused of violation of Section 489.129(1)(j) , Florida Statutes (1981), by failing to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. In a related vein, he is accused of violation of Section 489.129(1)(g) Florida Statutes (1981), by acting in a name other than that on his license. Respondent is accused of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981), for willful and deliberate disregard and violation of a local building code. Respondent is accused of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for contracting beyond the scope of his registration. Finally, Respondent is accused of a violation of Section 489.129(2), Florida Statutes,(1981), in violating Rule 21E-15.07, Florida Administrative Code, by failure to notify the Construction Industry Licensing Board of a change of address within 30 days of such change.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Johnny C. Fossett, is the holder of a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board in the field of registered roofing contractor. That license number is RC 0040728. Respondent is also the qualifying agent of J. C. Fossett Roofing & Maintenance Repair of 4978 Soutel Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. In addition to the Soutel address associated with J. C. Fossett Roofing & Maintenance Repair, Respondent has given the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board the address 8937 Castle Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida, as his address. On April 15, 1983, Respondent contracted with Joshua and Jacqelyn Williams of 4634 Fairleigh Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, for the construction of a utility building with roof; to repour a carport slab; and to construct a screened-in patio with roof. The agreement was also for the removal of a tree hanging over the den and carport area of the existing home. The total price of this contract was $3,550. Eighteen hundred dollars was paid as a deposit, and the remainder of the contract price was paid on May 11, 1983. In the proposal or contract agreement Respondent noted that the work was guaranteed by an entity known as J. C. Roofing. A copy of this proposal may be found as Petitioner'S Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. Neither the Respondent nor any other duly licensed contractor had qualified the entity/organization known as J. C.. Roofing with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent performed the work called for in the contract, without obtaining the necessary building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was registered with the City of Jacksonville as a roofing contractor. He was not registered in the fields of general contracting, building contracting, or residential contracting, which would have been necessary before Respondent could conduct that work for the Williamses, other than roofing. Respondent could not have been registered with the City of Jacksonville in those fields of general contracting, building contracting, and residential contracting because he was not qualified. The Williamses experienced problems with the quality of Respondent's work, most notable, leaks in the roof that Respondent had worked on. When it rained water would run down the walls and promote mildew. This was in the area of the joining of the roof over the patio and the roof over the carport. In response to complaints, Fossett made such remarks as "A little water on the roof is good" and offered to drill holes in the roof and install rain gutters to alleviate the problem. The owners found this unacceptable. Respondent having failed to satisfy their claims, the Williamses sought other assistance in effecting repairs. The roof still leaks. On the occasion of attempting to have these problems corrected, the Williamses sought to contact the Respondent at his Soutel address by calling the number found on the business card provided by the Respondent. When phoning that number it was discovered that someone other than the Respondent was doing business from the Soutel address. The phone number was the Respondent's residential number. The card, as given to the Williamses, indicates that the business is J & C Roofing Company, Johnny C. Fossett, Owner. Again, this business name is one for which the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board has no indication of a duly licensed contractor properly qualifying that entity, either the Respondent or some other person. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 through 7, admitted into evidence, are photographs of the work done by the Respondent, to include roofing, and the mildew on the concrete blocks found on the outside of the patio wall which was promoted by the leak in the roof.
