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 finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as a roofing contractor, having been issued license number CCC 57995 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for and did business as “Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. of the Fla. Keys” (Victor’s Roofing). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Johnson was an owner of property located at 3214 Harriet Avenue, Key West, Florida (the subject property). Mr. Johnson lives in Hollywood, Florida. The subject property is rental property. Respondent and his company are not licensed to do drywall work in Key West, Florida, and they are not licensed with Petitioner other than as a roofing contractor. ROOFING WORK On November 3, 2008, Respondent, on behalf of Victor’s Roofing, entered into a contract with Mr. Johnson to re-roof the subject property. The proposal submitted by Respondent to Mr. Johnson contained Victor’s Roofing’s full corporate name; its office address in Marathon, Florida; two telephone numbers; and a fax number. The proposal was signed by Respondent. The proposal described in some detail the scope of the work. The price of the work was $7,000.00. Mr. Johnson accepted the proposal. Victor’s Roofing completed the roofing job to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. A leak developed after the roof was completed and Victor’s Roofing promptly repaired the leak to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint alleged that Victor’s Roofing had failed to obtain a permit for the roofing job on the subject property and that it had failed to obtain required inspections. Those allegations were the result of an error by Petitioner’s investigator. Ms. Del Rio obtained records from the City of Key West Building Department for the wrong address. Instead of obtaining the permit history for the subject property (3214 Harriet Avenue) she requested and obtained the permit history for 3314 Harriet Avenue. Respondent applied for a permit for the roofing job on the subject property on November 11, 2006, and he obtained an inspection of the roof on November 27, 2007 [sic]. There was insufficient evidence to establish that any other permit or any other inspection was required for the roofing work. DRYWALL WORK After the roofing job had been completed (but before the inspection on November 27, 2007),2 Mr. Johnson informed Respondent by telephone that he needed someone to replace drywall that had been damaged during the period of time the subject property’s roof leaked. Mr. Johnson asked Respondent whether he knew anyone who could do the job. Respondent replied in the affirmative and told Mr. Johnson he would have someone contact him about doing the work.3 Thereafter, Respondent’s brother, Early Harris, contacted Mr. Johnson and the two of them verbally agreed on a price of $4,000. At the time Respondent put Early Harris in touch with Mr. Johnson, Respondent knew that Early Harris was not licensed to do drywall work in Key West. After giving Mr. Johnson’s telephone number to Early Harris, Respondent had no further involvement with the drywall work on the subject property. The price of the drywall work escalated to $9,000.00 after the work began. On November 25, 2006, Early Harris and Mr. Johnson signed a written proposal agreeing to the price of $9,000.00.4 This was a form proposal with the following: Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. 2nd Generation Serving South Florida Licensed & Insured Marathon, Fla. The only telephone number on the proposal other than Mr. Johnson’s, was the number for Early Harris’ cell phone. The contract signed by Respondent on November 3, 2006, for the roofing work was on a different form and utilized a different font than the contract signed by Early Harris on November 25, 2006. The name of the corporation on the proposal for the drywall work, while similar to the name of Respondent’s company, was different. Early Harris has worked for Respondent’s business for several years, but there was no clear and convincing evidence that Early Harris had the authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business in November 2006. There was no evidence that Early Harris is a part owner of Respondent’s business or that he is an officer or director of Respondent’s business. Respondent testified, credibly, that Early Harris was not authorized to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business at the times relevant to this proceeding. There was no clear and convincing evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion that Earl Harris had no authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business. Early Harris did the drywall work on the subject property. Mr. Johnson paid Early Harris $9,000.00 for the drywall work. Mr. Johnson could not find the check(s) he wrote for the drywall work and, consequently the check(s) were unavailable as an exhibit. His recollection as to the name of the payee of the check(s) was not clear. Respondent testified, credibly, that neither he nor his business received any of the money for the drywall work. The drywall work Early Harris did was not to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 to a drywall contractor for corrective work. In addition, Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 for a permit to have the repair work done.5 The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $191.16.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, 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 14th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, licensed as a registered roofing contractor, certified roofing contractor, and certified building contractor, committed various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Joseph H. Rayl, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0034055; certified roofing contractor license no. CC C035625; and certified building contractor license no. CB C033206. Petitioner previously disciplined Respondent's license RC 0034055 through the imposition of a $250 fine by order dated July 11, 1985; and Respondent's license CB C033206 by suspension of license for six months and imposition of a fine of $2,500. Petitioner also found probable cause for three cases in 1987 that were closed with letters of guidance to Respondent. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Unique Construction, Inc., (Unique) at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Further, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Superior Roofing & Construction Inc., (Superior) since February, 1988. On June 19, 1984, Mary Lois Brining, owner of a day care center for children known as Town and Country Schools of Bradenton in Manatee County, Florida, entered into a contract with Respondent to reroof the day care center. Respondent's personnel arrived at the school and removed the roof. Heavy rainfall then caused extensive damage to the interior of the facility and Brining complained to Unique. A representative of the company assured her that the situation would be resolved. Brining later paid Unique $623 to paint the school's interior, in addition to the cost of the roof replacement. While Respondent was never present during the construction, his workmen finished the roofing project on June 26, 1984. When leaks to the roof developed after completion of the job, Brining advised Unique of the leakage on numerous occasions. No action was taken by Respondent or Unique in response to Brining's telephone calls about the roof's leakage. Water leakage also damaged the carpet in Brining's facility, which she replaced at a cost of $2,000. In 1988, Brining finally hired another roofing company to correct the roof leakage. Helen M. Hayes, a resident of Gulfport, Florida, contracted with Unique to reroof the flat portion of the roof to her home on April 12, 1984, for a sum of $2,890. The job was finished on April 15, 1984. Two days later, the roof leaked. Hayes advised Unique and a representative came to the house and attempted to stop the leaks. After every rain, the roof leaked and Hayes would advise Unique. She never saw or spoke with Respondent. Finally, after 22 contacts with the company over a period of two and a half years, Hayes contacted local government building authorities. The building inspector for the City of Gulfport inspected the roof and told the company to replace it. Unique's workmen removed the roof in July, 1986, and left the house uncovered. That same day 10 inches of rain fell in the area of the residence, resulting in extensive damage to the home's interior and clothing which Hayes had stored in the home. Hayes called the police. The police called the building inspector who, in turn, called the roofing company. On July 28, 1986, Unique completed replacing the roof on Hayes' house. That new roof still leaks, the floor to the house is cracked from the leakage, the carpet has been saturated with water, plaster from the ceiling is falling to the floor, and there are water stains on the ceiling and walls throughout the residence. The proof further establishes that the City of Gulfport, located in Pinellas County, Florida, retained a private contractor to conduct an inspection of Hayes' roofing job in July of 1986. That inspection established that the roof should be replaced with a roof complying with building code requirements. Notably, while Unique obtained permits for the job, no final inspection of the project was ever obtained by Respondent's company in accordance with the Southern Building Code adopted as an ordinance by the City of Gulfport. James Oliver Prince is a resident of Lake Hthchineha, a settlement located in Polk County, Florida. He has never met Respondent. Prince entered into a contract with Unique in September of 1985. The reroofing job was completed on or about September 26, 1985. Leaks developed with the onset of the first rain after the completion of the job. Prince notified Unique and a representative came out to the residence to attempt to repair the roof and stop the leaks. This procedure continued on numerous occasions until November of 1987 when Prince attempted to contact Unique regarding the roof's leakage only to be informed that the telephone had been disconnected. Prince tried to locate Unique at the various offices listed on his contract, but received no answer. Eventually, due to the seriousness of the leaks and his inability to contact Unique, Prince hired a carpenter and replaced the roof at a cost of approximately $6,000. As established by testimony of Charles Fant, fire chief and building official for the City of Treasure Island, Florida, Unique obtained a construction permit for a reroofing job for the home of Vincent Ferraro located at 62 North Dolphin Drive in that city. The city has adopted the Southern Building Code as a city ordinance. However, the company never obtained the required final inspection for that job as required by the building code. On August 13, 1986, Carl and Ludie Buice of Bellview, Florida entered into a contract with Unique for a reroofing job on their home. Carl Buice passed away in November of 1986 Later, their son assisted Ms. Buice when leaks developed in the roof by attempting to contact the roofing company. The son, Alfred Buice, was unable to contact Unique. He then contacted the local offices of the Better Business Bureau; thereafter a representative of Superior, Respondent's successor company to Unique, came to the Buice residence on or about May 25, 1988, and gave Alfred Buice a check for $200 in connection with money previously spent by Buice to repair leaks to the roof. Even after repairs, the roof continued to leak to the point that it began to cave in around the roof's edges. Eventually, Alfred Buice had his mother's residence reroofed by another contractor on March 21, 1989, for $5,800. Testimony of Petitioner's expert witness establishes that Respondent was grossly negligent in meeting his qualifying agent responsibilities to supervise financial activities and construction practices of Unique. Further, Respondent's subordinates, who actually carried out roofing activities, performed those tasks incompetently. Respondent failed to comply with existing construction industry practices to inspect jobs where successive complaints were lodged by customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's licenses as a registered roofing contractor, certified roofing contractor, and certified building contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County. Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-42. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 320 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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
Findings Of Fact Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license number is CC C020246. Respondent is vice president of Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (The Dean Company), Post Office Box 2077, Clearwater, Florida. By proposal submitted March 31, 1983, and accepted by Marshall Kent on April 1, 1983, the Dean Company contracted to remove the existing roof on Kent's residence and replace same at a price of $8,600 (Exhibit 1). The work was supposed to start April 11, 1983 and be completed on April 15, 1983. This contract was signed on behalf of Dean Company by Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, as vice president of Dean Company and by Marshall Kent. Kent is an experienced residential contractor who acknowledged having built approximately 2,000 homes. While removing the existing roof, Dean Company workers found the 30-year old house had three plys of roofing applied since the house was constructed and to remove this thick roof heavier equipment that normal was required. Kent's residence had a tectum roof decking which consists of a metallic-fiber substance which has a long life and serves as inside ceiling and outside roof decking over which built up roofing is applied. While removing the existing roof the tectum deck was fractured and Kent ordered Dean Company workers off the Job. By letter dated April 18, 1983 (Exhibit 6) Respondent advised Kent that the cost of replacing the damaged tectum would be borne by the Dean Company and it was necessary to get on with the project before additional damage was done through the areas of roof exposed by removal of the original roof. Upon seeing Exhibit 6, K. A. Williams, president of Dean Company and father of the Respondent, concluded that the problems may have been exacerbated by a personality conflict between Respondent and Kent, and turned the job over to R. L. MacMurry, another vice president at Dean Company, who had considerable experience in the roofing business. By letter dated Apri1 19, 1983 (Exhibit 7) MacMurry, on behalf of Dean Company, advised Kent that since he questioned their ability to properly install the new decking to replace the damaged decking they would employ the services of a general contractor to replace the damaged tectum, and if the replaced tectum did not match the original tectum they would have the entire ceiling painted. Kent denies receiving this letter. Kent refused these offers and by letter dated April 21, 1983 "Exhibit 8) R. A. Williams pointed out that Kent's refusal to allow Dean Company to immediately complete the roofing work in progress could lead to serious damage from water intrusion and that such damage would be Kent's responsibility. On Friday, April 29, 1983 a meeting was held between the Kents, Williams and MacMurry at which Dean Company -agreed to immediately recommence roof work, bring in a general contractor to replace the damaged decking and complete the contract. Kent demurred until the agreement was reduced to writing, preferably by an attorney. Kent prepared an endorsement on Exhibit 9 in which responsibility for the repairs was, in Kent's opinion, shifted to the general contractor. This endorsement was accepted by the parties on May 3, 1983. The residence was reroofed in accordance with the latter agreement and Kent never advised Dean Company that all work was not satisfactorily completed. Dean Company provided Kent with a five (5) year Roofing Guarantee (Exhibit 11) dated May 10, 1983, which was forwarded to Kent by letter dated May 11, 1983 (Exhibit 10) with an invoice for the total owed on the job (Exhibit 14). Kent responded with letter dated May 17, 1983 (Exhibit 23) contending he was not whole, the job was not. complete and the guarantee was a joke. Kent considered the Roofing Guarantee suspect because it was a form used by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association. Shortly after this time Kent was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and upon his release from the hospital in August 1983 he found that a mechanic's lien had been placed on his property by Dean Company. He also found what he believed to be leaks into the ceiling of a bedroom but made no complaint to Dean Company. Kent then hired a roofer, Chuck Goldsmith, to inspect the work done on his roof. When Goldsmith tried to negotiate the dispute between Kent and Dean Company, Kent fired him. Kent then hired William A. Cox, an architect and roofing consultant, to inspect the roof and advise what needed to be done. Cox inspected the roof in late October 1983 and submitted a list of discrepancies he recommended for correction. In one place he was able to insert a knife blade between the Fla. roof and the vertical wall against which the roof abuts which indicated no sheathing had been installed. Expert witnesses opined that without metal sheathing the roof would have leaked within six to eighteen months and the roof could never have been intact for the 30 years the house had been built without sheathing at such a joint. The vertical side of the original flashing would have been under the stucco at this point and there was no evidence that the stucco was disturbed when the new roof was first installed by Dean Company. New flashing was subsequently installed by Dean Company at this juncture but no one testified respecting the flashing observed or not present when this new roof was removed to insert the new flashing. Failure to insert flashing at such a juncture of horizontal roof and vertical wall would constitute a violation of the Standard Building Code. The report Cox gave to Kent was not made known to Dean until January 1984. By letter dated August 21, 1984 (Exhibit 13) Clark and Logan advised K. A. Williams that they would do all of the work listed in the Cox report on the Kent residence. This work was done in August 1984. Kent contends the leak continued in his bedroom after the work was completed but he never relayed this information to either Clark and Logan or to Dean Company. He has yet to pay one penny for the work done on his roof. Kent considered Clark and Logan to be the prime contractor on the job at the time the August 1984 work was done. Kent further testified that following that work Clark and Logan abandoned the job and he also filed a complaint against that general contractor. Since April 1983 following the damage to the tectum decking, Respondent, Bruce Williams, has had no responsibility for, and did no supervision of, the reroofing of Kent's residence. When the roof was inspected by the Pinellas County Building Inspector he found the workmanship done on this job only slightly below standard. At one place-on the roof Cox found the lower section of flashing overlapped the upper section of flashing which would have permitted water to enter under the flashing. This was a mistake but not an uncommon one for roofers to make. When pointed out to Dean Company the situation was promptly corrected.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Usher is not licensed to engage in contracting as a state-registered or state-certified contractor in the State of Florida, and he is not licensed, registered, or certified, pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes, as an electrical contractor. Mr. Usher works under the name of "J" Squared Construction ("J" Squared). Rose Linthicome is the owner of Divine Connections Realty, whose business address was 2108 Third Avenue, Crestview, Florida. As a result of Hurricane Ivan, Ms. Linthicome's building located on Third Avenue sustained damage to the roof. Ms. Linthicome contacted Norcross Construction Company (Norcross) to get a bid for the roof repair. Norcross asked Mr. Usher to prepare a proposal for the work as a subcontractor, which Mr. Usher did. After receiving the proposal from Mr. Usher, Norcross submitted a bid to Ms. Linthicome, but the cost was well beyond the amount which Ms. Linthicome's insurance paid for the damage. Ms. Linthicome could not afford to use Norcross to repair the roof. Mr. Usher approached Ms. Linthicome and told her that he could do the work as "J" Squared for less than the amount bid by Norcross, if Ms. Linthicome would pull the permits as the building owner. Ms. Linthicome agreed for "J" Squared to do the work for labor costs of $26,400.00. Ms. Linthicome was to pay for materials and supplies. The total cost for the new roof system and materials was not to exceed $52,400.00 Mr. Usher prepared the contract for the new roof system. The contract was titled "'J' Squared Subcontract Agreement." In the contract Ms. Linthicome was referred to as the contractor. The contract set forth the work to be performed as follows: "J" Squared is subcontracted to do a complete roof rip out and new roof system installation on the existing structure. This includes the rip out and the new installation of a new roof system: THE RIP OUT INCLUDES: The removal of ceilings, lights, fans, vents, smoke alarms and any other item attached to the ceilings. The removal of the existing plywood, trusses, and debris of the old roof, and Any and all other aspects that are considered reasonable and necessary to be performed in order to remove the roof and prepare the structure for the new roofing system. THE NEW INSTALLATION INCLUDES: The Installation of New Trusses manufactured by Freeport Truss Company, The Installation of New Plywood and felt paper to dry in the new roof system, The Installation of Rat Runs, Blocking, Hardware, Strapping to meet code, The Installation of New 20 Year Architectural shingles, The Installation of New Rain Gutter System, The Building of the Front Porch Cricket and New Ceiling with arched entry, the Installation, building or attachment of any and all aspects of a typical roofing system redo, The Re attachment of all existing ceilings. (Moving the garage ceiling to the inside front room and replacing Garage ceiling with Sheet Rock, The Reinstallation of all fixtures, lights, fans, smoke alarms, etc on the existing new ceilings, The Installation of new communications, network and other plugs and outlets as agreed to on 10/04/05, and Any and all other aspects that are considered reasonable and necessary to be performed in order to pass inspections and for the new roofing system to be considered as complete. Ms. Linthicome did not tell Mr. Usher that she was a licensed contractor, and Mr. Usher's testimony that he thought that Ms. Linthicome was a licensed contractor is not credible. It was never intended that Ms. Linthicome would supervise the installation of the new roof system. It was always the intent of Mr. Usher and Ms. Linthicome that Mr. Usher would directly supervise the work. As the building owner, Ms. Linthicome could pull the building permit, but Mr. Usher could not pull the building permit because he was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Usher ordered the trusses from Freeport Truss Company and requested that Ms. Linthicome write two checks to the Truss Company, one check for $9,000.00 and one check for $6,000.00. Ms. Linthicome also gave Mr. Usher a check made out to "J" Squared for $8,4000.00 for the initial payment for labor. Mr. Usher hired the laborers to work on the project. He intended to subcontract with an electrician to perform the electrical work on the project. Mr. Usher and his crew removed the roof and failed to complete the project. In the investigation and prosecution of this case, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $369.09, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Usher violated Subsections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and assessing investigative costs of $369.09. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(j)(m), 489.119, and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, by failing to reasonably honor his guarantee and, if so, what administrative penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues in this case, the Respondent was licensed as a registered roofing contractor by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and held license number RC-0043386. In March of 1983, the Respondent entered into a contract in his capacity as a registered roofing contractor to reroof a house owned by Willard S. Seidel located at 150 N.E. 102nd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. The work under the contract was to be done by Bradley Roofing Company, a company for which the Respondent was the qualifying agent. The contract contemplated the reroofing of the entire house, including the main roof, the Florida room roof, and the garage roof. The contract price was $4,240.00, which was paid in full. The contract included a ten-year guarantee provision reading as follows: "COMPANY'S GUARANTEE: The Company guarantees its material and workmanship for ten (10) years. It will replace faulty material or faulty workmanship within the period of the guarantee free of charge." The work on the Seidel residence was performed during the latter part of March and the first part of April of 1983. Within a month or so, the garage roof began to leak. The Respondent was promptly advised of the leak. Over a period of several months, the Respondent or employees of his company made several unsuccessful efforts to fix the leaks in the garage roof. Finally, in October of 1983, the Respondent was successful in stopping the leaks in the garage roof. In September of 1987, the roof over the main portion of the house began to leak in the living room area, and the roof over the Florida room began to leak. These leaks were promptly reported to the Respondent. From September of 1987 through December of 1988, the Respondent or employees of his company made several unsuccessful efforts to fix the leaks in the living room and the Florida room. These efforts included replacing the entire roof on the Florida room. The construction of the roof on the Florida room was such that after the Respondent had finished all of his efforts at repairing that portion of the roof, the roof would still hold approximately three-fourths of an inch of water after a rain. The type of roof over the Florida room was not one intended to hold water. Good roofing practice required that the slope of that portion of the roof be modified or that a different type of roof covering material be used. All of the Respondent's repair efforts from September of 1987 through December of 1988 were unsuccessful. After all of those efforts, the roof over the main portion of the house still leaked in the vicinity of the living room and the roof over the Florida room still leaked. A competent roofing contractor would have been able to repair the roof so that it did not leak. The Respondent's inability to repair the leaks after numerous efforts and keep the roof free from leaks during the guarantee period constitutes incompetence. In April of 1989, the owner of the house contracted with another roof contractor to repair the leaks in the roof. The second contractor was able to successfully repair the leaks in the roof on the main part of the house as well as the leaks in the roof over the Florida room. The cost of these successful repairs totaled $1,680.00 The Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board for violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charge that the Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by reason of incompetency in the practice of contracting. Imposing an administrative penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of $2,000.00, and a suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5216 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 14: Accepted in substance with some details omitted as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant because the Respondent is not charged with any building code violations. Paragraphs 15 through 19: Accepted in substance with some details omitted as unnecessary. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: First sentence rejected as irrelevant to issues in this case. Remainder of this paragraph accepted in substance. Paragraphs 24 through 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Rejected as irrelevant because Respondent was not charged with failure to remove rotten wood. Paragraph 28: Rejected because not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn Kellman, Esquire William S. Berk, Esquire Adorno, Zeder, Allen, Yoss, Bloomberg & Goodkind, P.A. 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert Bradley 5810 N.W. 30th Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
