The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative fine or other disciplinary action imposed for allegedly acting as a contractor without a license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Edsel Mathews, operated a business under the name of Home Repair Roofing in Monticello, Florida. Records of Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), establish that Respondent holds no licenses from that Board and thus he is not authorized to engage in any professions regulated by the Board. Gessie Lee Choice owns a residence at 1701 South Campbell Street, Perry, Florida. In 1995, her home was partially destroyed in a fire. Based on a recommendation by her lender, who was refinancing the repair work, Choice selected Respondent to repair her home. Relevant portions of the City Code of the City of Perry (City) were not made a part of this record. However, testimony established that under the licensing scheme for the City, an individual who has a specialty contractor license from the City may perform residential carpentry work if he works under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Alternatively, the same work may be performed by the license holder if the property owner obtains a building permit and signs an affidavit that he or she will be supervising the work. The license does not, however, authorize the holder to perform air-conditioning, electrical, or plumbing work even if the owner supervises the project. In addition, roofing work involving structural changes can only be performed under the auspices of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent held a valid specialty contractor license from the City. On August 7, 1995, Choice obtained a building permit from the City and executed an affidavit stating that she would be supervising the work. Under these circumstances, Respondent was authorized to perform all work on the house except that relating to the plumbing, electrical, and air-conditioning systems. Also, he could not perform any structural work on her roof. The evidence is conflicting as to the representations Respondent made to Choice regarding his qualifications before the two parties executed a contract. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that he represented he was a "subcontractor," but was not a licensed contractor within the Board's purview. While there is a conflict as to representations regarding his ability to perform plumbing and electrical work, it is found that Respondent simply agreed to procure for Choice a licensed plumber and electrician to do that type of work. Under the agreement executed by Choice, Respondent agreed to "furnish and perform the labor necessary for the completion" of a wide array of work. The items to be completed are listed on Petitioner's exhibit 3 and include removing asbestos from the outside of her house, enlarging three bedrooms and bath, removing an existing tin roof, installing new rafters, reroofing the home, building new cabinets and installing new plumbing and wiring for the kitchen, remodeling the existing bathrooms, building a utility room, installing new windows, insulating walls and ceilings, drywalling all ceilings, installing new carpet and vinyl, and placing vinyl siding on outside of home. Respondent established that even though the contract lists a number of items outside the scope of his authority, he intended to get licensed contractors to perform all work for which he held no authority under his city license. Choice agreed with this assertion. Despite Respondent's offer to obtain other contractors to perform the electrical and plumbing work, Choice selected her own licensed contractors to do that work. She also hired another individual to remove the asbestos from her home. Respondent performed a part of the remaining work, including the installation of a new roof. This latter work involved structural changes upon the house. Respondent made two draws totaling $13,200.00 from the escrowed funds. Also, in September 1995, Choice paid Respondent $446.00 in personal funds to purchase plywood to be placed on the floor and walls of the house. There is no allegation, however, that he failed to perform an equivalent amount of work before he was told by a Board inspector to stop working on the project. A short time after Respondent terminated work, a City building inspector, David Parker, inspected the roofing work performed by Respondent. Parker found that the truss system did not meet building code requirements. Because of numerous code violations, which are enumerated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the entire roof system had to be removed and reinstalled. Parker also noted that Respondent's work involved structural changes not authorized under his license. In mitigation, however, it is found that Respondent believed that he was authorized to do this work under his local license. Choice was forced to hire a licensed roofing contractor to reroof her home. That contractor described Respondent's workmanship as "not good." In order to correct the deficiencies and complete the remodeling project, Choice expended another $12,000.00 over and above her original contract price of $33,490.00. Except for this incident, there is no evidence of Respondent violating Board rules and statutes relating to contracting.
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 Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 be imposed, to be paid within such time as the Board deems appropriate. A decision on Petitioner's request for the assessment of costs against Respondent under Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, is deferred to the Board. Finally, Counts I and II should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 14267 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Clifford L. Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 1057 Monticello, Florida 32345 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent, Ruth Ogen, was a licensed roofing contractor, license no. CC CO27471. A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. Respondent is the sole qualifier and licensee associated with the company, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. Respondent is married to Avraham Ogen who presents himself as the president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. On or about November 9, 1986, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. doing business as Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing entered into a contract with Ardee Yuran to replace the entire roof of a commercial structure located at 14951 N.E. 6th Avenue, North Miami Beach (6th Avenue). The contract provided, among other things, that the top row of tiles around the parapet wall would be removed and reinstalled upon completion of the roof. In negotiating the contract described in paragraph 4, Mrs. Yuran was mindful of the work Avraham Ogen had performed at her residence. Mr. Ogen had supervised the reroofing of Mrs. Yuran's residence which had been satisfactorily performed. The residential job had required the removal of the tiles along the parapet wall and Mrs. Yuran expected the same process would be utilized in completing the commercial roof. The purpose intended to be accomplished by removing the tiles was to allow the roofers to extend the roofing materials up the sides of the parapet and over the crest. The roofing material is then sealed to the wall and the tiles replaced. This procedure results in a waterproof barrier so that when rain accumulates on the flat roof (and the water level rises) it cannot seep through the sealed perimeter. During the time Mr. Ogen was negotiating and performing the roof work for the 6th Avenue building, he was also retained to paint the structure (which was to be completed after the roof was finished). There came a time when Mrs. Yuran and Mr. Ogen disagreed regarding aspects of the roof work and the painting that was to be done. Eventually, the parties reached an impasse where neither was willing to concede: Mr. Ogen was not willing to perform the work as specified by Mrs. Yuran, Mrs. Yuran was not willing to pay Mr. Ogen any more on the contracts. At this point, Ruth Ogen, Respondent, had not been involved in the daily work progress made at the site. To make matters worse, a leak developed at the 6th Avenue property which resulted in a waterfall pouring down through the overhang of the building. As a result of the disagreement, both parties retained lawyers and, understandably, the issues escalated. Mrs. Yuran retained three individuals to review the work performed by Mr. Ogen. On March 4, 1987, Walter H. Scott, Scott Roofing & Repair, Inc., determined that water accumulating on the 6th Avenue roof was draining behind flashing which had not been properly sealed to the perimeter walls instead of running through the outlets. Mr. Scott recommended that the flashing be resealed along the wall. Had the tiles been removed and the work been performed as stated in the contract, the leak would have been avoided. A second licensed roofing contractor, Gary Carruth, Falcon Roofing Co., inspected the property on June 23, 1987, and recommended reflashing the walls along the perimeter of the 6th Avenue building. Mr. Carruth observed that the tiles had not been removed along the wall and that the roofing materials had not been properly sealed along the perimeter. James Rodgers, a consulting engineer performed a third inspection of the roof at 6th Avenue on June 25, 1987. According to Mr. Rodgers, several items of the contract work completed by Mr. Ogen were inadequately performed. Mr. Rodgers found that the pitch pans were not installed properly around the air conditioning units and that the flashing along the parapet wall was not properly completed nor performed as described in the contract. Respondent also retained a licensed roofer to review the work at 6th Avenue. Bill Mathews, Bill Mathews Roofing, completed a roof inspection report on November 21, 1988. According to Mr. Mathews, the flashing along the parapet wall required repair because it had been improperly sealed. Mr. Mathews noted that the top row of tile should have been removed so that flashing could have been taken up and over the parapet wall. Mr. Mathews also noted that the flat roof had buckles or "fish mouths" which should have been corrected as the roof was being installed. Mr. Mathews recommended that the flashing be resealed and that the buckles be cut and sealed with membrane and roofing cement. Finally, Mr. Mathews determined that the pitch pans under the air conditioning units should be filled with an asphalt cold process to prevent further cracking and potential leaks. A final inspection report was completed by Robert B. Hilson, Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., on August 18, 1988. Mr. Hilson is a consultant for the Department and made the inspection at the request of its attorney. Mr. Hilson's findings and recommendations mirrored those suggested by Mr. Mathews. The work performed by Mr. Ogen on the 6th Avenue property did not meet the terms of the contract and did not meet performance standards acceptable in the roofing industry. Mr. Ogen failed to properly seal all flashing materials along the parapet wall, failed to correct the buckles or "fish mouths," and failed to meet the contractual obligations (removing the tiles and extending the flashing over the crest). Because of the substandard work, Mrs. Yuran incurred additional expenses and inconvenience. Respondent did not view the 6th Avenue structure either before or during the time that her husband supervised the work performed. Respondent's role with the company was as secretary, bookkeeper, and office manager. Mr. Ogen supervised or performed all work at the 6th Avenue job. Respondent did not supervise Mr. Ogen or the workers under his supervision. "Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing" has not been qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. On or about April 28, 1987, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was requested to perform a roofing inspection at 1180 N.E. 204 Terrace. The subject property was under contract for sale and was ultimately purchased by Rose Zenar. According to the inspection report filed by Mr. Ogen, the roof and roof covering were in satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks. Mr. Ogen signed the inspection report as president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc., state license no. CC CO27471. During the first rain after she had moved into the house, Mrs. Zenar observed water leaking through the ceiling into the kitchen. She immediately called Mr. Ogen who came out, observed the problem, but did not repair the leak. Mr. Ogen did not return Mrs. Zenar's subsequent calls. Ultimately, she contacted James Rodgers to perform a second roof inspection. As a result of Mr. Rodgers' inspection, Mrs. Zenar discovered that the leak was of long duration as it had completely rotted and decayed the roof rafters and sheathing in the area of the leak. Mr. Rodgers took pictures of the area which clearly showed the discolored wood. Evidence of the discoloration was visible from the attic entrance located in the garage adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Ogen's failure to discover the rotted roof was due to an inadequate inspection of the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof rafters. It is the normal practice of qualified roof inspectors to examine the crawl space between the ceiling and roof supports. Respondent did not perform the roof inspection at Mrs. Zenar's home, did not supervise the inspection performed by Mr. Ogen, and did not have a checklist of items to be reviewed by him in making the inspection. The erroneous inspection performed by Mr. Ogen resulted in expenses and inconvenience to Mrs. Zenar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth above and, based upon the penalties recommended by rule, impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $3000.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 April , 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction to reflect Mrs. Yuran not Mr. Yuran, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted with the correction that the witness' name was Gary Carruth. With the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph 15 which is rejected as argument or comment, the first five paragraphs of paragraph 15 are accepted. Petitioner is warned not to subparagraph statements of fact or to restate testimony, but to simply set forth the fact deduced from such testimony. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 17 is accepted to the extent that it finds the reroofing work performed on the 6th Avenue building was a poor quality which was not done under the supervision of a qualified, licensed roofing contractor. Further, it was gross negligence not to properly supervise the job. No conclusion is reached as to whether Respondent is able to supervise a job. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as a recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33--none submitted. With regard to paragraph 34, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as conclusion of law, argument, or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 36-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or recitation. The first two sentences of paragraph 40 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as comment, conclusion of law, or argument. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, conclusion of law, or argument. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, speculation, or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by this record. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The following are rulings on case no. 88-1776 as submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted but is irrelevant, immaterial. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Section 4-67 of the Building Regulations, Supplement Number 44, Pasco County Ordinances were in effect and said regulation is the applicable local law. During the applicable time period, the Respondent, ROBERT G. FELLENZ, SR., was registered by the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and held license number RC0027998. Mr. Fellenz is the qualifying agent for Fellenz Roofing Co., Inc. On or about March 24, 1987, the Respondent, FELLENZ entered into a contract with James J. Hoover to re-roof a portion of his residence located at 822 Crestfield Avenue, Holiday, Pasco County, Florida. On April 1, 1987, the Respondent went to the building department in Pasco County to acquire the necessary permit to begin the Hoover project. During the processing of the permit, the Respondent learned that a stop order had been placed on the job. His work crew had disobeyed his direct orders and began work before the permit was obtained. While the Respondent was in the process of having the stop order removed, he learned that his liability insurance had expired. Proof of liability insurance coverage was needed by the Respondent in order for the building permit to be issued by Pasco County on the Hoover project. The Respondent contacted his customer, Mr. Hoover, and explained that he had an insurance coverage problem which he needed to straighten out before work could continue on the roof, and before he could obtain the building permit. Mr. Hoover was not home on the day the re-roofing project was begun and completed by the Respondent. On April 3, 1987, the Respondent obtained liability insurance coverage which went into effect on that date. He began and completed the Hoover re- roofing project on that date. On April 6, 1987, the building department issued the building permit on the Hoover project. A final inspection was never called for by the Respondent. The Respondent has previously been found to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 69097 Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations obtained herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RV0010136 issued by the State of Florida. His address was Route 4, Box 48-M, Lake City, Florida. On April 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. Allen of Route I, Box 453, Live Oak, Florida, for the construction of a single- family residence on the Allen property for a contract price of $75,476. The contract was finished sometime in January 1983, and the Allens moved in that month. During some high winds shortly after they moved in, several shingles blew off the roof, exposing the underlying tar paper. The next day after the storm, Allen went out and saw approximately three or four shingles on the ground. When he picked them up and looked at them, he saw that they had no nail holes or staple holes in them. Allen immediately pulled his tractor up to the house and stood on the seat so he could take a close look at the roof. When he did so, he found that he could not see a nail, staple or hole in the roof where these particular shingles had come from. In addition to that area denuded of shingles by the storm, Allen also lifted up a few other shingles and found what to him was evidence of improper installation. As a result, Allen went to a building supply house in the area and bought a package of the same shingles previously installed on his house by the Respondent in order to get the nailing instructions that came with them. Allen bought the shingles from the same supply house where Respondent had purchased the ones installed on his property. After examining the instructions which came with the shingles he purchased, Allen then called the office of the building inspector and spoke with the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Pat Sura, who came out to inspect the roof. Allen went up on the roof with Sura and lifted several shingles in different places to see how they were affixed. In most cases, he found two staples in each shingle, but in some cases he found none. Of the 20 or so tabs he lifted (each shingle having three tabs), he found that some, but not many, were nailed in three places. Sura confirms the fact that he was called by Allen. After the call, Sura checked his files and found that the permit for construction of the house was issued to Allen with Respondent listed as the contractor. When the complaint came in from Allen, Sura asked Mr. Cherry, a Department investigator, to go out and look at it with him, as is his standard practice. Sura does not recall exactly when this was done, but it was shortly after the call from Allen. Sura went up on the Allens roof with Cherry and pulled up a few tabs to look for the nailing pattern. He found that the nailing pattern was misaligned, that a stapling gun was used, and that both staples and nails were, in his opinion, too short. Based on this viewing, Sura called a Mr. Canepa, who was a representative of the shingle manufacturer at the time, and asked him to inspect the roof himself. Canepa also found both nails and staples and pulled at least one of each out of the roof. He did not take many, however, because most of the shingles had only one or two fasteners per shingle. The ones that were pulled, however, were pulled from shingles that had four nails or staples in them. Sura also went into the attic on the first visit with Cherry and examined the roof from the inside. He found very few staples or nails protruding through the inside of the subroof. Approximately 40 percent of the nails were not showing through. Based on his examination, Sura concluded that approximately 70 percent of the shingles were not properly fixed, having three or less fasteners per shingle. Only 30 percent had four. These figures were based on spot samples from different sections of the roof. In Sura's opinion, it appeared to him that the staple gun used to apply the staples was out of order. The top of the staple is supposed to be horizontal to and flush with the top surface of the top shingle. Many of the staples and nails which he observed were not horizontal. In some cases, the cross piece on top of the staple extended as much as an eighth of an inch above the tab and had not been hammered down. In Sura's opinion, at least 70 percent of the staples he examined were in that condition. Unless the staple is flush with the roof, the result is that the staple does not go in far enough and also makes a raised area on the shingle. According to the standards of the National Asbestos Roofing Manufacturer's Association (NARA), either nails or staples are supposed to be inserted below the glue tab on the shingle approximately five-eights inch above the top of the cut-out. A fastener is supposed to be above the top of the cutout and on each end. This would result in four fasteners per shingle. Sura found that in most cases the fasteners were on the glue tab or above it, very few were below it. An examination of 24 separate shingles revealed that those which had four fasteners were either crooked, raised or in the wrong place and, of these, 40 percent were in the wrong place. The building code of Suwannee County does not contain detailed specifications of how shingles are to be installed. The code refers to other specifications, such as the NARA standards, and incorporates them by reference. On one of the visits Sura made to the Allen home, the Respondent was also present with at least one of his sons. At Sura's request, Respondent or his son gave Sura some staples which he said are the type used on this job. However, Sura's examination revealed that these staples are not like the ones he took out of the roof. The staples used in the roof were three- quarter inch staples. Sura contends the ones given him by the Respondent were one-inch staples. At the hearing, Respondent and both his sons testified that they used three-quarter inch staples and did not give Sura one inch staples. The likelihood is that the proper sized staples were used. The roofing of the Allen house was accomplished by using a one-half inch plywood decking (actually 15/32 inch). A sheet of felt is laid over the decking and the shingles laid over the felt. In some cases, the fastener is driven through all of that plus an additional tab as well. As a result, the fact that no staple or other fastener was protruding through into the attic is not necessarily pertinent, and the use of a three-quarter inch staple could be acceptable if it was installed properly. As to the flush nature of the staple, a slight variance is accepted. It was recognized that it is impossible to get an exactly flush installation. The degree of acceptable variance is a subjective call, however. The staple that was removed by either Sura or Canepa (there is some uncertainty as to who pulled the staple but no uncertainty that one of the two actually accomplished that task) was protruding approximately one-eighth inch above the surface of the shingle. Gordon K. Perry, Respondent's son and employee, worked on the Allen house as the roofer. He, another brother, and a third employee worked as a team to install the roof, with his brother on the lower line, himself in the middle, and the other employee-on the upper line. As he and his associates laid the shingles, Perry, as the man in the middle, affixed them to the roof with a stapling gun. Perry indicates that he installed the shingles exactly as called for in the instructions contained on the wrapper around the shingles as they come from the manufacturer. Perry contends he used four staples to each shingle, and always does, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. Perry tried to affix the staples so they are flush with the shingles, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. If the gun misfires and leaves it protruding above the shingle, he and his team members all had hammers with which they would hammer the protruding staple down flush with the shingle. He contends he had no trouble installing this roof and that the gun he used was working properly. This testimony was confirmed by that of the other son, Frederick L. Perry, who also indicated that the crew followed the instructions on the wrapper for the installation of the shingles with one exception at the corner a staple was driven through two shingles instead of one. This procedure would however, in his opinion, at least meet the requirements and he feels even exceed them. He observed the way his brother was stapling the shingles on the Allen roof and could see nothing wrong with the procedure followed. His father, the Respondent, came to the job site frequently during the three days it took to install the Allen's roof and actually came up on the roof to observe but did not do any of the actual installation work. He explains the reason for the four or five loose shingles dislodged by the wind as being the result of the air hose for the staple gun getting caught under the tabs of these several shingles while the crew was working with the gun on the other side of the roof. When Mr. Perry observed what had happened he told the employee to go back to that area, put the tabs down and tack them down. Unfortunately, he did not check to see if that was done. He subsequently found out that the employee put the tabs back down but did not affix them as instructed. When he, on this later occasion, checked this area, he saw that where the shingles had broken loose, the nails were still in the roof and the felt was still there. Finding some broken shingle pieces on the lawn, he used them to make a temporary patch for the roof fully intending to report this situation to his father immediately. He did not have an opportunity to make the permanent repair did not feel he should do so without his father's instructions. Not withstanding his father's knowledge of the situation, he received no instructions from his father to make the repairs. The final and permanent repair was accomplished approximately a week prior to the hearing after the granting of the first continuance. On that occasion when he checked the other shingles, Perry found four staples in every shingle that he checked and they were, for the most part, properly flushed. Ron W. Williams, a building contractor registered in Lake City and coincidently a member of the Board of County Commissioners, also examined the Allen's roof on June 19, 1984. Independently he went up on the roof, pulled back tabs and looked at the shingles and their method of affixing in five different locations on the roof. He could see nothing wrong with how the shingles were installed and attempted to pull several staples using a pair of pliers and screwdriver. The difficulty he experienced in extracting the shingles is, in his opinion, an indication of how well they were installed. None that he saw were raised up. Some were at a permissible angle. Mr. Williams found anywhere from 7 to 8 staples in each shingle consisting of 3 or 4 staples across the top of each shingle plus fasteners from the higher shingle as well. In his opinion the roof looked good. The lines were straight, there was no waving. He could see no indication of any problem with the shingles or of weakness or that the shingles would be subject to wind removal. Another contractor who made his inspection at the same time was D. B. Espenship, a 35 year building contractor in Lake City, who has during his career constructed in excess of 500 homes. Mr. Espenship also independently went to 5 or 6 different areas on the Allen roof and pulled up the shingle tabs. He saw nothing to indicate any problems with the way the shingles were applied. The roof looked good, the lines were straight, staples flush and the angles not bad. David Morgan, a licensed roofing contractor in Lake City for more than 15 years does mostly residential roofing including shingles. On the same date as the others described, supra, he also went up on the roof .and watched Mr. Williams do his inspection. He also did his own inspection as well. When Mr. Morgan lifted the tabs he saw the staples and could see nothing to indicate that they were improperly installed. He could see no code violations nor could he see any potential problems. The roof was in excellent shape. In fact, "about as good as you could get." Mr. Perry, Respondent, first learned of the problems with the Allen roof when he was contracted by Mr. Cherry to go out and look at it. This was shortly after the storm which removed the shingles. Cherry asked Respondent to meet with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sura at the premises. When he arrived, no one showed up. However, at approximately a half hour later, Mr. Sura came up without Mr. Cherry. Mr. Sura would not go up on the roof. He said that at that time it was "out of his hands". The matter was in the hands of Mr. Allen and Mr. Cherry. In any case, Respondent went up on the roof as requested and lifted several shingles, but could find no problem. Thereafter, when Respondent called Mr. Cherry, Cherry said he would have to talk to Mr. Sura about it. Mr. Sura indicated he would ;nail respondent a copy of Mr. Canepa's report, but he never received it. In fact until he got the administrative complaint through the mail, he contends he could never get a straight complaint from anyone. He tried to get together with Mr. Allen on several occasions, but in his opinion, could not seem to satisfy him. Respondent also went up on the roof June 19 to make another inspection. At this late date, even in light of the administrative complaint he can still find nothing wrong with the roof. The lines are straight, the proper number of staples are installed and they are installed properly. The roof is in his opinion good and he, on the record, guaranteed to replace it if, with the exception of tornado damage, the roof blows off within the next 18-20 years. Mr. Perry has been a building contractor since 1966. He does all types of construction including the construction of between 300 and 400 homes over the years. Normally he does all the work within the firm. If they are very busy however, he subcontracts some. In this case, the Allen home was built "in-house" and he, himself, worked along with his workmen. He is, in addition to being a contractor, an ordained minister in the Baptist church in Lake City and has been so for the past 20 years. He does not know Mr. Canepa and knows of no reason Mr. Canepa would have to lie. The same is true of Mr. Sura. He feels that both individuals just did not examine the roof closely enough. He contends they are mistaken in their description of the roof's condition. Mr. Sura contends that the building code in this case was violated by respondent in the following particulars; violation of the provisions of the Southern Standard Building Codes: The use of 3 or less fasteners; Placing the nails or fasteners either on or above the glue tab, Failure to have the tops of the fasteners flush with the surface of the shingle; and Failure to have the top of the staple parallel to the shingle line. All these defects were brought to the attention of the Respondent in August, 1983. No corrective action was taken until one week prior to the hearing. On balance, considering the relative probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony of the witnesses and their interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or their lack thereof, it is found that Respondent, through his roofing crew, improperly installed a large number of shingles on the Allen roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore. RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Fred Perry, be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.90 which fine shall be remitted up a positive showing by affidavit of the owner or County Building Inspector that the roof defects have been corrected. DONE and RECOMMENDED THIS 10th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-0062 Terry McDavid Post Office Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32056 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for certification as a roofing inspector should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has worked in the construction industry since 1973. He was trained as an electrician, but he has “worked in about every trade” over the years, including roofing. Petitioner is certified by the Board as a building code inspector (all trades), plans examiner (all trades), and building code administrator. Petitioner is not, and never has been, a state or locally certified roofing contractor or a general contractor. Petitioner has worked as a building code inspector and plans examiner for Nassau County since May 2003. He previously worked as a building code inspector for Seminole County and the City of Oviedo, and as a plans examiner for a private inspection and engineering company. Inspecting roofs is part of Petitioner’s job as a building code inspector for Nassau County, but it is not the only trade that he inspects. Unlike larger jurisdictions where inspectors specialize in particular trades, Petitioner and the other building code inspectors in Nassau County are “combination inspectors” responsible for inspecting all aspects of the building. Petitioner typically conducts 80 to 100 inspections per week, but less than 10 percent of those inspections -- approximately six per week -- are roof inspections. Petitioner credibly testified that even though roof inspections are a relatively small portion of his job, he looks at roof design and construction on a daily basis when he is on- site inspecting other aspects of the building and when he is reviewing building plans as a plans examiner. The current and former building official in Nassau County credibly testified that Petitioner “regularly” inspects roofs and that they have had no problems or concerns with his roof inspections. Their testimony concerning the competency of Petitioner’s roof inspection work was corroborated by a building code inspector who works with Petitioner and who has been a certified roofing contractor since 1983. In September 2008, Petitioner submitted an application to the Board for certification as a roofing inspector. The Board considered Petitioner’s application at its regular meeting in October 2008. The Board determined that Petitioner’s application should be denied because he does not have the “four (4) years of roofing experience” required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G19-6.016(3). The Board construes this and other similar experience requirements in its rules to require full-time experience. The Board’s interpretation of the rule is based, at least in part, upon its reasonable and logical expectation that a person who performs a job on a full-time basis gains more knowledge and expertise than a person who performs the job only occasionally. Petitioner does not have four years of full-time roofing experience, and he does not inspect roofs on a full-time basis as a building code inspector. Petitioner does not need to be certified as a roofing inspector to inspect roofs in the course of his work as a building code inspector. Petitioner wants to be certified as a roofing inspector “to protect [himself] in the future from changes in the law” because he is concerned that at some point certification as a roofing inspector may be required in order to inspect roofs. There is no basis in the record for Petitioner’s speculative concern. The Board chairman, Robert McCormick, credibly testified that he was unaware of anything under consideration that would require certification as a roofing inspector in order to inspect roofs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for certification as a roofing inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 2nd day of June, 2009.
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.
The Issue The issues that were presented for disposition in the above-styled cases were whether Respondent committed certain alleged violations of Chapter 489, F.S. and if so what discipline is appropriate. As stated below, the parties stipulated to the violations, leaving only the issue of discipline to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Gordon Lee Cederberg is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0051346, by the State of Florida. At all times material Respondent was the licensed qualifier for Allied American Roofing Company and was responsible in such capacity for supervising its contracting activities. Allied American Roofing Company was dissolved on November 4, 1988. Stipulated Violations By stipulation, Respondent has admitted the following allegations of the amended administrative complaint in DOAH #91-8319: 3. CASE NO. 0106373 COUNT THREE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Michael Roberts on April 4, 1988 to reroof a home located at 530 Mason Street, Apopka, Florida. The contract price was $942.80 and was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the City of Apopka Building Department. By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, Apopka, Florida, by failing to obtain a permit and inspection is as required by that municipality. 4. CASE NO. 0107766 COUNT FOUR Respondent's license was under suspension by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board between August 10, 1988, and March 3, 1989. Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Nancy Wiegner on September 22, 1988, to reroof a home located at 15 Kentucky Street, St. Cloud, Florida. The contract price was $1,600.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent commenced work under the contract but failed to obtain a permit prior to commencing such work from the City of St. Cloud, Florida, and the municipality issued a stop order on the job. Respondent further engaged in contracting in a municipality where he had not registered. By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., in that he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), F.S., in that he engaged in contracting in a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida, where he had failed to comply with the local licensing requirements for the type of work covered by his registration. COUNT FIVE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida by failing to secure a permit as required by that municipality. COUNT SIX By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT SEVEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting. 8. CASE NO. 0112740 COUNT EIGHT Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Emma Smith on October 3, 1988 to reroof a home at 1911 Mullet Lake Park Road, Geneva, Seminole County, Florida. The contract price was $4,100.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof which continued to leak and caused damage to the home. Respondent has failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he was requested to do so. By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that the Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT NINE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT TEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor the written warranty described in paragraph twenty-six above. COUNT ELEVEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 12. CASE NO. 89-001674 COUNT TWELVE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Thelma Beck to reroof a home at 3910 Pineland Ridge Road, Orlando, Orange County, Florida on January 26, 1989 for a price of $2,270.00. Respondent accepted a $100.00 deposit for said job; the work was not begun and the $100.00 deposit was returned to Mrs. Beck. By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT THIRTEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT FOURTEEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Morris Remmers to reroof a home at 8719 Butternut Boulevard, Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on or about February 23, 1989. The contract price was $2,870.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department. By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded in a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT FIFTEEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT SIXTEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 17. CASE NO. 89-008737 COUNT SEVENTEEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Robert Speirs to reroof a dwelling at 2467 Fieldingwood Road, Maitland, Seminole County, Florida on or about October 14, 1988. The contract price was $3,600.00. Respondent proceeded to work the job but failed to obtain a permit and secure required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a water tight roof which continued to leak. Respondent failed to honor the three (3) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract although he was requested to do so. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT EIGHTEEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while license was suspended. COUNT NINETEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs forty-seven above. COUNTY TWENTY By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 21. CASE NO. 109636 COUNT TWENTY-ONE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Daniel J. Doherty to reroof a home at 225 Dover Wood Road, Fern Park, Seminole County, Florida on October 2, 1988, for the contract price of $3,590.00 which was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to construct a watertight roof, which contributed to water damage to the interior of Mr. Doherty's home. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract, although he was requested to do so. By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., by proceeding on the job without obtaining a local building department permit and inspections. COUNT TWENTY-TWO By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S. by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT TWENTY-THREE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his warranty as described in paragraph fifty-six above. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Gloria Viruet to reroof a home at 3010 (renumbered to 3007) Northwood Blvd., Orlando, Orange County, Florida on June 7, 1988. The contract price was $3,500.00. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without receiving a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department. The Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof and a leak developed after construction. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he has been requested to do so. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a County, to wit, Orange County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that County. COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting, by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs seventy. COUNTY TWENTY-NINE By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 28. CASE NO. 0108263 COUNT THIRTY Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with John E. Hultin to reroof a home located at 3610 Lakeview, Apopka, Florida on November 7, 1987. The contract price was $2,900.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly install a roof covering, violating Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roofing Coverings adopted by Seminole County and Seminole County Ordinance Section 40.51. The contract provided for a five (5) year labor warranty and a twenty (20) year material warranty. Respondent made several attempts to correct defects but has not fulfilled his warranty as the roof continued to leak. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that county. COUNT THIRTY-ONE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by installing the above described roof in a grossly negligent manner and in a manner which violated Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roof Covering, adopted by Seminole County and Seminole Ordinances Section 40.51. COUNT THIRTY-TWO By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practices of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described above. COUNT THIRTY-THREE By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. FACTS RELATED TO RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED MITIGATION Respondent has been engaged in the practice of roofing contracting for over twenty years. Prior to moving to Florida in 1983 his company worked in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana on large commercial jobs. In 1983 he was employed by the Disney company to do commercial roofing work. After licensure in Florida, Cederberg continued with large public works and commercial jobs in Florida. Sometime around 1988, after a disastrous reversal of fortune, the company filed for bankruptcy. Although he was utterly unfamiliar with the practice of residential roof contracting, particularly the demanding supervision involved, Gordon Cederberg began doing residential work. Around this same time Cederberg's wife left him and he was given custody of three children, ages three, six, and nine. He was emotionally distraught and obtained counseling and financial and other support from his church group. Cederberg's roofing contractor's license was suspended by the Construction Industry Licensing Board from August 1, 1988 to March 1, 1989, during which time he continued to work, due to financial pressures. Warranty work was not done due to his financial and emotional straits. According to Cederberg and his witnesses, he is in the process now of turning his life around. He operates on a smaller scale and is able to handle the work. He has one employee and has been able to avoid new complaints. He is still financially unable to provide restitution to the customers previously harmed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the parties' stipulation with regard to dismissals and admissions described above be accepted by the Board and that the following penalty be imposed: a) 1000.00 fine; one year suspension, with this penalty suspended during, and removed upon successful completion of, probation with an appropriate timetable for restitution and the requirement that appropriate continuing education courses are completed; and payment of costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 31st day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 William S. Cummins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack Snow, Esquire 407 Wekiva Spings Road, Suite 229 Longwood, FL 32779
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
