Findings Of Fact At all times material, Paul A. Corbitt was a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC C022488. He was the qualifying agent for Corbitt Brothers Roofing, Inc., Post Office Box 15073-B, Orlando, Florida 22808. Sometime in early April 1983, Helen Hamm of 474 Ellwood Avenue, Orlando, requested that Corbitt Brothers Roofing submit a proposal for reroofing her home. The old roof did not leak, but it was 18-20 years old, and she wanted it replaced before she retired. Paul Corbitt visited Ms. Hamm on April 15, 1983 and submitted a written proposal for re-roofing, providing for 20-year fiberglass, Owens-Corning shingles, to be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. The proposal also provided a five-year guarantee against leaks. The job cost was established as $1680.00, but the cost of wood and labor was described as extra, if new wood needed to be installed. During the discussion of the proposal, Corbitt mentioned that mildew and fungus resistant shingles are also available, but these would cost an additional $60-$80 more for the roof. He showed Ms. Hamm the warranty on the special shingles and noted that the warranty excluded staining from fallen leaves, fruit and other debris containing tannic acid. Ms. Hamm was concerned about the overhanging branches and falling leaves but rejected the fungus-resistant shingles, since the leaves would not be covered in the warranty. The job was completed in two days. Corbitt assisted the first day and replaced some rotten wood. The total price paid by Ms. Hamm was $1700.00, which included the original proposal price plus $20.00 for the wood repair. She was happy with the job and felt she received good service. She described the new white roof as "beautiful." About a year later she was having her siding cleaned. The serviceman asked if she wanted her roof cleaned also. She replied that it was brand new, but then looked up and saw that it was getting dark. At this point Ms. Hamm's recollection of her discussion with Corbitt was that he had been told to install the fungus resistant shingles. She relied on him because she did not know anything about roofs. She thought the extra $20.00 she paid was for the special shingles. Further, she vaguely remembered seeing the shingle wrapping in the yard which read, "Owens Corning fiberglass mildew-resistant shingles." Later when she contacted the manufacturer, Owens-Corning informed her that they did not produce a mildew resistant shingle in 1983. Ms. Hamm was convinced that either the manufacturer was at fault or Corbitt Brothers had installed the wrong shingles. She tried to contact Paul Corbitt, but was told that he left Corbitt Brothers and was in business for himself. She contacted the Better Business Bureau and other consumer-related organizations. When she threatened Corbitt Brothers that she would go to the media, Paul Corbitt and an individual he identified as the foreman appeared at her house. The men agreed that the roof should not be getting stained yet and agreed to come back later to remove a single shingle to send to the manufacturer. They never returned, and Ms. Hamm complained to the Department. Paul Corbitt admits that he and his brother, Merle, went to Ms. Hamm's house. He thought Merle had taken care of getting the sample shingle, and said that this was primarily to placate Ms. Hamm. The shingles were not fungus- resistant, nor had they agreed to install the special shingles, as Ms. Hamm was aware that her leaf problem would not be resolved. Even though Ms. Hamm did not deliberately fabricate her version of the agreement, she was clearly confused. She readily conceded that her perception of the shingle wrappers was in error and she admitted that the written proposal did not specify fungus-resistant shingles. No local building permit was pulled for the Hamm re-roofing, nor were any inspections called or, even though Corbitt was aware that the 1979 Edition of the Standard Building Code, adopted by the City of Orlando, required permits and inspections for jobs such as this. In April 1983, Paul Corbitt did not have a competency card in the City of Orlando and could not pull permits in that jurisdiction. His brother, Merle, had the competency card and was responsible for the permit. Since they had to pay a fee for a competency card, the business did not feel it was necessary for both brothers to pull permits in the same location. Corbitt admits that he was the qualifying agent for Corbitt Brothers, according to DPR records in 1973. Corbitt was previously disciplined by the Board with a letter of guidance on March 13, 1986, after probable cause of violation of Chapter 489, F.S., was found. The nature of the violation is not in evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Paul Corbitt, be found guilty of violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S. and Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S. and that he be required to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 12th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Belinda Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Paul Corbitt 2517 Regent Avenue Orlando, Florida 32804 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulations Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Miguel Diaz-Perna, committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating construction industry licensees. At all times material to the allegations of these complaints, the Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, license number CGC026702. Respondent's license is held in his individual name. The company known as M.D.P. General Contractor, Inc., is not registered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a contractor. M.D.P. General Contractor, Inc., has not been qualified to practice contracting in the State of Florida. On November 18, 1992, an individual named Gum Lee contracted with Respondent who was doing business under the entity name M.D.P. General Contractor, Inc., for the roof of his hurricane-damaged home. While the contract identified Respondent as the president of the corporate entity and represented it to be a certified state general contractor, the contract did not bear Respondent's individual license number. Respondent's price for re-roofing the Gum Lee residence was $13,000. Gum Lee paid Respondent the full $13,000. Respondent began work at the Gum Lee resident in November 1992. Subsequently, in April 1993 Respondent, again doing business as M.D.P. Contractor, Inc., entered into a second agreement with Gum Lee to make an addition to the residence. This second contract also did not bear Respondent's license number. The contract price for this addition was to be $20,000. Subsequently, Respondent obtained a permit from the Metro-Dade Building Department for work at the Gum Lee residence. In July, 1993, Respondent executed an affidavit that all materialmen and subcontractors had been paid for labor and materials supplied to the Gum Lee projects. In fact, Respondent had failed to pay at least one company, Coma Cast Corporation, in the amount of $3,808.44. Coma Cast Corporation placed a valid lien on the Gum Lee property. Neither Respondent nor M.D.P. Contractor, Inc., satisfied the lien within 75 days. Moreover, as of the date of hearing, Respondent had not satisfied the lien. Despite having paid Respondent for the work and materials at his home, in order to satisfy the lien, Gum Lee was required to remit an additional $6,026.01 to Coma Cast. In November, 1992, Li Kam Ming and Wan Chang Lu contracted with Respondent, doing business as M.D.P. Contractor, Inc., for the roof of their home. This contract, like the proposal form used by Respondent in all instances in this cause, did not contain Respondent's license number. The contract price for the work for this project was $11,600 for which Respondent was paid in full. Respondent pulled a Metro-Dade Building Department permit for the Ming/Lu project on or about December 18, 1992. Respondent's individual license as a general contractor does not entitle him to perform roofing contracting in Florida. Respondent represented himself to Ming and Lu as a licensed roofing contractor. In November 1993, Coma Cast Corporation placed a valid lien against the Ming/Lu home in the amount of $2,872.86. This amount was due for materials furnished to this project and which were unpaid by Respondent or M.D.P. Contractor, Inc. Despite notice of the lien, Respondent failed to satisfy it within 75 days. On August 30, 1994, the property owners satisfied the lien by remitting $4,900. Following mediation in circuit court, Respondent was ordered to pay Ming and Lu the sum of $5,400 to resolve this matter, but he has failed or otherwise refused to do so. In February, 1993, Respondent contracted with Ethel Odwin for repairs at her hurricane-damaged home in Miami. As in the other cases, Respondent entered into this agreement as M.D.P. Contractor, Inc. No license number was included in the proposal form. A second project (and agreement for same) at the Odwin home was entered into by Respondent on October 11, 1993. This project required repairs to the swimming pool at the residence. The total contract price for both projects at the Odwin home was $46,664, of which Mrs. Odwin paid Respondent $44,917.40. Respondent pulled a Metro-Dade Building Department permit for work at the Odwin home, but did not obtain a permit for the swimming pool repair. At no time material to the allegations of this case has Respondent been licensed or certified to perform swimming pool contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent did not subcontract the swimming pool work to be performed at the Odwin residence. Respondent did not complete all work at the Odwin home and, in fact, as a percentage of the work completed, received more funds than he was entitled to under the parties' agreement. Mrs. Odwin was required to expend an additional $8,000 in order to complete the work at the home after Respondent abandoned the projects in February 1994. Respondent's excuse that his gravely ill son distracted him during the time frames of these cases cannot explain why he has failed to attend to the financial responsibilities of his business subsequent to his son's death.
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 revoking Respondent's license, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000, and requiring financial restitution to the extent that same does not contravene federal bankruptcy law. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John O. Williams, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams & Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Miguel Diaz-Perna 14631 Southwest 148th Street Circle Miami, Florida 33189
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Ronald E. Lotz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC0031773 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has been a licensed roofing contractor since February, 1978. His present address is 1650 Palm Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. In April, 1979 Lotz and Allen Hartwell entered into a contract whereby Lotz agreed to install a "new truss, and shingle roof" on Hartwell's house located at 4005 Northwest 19th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. The agreed upon price for the job was $1,225. As is relevant here, Lotz agreed, inter alia, that a "(n)ew exterior siding (would) be used on all gables". According to their agreement, Lotz was to purchase the plywood necessary to complete the work while Hartwell agreed to buy all their necessary materials. Section 6 of Marion County Ordinance 78-5, adopted on January 24, requires that a roofing permit be obtained on all jobs where the value of the work exceeds $100.00. Lotz did not obtain such a permit even though he conceded at the hearing that such a permit was required. Although the contract called for a new exterior side on all gables, Lotz did not install the same. Instead, he installed tongue and groove 3/4 inch boards which he felt were an adequate substitute. He discussed this with Hartwell at the time the job was performed and Hartwell did net object to this change in the contract. Hartwell, who filed a complaint against Lotz, was primarily dissatisfied with a wavy roof. However, that aspect of the job is not a part of this proceeding. The contract itself was modified by the parties a number of times. As a result, Lotz omitted certain requirements therein but added others without additional charge. In all, he was paid $1,125 for the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of failing to obtain a roofing permit in violation of Subsection 489.129(I)(d) Florida Statutes, and that he be given a public reprimand and fined $250. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Deaptment of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ron Lotz 1650 Palm Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Since March 8, 1985, DPR has licensed respondent Emmett Rex Alaniz, Jr., as a roofing contractor, with registration No. RC 0048059. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At no time has DPR licensed the respondent to do business as A Aaron Roofing Co. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. In February of 1987, doing business as A Aaron Roofing Co., respondent Alaniz signed a written proposal to repair the roof of the house and garage at 140 Eighth Street in Atlantic Beach, Florida, which belong to George Pettway. Mr. Pettway agreed to pay the $1,450 Mr. Alaniz asked and accepted the proposal by signing it. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Work began a day or two after Mr. Pettway and Mr. Alaniz executed the agreement, received in evidence as an attachment to petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. For the most part, Mr. Alaniz turned the job over to laborers whom he supervised briefly mornings. In keeping with the contract, they placed shingles over the existing roof, but the half inch nails they used were not long enough to penetrate the sheathing beneath the existing shingles. The pitch of the house roof was "approximately 2 in 12." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 8. Respondent or his crew used "three tab" or "strip" shingles, despite advice on the packaging in which the shingles arrived that the warranty was void, if the shingles were used on a roof that rose less than three inches for every foot it approached the peak horizontally. Use of the shingles respondent employed on Mr. Pettway's roof also violated code. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7. If solid shingles, the "right" shingles for a roof with as "shallow" a pitch as Mr. Pettway's, had been employed, a "nail over" would still have been doomed to buckle and fail. Even though the roof was watertight before Mr. Alaniz began, it would have been necessary, in order to do the job properly, to remove the old shingles before putting new shingles down. To fasten the bottom row of shingles securely, in the same manner as rows above it, competent roofers applying shingles like those used on Mr. Pettway's house cut off the 5-inch tabs and nail what is left along the eaves, before nailing the first regular row of whole shingles. This makes the thickness of the roof uniform, even along its lower perimeter, and permits sealing the bottom-most shingle edges against the "tar strip" formed by adhesive on the truncated shingles underneath. Instead of cutting off the tabs of the first shingles laid, respondent or his crew simply turned them upside down, laying them with tabs pointed toward the peak. This had two unfortunate consequences: The "tar strip," formed by an inch-wide band running the length of each shingle just above the notches separating the tabs, was some six inches from the edge of the roof, making the perimeter shingles vulnerable to breakage and loss from wind, which could lift the unsealed tabs. In addition, the roof flared near the edge because of a six- inch-wide "shingle berm" in which three thicknesses of shingles, not the two laid elsewhere on the roof, impeded water flowing down the roof. Although they first installed "gravel stop" instead of eaves drip flashing, respondent and his crew eventually used standard metal strips. But they overlapped the flashing in the wrong direction, against the flow of water, failed to crimp the seams, failed to join strips properly at corners, so that it pulled away from the fasciae, and nailed only every two or three feet instead of every twelve inches, as good practice dictates. Flashing was overlooked around a skylight. Only "cold tar" was applied. Respondent Alaniz and the crew working for him left flashing in place that should have been removed and reinstalled once the new shingles had been laid. Pipe flashing was not tucked properly nor was boot flashing done properly. In general, the flashing had the effect, not of waterproofing, but of creating water traps. Laying shingles in a straight line has more than aesthetics to recommend it. The seams between shingles must be tight if the roof is to function as it should. But the rows Mr. Alaniz and his crew laid snaked across the roof willy nilly. Instead of a uniform five inch width, the width of each row varied between three and seven inches. Gaps between adjacent shingles an inch or a half inch wide were common. Only two or three nails penetrated some shingles, each of which should have been fastened with four (longer) nails. In many instances, Mr. Alaniz or his crew misplaced such nails as were driven. In places, shingle fragments were pieced together. Cutting shingles with hawkbill knives, Mr. Alaniz and his crew, no doubt inadvertently, slashed some of the newly laid shingles. The roof had to be redone entirely, in any event. Mr. Alaniz contributed nothing to defray the expense of reroofing, or in any way correct the problems with the roof he and his men put on. Taken as a whole, the work they did was "worse than poor." On a scale of one to ten, it deserved a rating of one half. In every detail the work was done incompetently and irresponsibly. Perhaps that is why respondent never called for a final inspection by the city building inspector, even though the code in force in Atlantic Beach required that he do so.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Harry Bradshaw, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0033812. On August 26, 1986, Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor was suspended by Petitioner. Respondent's license remained suspended at all times material to this case. On December 16, 1987, Respondent contracted with the Moose Lodge located in Hialeah, Florida, to reroof the Moose Lodge building. The proposal submitted by Respondent contained representations that Respondent was licensed as a registered roofing contractor and that he was insured. Respondent knew that his license as a registered roofing contractor was under suspension. Respondent had no insurance. The contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge provided that Respondent would perform the work and supply the materials for the sum of $6,200.00. The sum of $3,200.00 was paid to Respondent in advance of his beginning the job. Respondent used the sums advanced to purchase materials and supplies. The remaining $3,000.00 was to have been paid upon Respondent's completion of the job. During the negotiations that resulted in the contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge, Respondent represented that the job should be completed in time for the functions scheduled for New Year's Eve. While Respondent had purchased the materials needed for the job and had done a substantial amount of work on a portion of the roof, he was unable to complete the work by the New Year. Respondent was ordered to stop work on the job on January 26, 1988. Respondent did not abandon the job. Although he was slow in performing the work, a part of Respondent's delay in performance was caused by rain. There was no evidence as to what would have been a reasonable period of time for Respondent to have completed the job. On January 26, 1988, the administrator for the Moose Lodge complained to the Building Inspection Department for the City of Hialeah, Florida, because the administrator was not pleased with the progress that Respondent was making toward completion of the job. The administrator was told by a representative of the Building Inspection Department on January 26, 1988, that Respondent had no license and that the required permit had not been pulled. The administrator was told to prohibit Respondent from working on the roof. Immediately thereafter, the administrator instructed Respondent to do no further work on the roof. The members of the Noose Lodge completed the job started by Respondent for less than $3,000.00, the balance of the amount that would have been owed Respondent if he had finished the job. Respondent knew that a permit was required for this work. Respondent also knew that only a licensed roofing contractor could pull the required permit. Respondent proceeded with the job when he was unable to persuade a licensed roofing contractor to pull the permit for him. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent alleging that at the time he contracted with the Moose Lodge, Respondent's license was suspended, thus violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner and/or abandoned the job in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Respondent denied the allegations of the administrative complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed. Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and his license remained under suspension at the time of the final hearing.
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 having violated Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the final order revoke Harry Bradshaw's license in the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Bradshaw 5590 East Seventh Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel, P.A Suite 1600 NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Does the unsatisfied civil judgment in ABC v Millman et al, Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB relate to practice of Respondent’s profession, thus establishing that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,(2009)? If he committed the violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board has certified Millman as a General Contractor and a Roofing Contractor under the authority of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In 2009 and 2010, he held license numbers CGC l1522 (General) and CCC 1327057 (Roofing). Millman’s licenses are presently inactive. Millman has actively practiced the licensed professions of general contractor and roofing contractor in Florida since 1977. The Department and its predecessor agencies have never taken any disciplinary action against him. At all times material to this proceeding, Affiliated was a Construction Qualified Business in the State of Florida, certified under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, holding license number QB45287. Millman was the Primary Qualifying Agent for Affiliated under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, at all times material to this proceeding. On December 26, 2005, Millman signed a credit application with American Builders and Contractors Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Supply Co. Inc. (ABC), on behalf of Affiliated. Millman listed his Certified General Contractor’s License (CGC 011522) on the credit application and personal guarantee Although Millman provided his General Contractor’s license number on the application, ABC did not require a license number. The application indicates that the account is related to “low and steep slope roofing.” The account was for the purchase of roofing materials and supplies. On December 29, 2005, Millman signed a personal guarantee of the Affiliated account with ABC. Millman’s personal guarantee made him personally liable for Affiliated’s obligation to pay ABC. ABC granted the application and opened a line of credit for Millman and Affiliated. Millman and Affiliated used the account to purchase roofing supplies on credit. They purchased and paid for over $800,000 worth of supplies from 2006 into 2009. This is separate from the goods and materials that were the subject of the lawsuit described below. Most of the materials and supplies that Affiliated purchased on the ABC account were for specific roofing projects. But some, as Millman acknowledged in his testimony, were to maintain roofing materials in the Affiliated warehouse. He used these on small jobs and to supplement materials purchased for larger, specific jobs. All the goods and materials purchased related to Millman’s practice of the roofing contracting profession. In 2007 Millman and Affiliated started having financial difficulties. Millman’s business began failing. The failure of a lender that took over a construction project it was financing resulted in the lender not paying Millman for approximately $500,000 worth of his company’s work. This contributed to Millman’s business failure. In addition to Millman’s problems paying ABC, his landlord was evicting him. Millman worked hard during these difficulties to meet his obligations to ABC. He liquidated his Individual Retirement Account and his life savings to make sure he paid for all charges for supplies used for specified customers. He did this to protect customers from the risk of liens being placed on their properties. Millman advised ABC that he was being evicted from his warehouse. He told ABC that the warehouse contained materials obtained with his line of credit that had not been paid for. Millman did not have the ability to return the materials to ABC. As eviction neared, he urged ABC to retrieve the materials before eviction. ABC did not act to retrieve the materials. The landlord evicted Millman. What happened to the materials is not known. On March 4, 2008, ABC sued Millman and Affiliated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. ABC sought payment for goods and materials purchased on the account and delivered to Millman and Affiliated between January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008. The court assigned the action Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB. The goods and materials for which ABC sought payment were roofing goods and materials. They included roofing felt, roofing cement, shingles, plywood, lumber, roofing nails, lead sheets, insulation, roof tile cement, lead boots for pipes, roofing paint, asphalt, and galvanized roof edging. Much, although not all, of the material was delivered to roof tops. Many invoices for the material describe the roof for which the material is intended by height and pitch. The goods and materials related to Millman’s profession of roofing contractor. On June 17, 2008, barely three months after ABC filed suit, Millman entered into a Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default with ABC. Millman agreed in the Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default, that both he as an individual and Affiliated are indebted to ABC in the amount of $45,617.02. This amount included interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The stipulation included a schedule of eight payments starting with a payment of $2,500.00 on May 30, 2008, and ending with a payment of $22,720.02 on December 30, 2008. Millman made payments from January 1, 2007, forward, even during and after the collection litigation. Millman made over $16,000.00 of those payments. But he did not make all of them. As Millman made payments, he took care to designate payments for supplies allocated to a specific customer and job. He did this to protect his customers from liens and to make sure that documents he signed attesting that supplies for specific jobs had been paid for were honest and correct. On August 3, 2009, the court rendered a Final Judgment After Stipulation in ABC’s collection action. The court adjudged that ABC recover $29,617.02 together with interest at the rate of 11 percent per annum accruing from May 31, 2008, from Affiliated and Millman, jointly and severally. The judgment is for debt incurred relating to Millman’s practice of his licensed profession of roofing contracting. It is not related to Millman’s licensed profession of general contracting. ABC continued to actively pursue collecting the judgment. It garnished Millman’s bank account with Bank Atlantic and obtained $662.61. Millman and Affiliated have not fully satisfied the judgment within a reasonable period of time. The Department incurred $216.00 in costs for the investigation and this action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: Payment of an administrative fine of $500.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. Payment of costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $216.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, 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 27th day of August, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as follows: License No(s): RC 0021957 Licensed as: Registered roofing contractor Address of record is in: New Port Richey, Florida A certain contracting job was undertaken as follows: Customer: Stella Domas Approximate contract date: 6-85 Approximate price: $600 Job location: New Port Richey, Florida Job generally consisted of: Repair roof of Customer's house Said job was undertaken by the contracting business Respondent was associated with and responsible for in his capacity as a licensee. Respondent proceeded without a timely permit having been issued, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j) 489.119; and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent proceeded without timely obtaining all required inspections, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j); 489.119; 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent gave a guarantee on said job to the Customer, and thereafter failed to reasonably honor said guarantee, in violation of 489.129(1)(m), (j); 489.119; 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent performed said work in a substantially deficient manner, therefore, violating 489.129(1)(m). Respondent previously has been disciplined by the State Construction Board. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Based on the Stipulated Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, the parties agree to the following disposition of the Amended Administrative Complaint: The Respondent shall pay a $1500 fine, payable within 60 days from entry of a final order approving this stipulated disposition; and The Respondent's registered roofing contractor license number RC 0021957 shall be suspended for 60 days, beginning 60 days from the entry of a final order approving this stipulated disposition.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order approving and incorporating the settlement stipulation between the parties. RECOMMENDED 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Lee Ellen Acevedo, Esquire 7716 Massachusetts Avenue New Port Richey, Florida 34653 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(e),(m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), and Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes (1993), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Kenneth G. Steeprow (Steeprow), was licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC C036974. He is registered to do business individually, and his license is currently inactive. On April 23, 1987, Ken Steeprow Roofing applied for an extension of credit with Gory Associated Industries, Inc. (Gory). The application listed Ken Steeprow as the owner of Ken Steeprow Roofing. A copy of Steeprow's individual roofing contractor certificate was included with the application. Also included with the credit application was a guaranty signed by Steeprow and his wife for credit extended to Ken Steeprow Roofing. On November 15, 1988, Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. was formed as a Florida corporation. The president of the company was Steeprow, and the secretary/treasurer of the company was Steeprow's wife, Tamara Cherry Steeprow. Steeprow did not qualify Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., as required by Sections 489.119 and 489.1195, Florida Statutes. Steeprow admitted at hearing that he operated Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., during 1989. Steeprow also admitted at hearing that it had been his practice to sign building permit applications in blank and that the secretaries for the company would type in the name of Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., on the application forms. These application forms were used to pull building permits for Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. On February 22, 1989, Gory sent a letter to Ken Steeprow Roofing to the attention of Steeprow, requesting that Steeprow review the information from its customer file and verify whether the information was accurate. On March 9, 1989, Gory received a response, advising that the firm's name was Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., and including a completed application for extension of credit for Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. The contractor's license number listed on the credit application was CC C036974. At the time of the application, Tamara Steeprow signed an agreement for extension of credit on behalf of Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. The agreement included the following provisions: We agree to notify Gory Associated Industries, Inc. immediately in the event of a change of ownership or in the form of our business. We further agree that any goods or merchandise purchased from Gory Associated Industries, Inc. shall remain the property of Gory Associated Industries, Inc. until payment is received for said merchandise and goods by Gory. BLANKET CERTIFICATE OF RESALE STATEMENT This is to certify that all material, merchandise, or goods purchased by the undersigned from Gory Associated Industries Inc. is purchased for the purpose of ROOFING CONSTRUCTION and is purchased under certificate number . This certificate shall be considered a part of each order which we shall give provided such order contains our certificate number. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked. Although the certificate number is blank in the agreement, the credit application included a copy of the certificate for Kenneth Steeprow as a roofing contractor, license number CC C036974. On March 9, 1989, Kenneth Steeprow and Tamara Steeprow signed a guaranty for the extension of credit to Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. The guaranty provided: THE UNDERSIGNED, herein jointly and severally referred to as Guarantor, makes this agreement with Gory Associated Industries, Inc., or divisions thereof, herein referred to as Creditor, with respect to credit extended and to be extended to STEEPROW ENTERPRISES INC. herein referred to as Debtor. For valuable consideration Guarantor does hereby unconditionally guarantee to Creditor, its successors and assigns, prompt and punctual payment of the full amount, including accrued interest, of any and all obligation, indebtedness or liability, whether arising before or after the date hereof, and whether primary or secondary, (herein referred to as "liabilities") of Debtor to Creditor from time to time and at all times hereof and hereafter without limitation as to amount, together with interest, and all expenses of collection, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, whether suit be instituted or not. * * * The obligations hereunder shall be continuing and irrevocable except as herein provided. Revocation may be made by thirty (30) days notice in writing signed by Guarantor and delivered to Creditor, in person or by certified mail only. Any notice shall not effect or impair in any manner whatsoever the obligations of this Guaranty as to liabilities of the Debtor to Creditor existing or committed at or before the time such notice becomes effective. On March 18, 1989, Steeprow resigned as President of Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., and was replaced by his wife. The stock in Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., was sold to Erick Holland on or about January 1, 1990. Erick Holland was not licensed as required by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In July, 1991, Monier Roofing Tile, Inc. (Monier), acquired Gory and became the assignee of contract rights and accounts receivable of Gory. Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., ordered roofing supplies from Monier from November 1991 through June 1992 and defaulted in making payments for the roofing materials. In November 1992, Monier brought suit in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, Case Number 92-28733(21), against Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., Steeprow, and Tamara Cherry Steeprow for the money owed by Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. A summary judgment in the aggregate amount of $21,548.09 was entered August, 3, 1993, against all defendants, including Steeprow. The defendants appealed the summary judgment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered an opinion on October 26, 1994, affirming the trial court's decision, stating specifically that as to the individual defendants, including Steeprow, their pleadings and affidavits were deficient and even if construed as an attempt to raise affirmative defenses failed to state a viable defense. The case was remanded to the trial court for the assessment of attorney's fees, and on February 14, 1995, a final judgment was entered, awarding Monier attorney's fees in the amount of $6,600 against all defendants. In May or June 1996, Steeprow filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 96-32243. The petition was dismissed on Steeprow's motion on January 10, 1997. The judgments remain unpaid. Steeprow stated at the hearing that he does not intend to pay the judgments. A reasonable time within which to satisfy a judgment is ninety days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Kenneth G. Steeprow violated Sections 489.129(1)(e), and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988) and Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes (1993), imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 for the violation of Section 489.129(e), imposing an administrative fine of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), assessing costs of investigation, and revoking license number CC C036974. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 28th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cummins Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth G. Steeprow 5985 Acme Avenue Port St. John, Florida 32927 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
