The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring general contractors. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Part and parcel of the Department's duties is the sanctioning of persons who practice general contracting without a license. Respondent is an individual living in Tampa, Florida. Respondent did not appear at final hearing and has not filed any post-hearing motions concerning his failure to appear. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Department makes the following allegations: Respondent was not registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent, doing business as J.D.S. Roofing, contracted with Vivian Virgil to perform certain roofing work, specifically, to remove and replace shingles and related work to reconstruct the roof on Virgil's home. A contract between the parties dated April 21, 2006, was signed by Virgil and Respondent (or his authorized representative). Virgil made two payments to Respondent in the amounts of $2,500.00 (via check number 1037) and $1,564.46 (via check number 1040). She also made a payment of $2,860.54 to The Home Depot to pay for materials ordered by Respondent for Virgil's roofing repairs. Respondent then made the contracted-for repairs and replacement of Virgil's roof pursuant to the contract.2 Virgil, however, was not pleased with the quality of the work. She is unable to get a warranty on the roof because Respondent's work was inferior. Virgil must have another contractor re-do the roof in order to get a warranty. Neither Respondent nor his company, J.D.S. Roofing, is or has ever been licensed by the State of Florida as a contractor. However, Respondent held himself out as a general contractor in his dealings with Virgil.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, James Delaughter, is guilty of the unlicensed practice of contracting and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's name is Troy Griffin. The Respondent is now and was at all times relevant to the pending Administrative Complaint, a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0030688. The Respondent is not now and at no time material to the pending Administrative Complaint was the Respondent a certified or registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida. At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, the Respondent's license #RR 0030688 qualified Griffin Remodeling & Repairs, Jacksonville, Florida. In June 1978 the Respondent d/b/a Griffin Remodeling and Repairs contracted to repair the residence of June Moody, Jacksonville, Florida. The contracting work included work upon the Moody's built-up roof, which Respondent re-roofed pursuant to contract. Respondent built up the roof with more than one layer of felt in 1978. These layers were discovered by the city's inspector in 1982. Respondent returned in 1978 and patched the roof he installed. These patches were seen by the city's inspector in 1982. The owner, Moody, did not complain of leaks in 1982. There was no evidence of leaks in 1982. A roof poorly installed without sufficient tar and felt will leak within the time that has passed between 1978 and 1982. See inspector's testimony in response to Hearing Officer's question. Moody's home was a single family, one story residence. No evidence was received regarding whether the City of Jacksonville requires examinations of roofing contractors prior to their certification.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent did not commit the alleged violations, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed and no action be taken. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Buildina 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Troy Griffin 7443 Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Direetor Department of Professional -I Regulation. Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction findings Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating licenses for roofing contractors in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent held two licenses; he was a certified roofing contractor, license no. CC CO55580, and a registered roofing contractor, license no. RC 0060386. Respondent filed an application to qualify the company, D.S.S. & Sons, Inc., as a licensed roofing contractor; however, he failed to complete all documents necessary for licensure, and his application was closed for lack of response effective August 3, 1993. Respondent's address of record with the Department is 821 SW Dwyer Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983. D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. is not now, nor has it ever been, licensed to perform roofing construction by the State of Florida. Facts common to all consumers On or about August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County, Florida, resulting in damage to hundreds of roofs. Roof repair or total replacement following the storm was not uncommon. Due to the large amount of damage, and the demand for roofing materials created by the volume of work to be performed, some contractors had difficulty obtaining roofing supplies. Additionally, some contractors had difficulty hiring qualified labor to perform the extensive roofing that was in great demand. The problems with obtaining materials and labor, however, were short term in that most roofing contractors made arrangements to bring in supplies and staff from other areas. In fact, by the time the work was to be performed in connection with these cases, the problems which had plagued the Dade County contractors were subsiding. Additionally, at all times material to these cases, the weather would not have been a factor to justify the delays complained of by these consumers. Rainy weather did not cause any prolonged work delays after the storm. Findings as to Helmly Charles Helmly resides at 11985 SW 98th Lane, Miami, Florida. His home was damaged by Hurricane Andrew and required roof replacement. Mr. Helmly contracted with Respondent to re-roof his home for the sum of $17,940.00. The contract was signed by Respondent's salesman, Felix Fowler, and identified D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. doing business as Darryl Saibic, Roofing Contractor as the licensed entity. Mr. Helmly paid an initial deposit of $5,382.00 in order for the Respondent to begin work on the project. The next payment, an additional $5,382.00, was to be due at the "dry in" stage of the job, with the final payment (the balance) due on completion. One of the contract provisions Mr. Helmly insisted upon was a completion deadline to be stated in the contract. He was expecting visitors and he was anxious to have the home re-roofed before their arrival. He insisted that a guaranteed completion date of March 7, 1993 be noted on the face of the contract. Mr. Helmly complied with all requirements of the payment schedule outlined by the contract. In fact, he remitted $10,764.00 even though the roof had not been at the "dry in" stage. Between January and February, 1993, the Respondent removed the old roof, installed a base sheet, and nailed a single ply roof membrane to the roof. After February, 1993, the Respondent failed to timely complete the Helmly roof. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Helmly roof was no more than $3,588.00. The Respondent did not respond to numerous telephone calls and letters from Helmly, and threatened to place a lien on the Helmly property when Mr. Helmly attempted to cancel the contract in May, 1993. Mr. Helmly went to the Dade County Building Department and complained about roof leaks in June, 1993 (Respondent had still not done any further work). On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Helmly property to repair the roof. The repairs caused the roof to leak more. Respondent did not refund Mr. Helmly's money, did not complete the roof, and showed a gross indifference to the plight which resulted when he failed to timely complete the project. In July, 1993, desperate to have his roof completed, Mr. Helmly offered to purchase the tiles himself if Respondent would have a crew come install the new roof. Respondent agreed to have a crew install the tile within ten days of its arrival. On September 17, 1993, Mr. Helmly took delivery of the new tile, paid for it in full (a cost of $4,803.00) and notified the Respondent so that the installation could begin. Respondent never returned to complete the re-roofing. He failed to honor his verbal agreement to install the tiles. By letter dated October 1, 1993, Respondent offered to reimburse Helmly for the overage if he would hire another contractor to complete the job. On October 19, 1993, Mr. Helmly hired a new contractor who completed the installation of the new roof in early November, 1993. Approximately eight months after the deadline on Respondent's contract, Mr. Helmly had his new roof. Extra expenses totalling $2,936.21 were paid by Mr. Helmly as a result of the Respondent's abandonment of this job. Findings as to Gurdian On January 14, 1993, the Gurdians contracted with Respondent through his agent, Ed Comstock, to repair the roof on their home located at 13301 SW 110 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The contract was executed as D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. d/b/a Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor and called for a total payment of $7,725.00 for the work to be done. The Gurdians made a deposit of $2,300.00 on January 14, 1993 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received a partial release of lien. On February 8, 1993, the Respondent pulled a permit for the Gurdian home but never called for inspections on this project. In February, 1993, all the tiles were removed from the roof and roofing paper was installed. On March 1, 1993, the Gurdians made a second payment of $2,300.00 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received another partial release of lien. The Respondent did not timely complete the Gurdian roof. From June through November, 1993, Respondent sent the Gurdians unsigned notices claiming he would return to their job but did not do so. Numerous excuses were offered as to why the project was not completed; however, none of these had merit. The Gurdians waited until April, 1994 hoping the Respondent would return and complete the work. They drove to Respondent's office and left a message seeking assistance. Finally, Respondent recommended a company called CTI to complete the roof work for the Gurdians. When contacted, CTI told the Gurdians it would cost $7,600.00 to complete their job for which they, not Respondent, would be responsible. The Gurdians then attempted to notify the Respondent at his address of record by certified mail of their continuing problems but the letter was returned to them unopened. In June, 1994, the Gurdians hired another company to finish their roof which was finally complete and passed inspections on July 26, 1994. The Gurdians were required to pay a total of $13,475.00 to have their roof replaced because the Respondent failed to perform under the original contract. Due to the Respondent's abandonment and indifference in connection with this project, the Gurdians were damaged in an amount not less than $4,200.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Gurdians' roof did not exceed $1,545.00. Respondent has not refunded any of the funds paid by the Gurdians. Findings of fact as to Vila Marta Vila resides at 11116 SW 133 Place, Miami, Florida 33186. Like the others discussed above, the Vila home was damaged and required a new roof. On January 13, 1993, Vila signed a contract with Ed Comstock acting on behalf of D.S.S. and Sons, Inc., doing business as Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor, to have her roof repaired for a total contract price of $7,200.00. A down payment of $2,160.00 made payable to the company was made at that time. On February 8, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to re-roof the Vila home. On February 15, 1993, Vila paid an additional $2,160.00 to Respondent. At that time Respondent removed the tiles from the Vila roof and installed one layer of roofing paper over the roof decking. Despite representations from Respondent that new tiles would be delivered in approximately three to four weeks, the Respondent did not install a new roof on the Vila home. In February and March, 1993, the roof was patched three times to stop leaks but no substantive work was performed to install new tiles. Respondent did not return to the Vila home despite numerous requests from the homeowner for the work to be completed. In June, 1993, Respondent represented that the Vila job might be completed if the tiles were sent out COD. When Vila attempted to verify that information, she was told she had paid enough to not have that concern. However, no tiles were ever delivered to her home. In August, 1993, Vila, after Respondent failed to return telephone calls, wrote to Respondent and demanded a refund. She has not received one. Vila ended up paying $7,754.00 to another contractor to have her roof replaced. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Vila project did not exceed $1,440.00 yet he has failed or otherwise refused to refund the difference between that amount and what she paid. Vila has suffered monetary damages in an amount not less than $4,800.00 as a result of Respondent's abandonment of this project. Findings of fact as to Bermudez Mr. and Mrs. Bermudez reside at 8335 SW 147th Place, Miami, Florida. On November 30, 1992, they signed a contract with Respondent in the amount of $6,400.00 to correct extensive leakage on both floors of the Bermudez home. Mrs. Bermudez gave a deposit in the amount of $1,860.00 and was told that the repairs would begin in two weeks and be completed in approximately five weeks. In December 1992, and January, 1993, the Respondent performed some minor patching but no significant work was undertaken to repair the Bermudez home. In January, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to replace the Bermudez roof. Within a week of the permit, Respondent sent an unsigned form letter to the Bermudez advising them that there would be delays. In February and March, 1993, the Respondent's crew stripped the old tile off the Bermudez home and installed batten and roofing paper over the decking. Mrs. Bermudez made deposits totalling $3,720.00 to Respondent in connection with this contract. Despite numerous requests from Mrs. Bermudez, Respondent did not complete the roof. In July, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Bermudez home in connection with a leak but the repair did not resolve the problems and did not substantively finish the roof. As with the other cases, between July and November, 1993, Respondent sent numerous unsigned form letters to Mrs. Bermudez offering false or ridiculous excuses for why the project had not been completed. In January, 1994, Mrs. Bermudez filed a formal complaint against Respondent but he never completed the job nor refunded the deposits. Between March and July, 1994, Respondent represented he would complete the Bermudez job but did not do so. The Bermudez roof was not completed until December 13, 1994. As a result of Respondent's incompetence, inability, or refusal to complete the Bermudez roof, the family lived with a leaking roof for approximately two years and incurred unnecessary expenses. Respondent showed a gross indifference to the plight of the Bermudez family. Respondent could not have timely completed the projects described above during the period July, 1993 to July, 1994, as his workers compensation had expired. The numerous promises to perform the contracts as originally agreed were meaningless.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's licenses, requiring Respondent to make full restitution to the consumers in these cases before being entitled to seek new licensure, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution of these cases as set forth in the affidavits filed in this cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of October, 1995, 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 25th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1079, 95-1080, 95-1081, 95-1082 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 155 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Masters Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Darryl Saibic 821 S.W. Dwyer Road Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
The Issue The 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
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harry Clinton Brackin, is a licensed registered roofing contractor holding license number RC0045880. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Respondent is the owner and licensee for Brackin Roofing Company. Sometime around February 20, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Arebelle S. Hughes, an elderly woman, to re-roof her house and remodel the front porch of her home located in Vernon, Florida. In addition to the work performed pursuant to the contract, there were verbal construction agreements between Mrs. Hughes and Respondent for the remodeling of the back porch, removing and closing out windows, replacing and framing doors, placing molding in the kitchen and various other carpentry repairs. Ms. Hughes asked Respondent to perform the additional work because she was well satisfied with the roofing job done by Respondent and she was unable to find a licensed contractor willing to come to Vernon and perform the work she wanted done. Respondent, in fact, informed Ms. Hughes he was not a contractor and in his opinion she needed a contractor. However, Ms. Hughes still wanted Respondent to do the additional work for the above reasons. Later, Mrs. Hughes became very dissatisfied with the quality of Respondent's remodeling work and advised the Respondent of her complaints. However, the evidence disclosed that her complaints were not well communicated and Respondent did generally try to meet Ms. Hughes' requests. None of Respondent's work constituted a hazardous condition and no evidence was offered which indicated an actual building code violation. The Respondent has not corrected the work. Mr. Harold Benjamin, an expert in the area of general contracting, reviewed the contract, the job site, the Respondent's license, and the pertinent Florida Statutes. Mr. Benjamin's expert opinion was that the Respondent's contracting job with Mrs. Hughes definitely exceeded the scope of Respondent's roofing license. Mr. Benjamin added that the carpentry work itself demonstrated an unfitness in the area of carpentry contracting and that Respondent's work did not in some respects meet the minimum carpentry standards for the industry. However, Respondent's work was not so bad as to constitute gross negligence in the area of contracting. This is particularly true since Respondent disclosed to Ms. Hughes that he was not a contractor and that the work she wanted done should be performed by one. Respondent's duty was thereby limited to a duty to perform reasonably given his abilities. Respondent did meet that duty. Respondent was disciplined for the same type of violation in 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board impose an administrative fine of $2,500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2721 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2 and of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except as to the finding pertaining to gross negligence which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry Clinton Brackin Route 1, Box 2470 Chipley, Florida 32428 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire 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 Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
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 should be disciplined for failure to comply with provisions of Florida law?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George F. Garrard, is licensed as a registered roofing contractor holding State of Florida license number RC 0045805. On May 14, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Ronald Skinner to reroof a house located at 2226 Eudine Drive, in Jacksonville, Florida. The contract provided that Respondent would: "Tear off the entire roof to sheeting. Haul off all debris. Install 5 ply-build-up roof. New metal edging." In exchange for the work, the contract called for Respondent to receive $1100.00, $600.00 to be paid in advance for materials and $500.00 to be paid upon completion of the job. 2. Mr. Skinner paid Respondent the $600.00 advance for materials and work on the roof began the following day. While the work on the roof was in progress, Mr. Skinner conducted periodic inspections and noticed that the felt had buckled up. Mr. Skinner asked Respondent how he was going to fix the felt and Respondent said that he could fix the felt by cutting out the buckled parts and patching the felt. Mr. Skinner responded that he had a patched roof before and did not want another; he wanted a new roof. Respondent promised he would fix the problem. Prior to the work being completed, Respondent made a telephone call to Mr. Skinner and asked for payment of the remaining balance on the contract in order to purchase the materials needed to finish the job. Mr. Skinner agreed to meet John T. Garrard (Respondent's son) at the house and pay the balance. Respondent authorized Mr. Skinner to pay John T. Garrard. When Mr. Skinner arrived at the house, John T. Garrard and another person were unloading rocks from a pick-up truck and placing the rocks in a pile on the carport roof. Mr. Skinner paid John T. Garrard $500.00 and John T. Garrard wrote "Paid in Full" on the face of the contract and signed his name. A few minutes after Mr. Skinner left the house, John T. Garrard and the other person also left the house. Two or three days later, Mr. Skinner returned to the house. He noticed that no further work had been done. The rocks which had been unloaded from the pickup truck were still in a pile on top of the carport. Mr. Skinner was afraid the weight of the rocks would damage the carport so he spread the rocks on the roof. There were not enough rocks to cover the whole roof. Also, the rocks were loose because no tar had been spread on the roof to hold the rocks in place. Mr. Skinner contacted Respondent or someone in his household several times, and Respondent assured him he would finish the job. No further work was done on the roof by Respondent. Mr. Skinner last contacted Respondent by letter dated January 26, 1987, wherein he asked that Respondent finish the job since he had been paid in full. On the date of the hearing, the roofing job had not been completed. The rocks were still insufficient to cover the entire roof, no tar had been spread to hold the rocks in place, and the felt was still buckled in various places. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the reroofing job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $2,000 on Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 120 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 George F. Garrard 4622 Tabernacle Place, East Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
