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 Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto. His license number is RC-0035594. On or about April 26, 1985 Respondent, doing business as Pinellas Roofing Service, contracted with Bausch and Lomb to reroof their plant in Manatee County, at a contract price of $31,150. Respondent admits that at no time material hereto was he licensed to engage in contracting in Manatee County. Pinellas Roofing thereafter began, and partially performed, this job for which it was paid a total of $28,035. Petitioner alleges, and Respondent denies, that Respondent diverted funds received from this job for other purposes, and was thereafter unable to fulfill the terms of the contract with Bausch and Lomb. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence in support of this charge. Respondent never completed this job and took no steps to inform Bausch and Lomb that he would not complete the contract or make other arrangements for its completion. He left several thousand dollars worth of material on the roof, exposed, when he walked off this job, and this resulted in these materials being substantially destroyed. During the job, he did not take precautions to assure that the roof did not leak during heavy rainstorms. In fact, on at least three occasions, leaks caused damage to the interior of the plant and Respondent could not be reached. Therefore, Bausch and Lomb had to have another roofing contractor make emergency repairs on June 25, July 15 and September 3, 1985, at a total additional cost of $4,150. Since Respondent did not complete the contract, and left the roof unfinished, Bausch and Lomb contracted on September 17, 1985 with Bernard J. Lozon, Inc., to complete the job, and make certain additional repairs, at a cost of $24,000. In the opinion of Bernard J. Lozon, who was accepted as an expert in roofing contracting, the actual work that was done by Pinellas Roofing was satisfactory. However, Respondent's actions in walking off the job and leaving the roof unattended without completing the job is an unacceptable practice in roofing contracting, and constitutes incompetence and misconduct. Respondent failed to properly supervise this job. He relied upon his son to hire the necessary crews, pay them, handle financial aspects of the job, and assure its completion. His testimony indicates he fails to understand his own responsibility for supervising and completing the work for which he contracted, and which was performed under his license. At no time material hereto did Respondent qualify Pinellas Roofing Service with Petitioner. Respondent failed to apply for and obtain a Manatee County building permit for the roofing job in question, and also failed to request the county building department to perform inspections of the work performed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County has adopted and follows the 1979 edition of the Standard for Installation of Roof Coverings, Southern Building Code, as amended in 1981. This Code requires all contractors performing work in Manatee County to be registered in Manatee County, and to obtain permits for all roof replacements and repairs in excess of $200, as well as obtain inspections of all such work to insure compliance with the Code. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the local building code. When Respondent submitted his proposal on April 16, 1985 for the Bausch and Lomb job, he specifically acknowledged, in writing, that "all work (is) to be done according to owner specifications sheet." (Emphasis supplied). At hearing, Respondent contended that when he submitted his proposal he never saw the project specification sheet which was thereafter attached to his contract with Bausch and Lomb and made a part thereof. Rather, he testified that his proposal referred to certain specifications that appeared on project drawings which he reviewed prior to submitting his proposal. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and all of the evidence presented, and particularly the fact that Respondent referred to the "specifications sheet" and not "drawings" in his proposal, it is specifically found that Respondent had knowledge of, and did in fact submit his proposal based upon the "specifications sheet" which ultimately became a part of his contract. As such, he was bound thereby in the performance of work under this contract. In pertinent part, the "specifications sheet" requires that the contractor obtain all necessary permits from Manatee County, that notice be given to the owner in advance of work that will produce excessive amounts of dust or tar fumes so proper precautions could be taken, that roofing materials be stored in a manner that protects them from damage or adverse weather conditions during construction, and that the contractor provide a two year written guarantee at the conclusion of the job. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of ninety (90) days and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 22nd day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3698 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5,6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 5-7 Addressed in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 5. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Michael Schlesinger, Esquire 655 Ulmerton Road Building 11-A Large, Fl 33541 Fred Seely Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations obtained herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RV0010136 issued by the State of Florida. His address was Route 4, Box 48-M, Lake City, Florida. On April 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. Allen of Route I, Box 453, Live Oak, Florida, for the construction of a single- family residence on the Allen property for a contract price of $75,476. The contract was finished sometime in January 1983, and the Allens moved in that month. During some high winds shortly after they moved in, several shingles blew off the roof, exposing the underlying tar paper. The next day after the storm, Allen went out and saw approximately three or four shingles on the ground. When he picked them up and looked at them, he saw that they had no nail holes or staple holes in them. Allen immediately pulled his tractor up to the house and stood on the seat so he could take a close look at the roof. When he did so, he found that he could not see a nail, staple or hole in the roof where these particular shingles had come from. In addition to that area denuded of shingles by the storm, Allen also lifted up a few other shingles and found what to him was evidence of improper installation. As a result, Allen went to a building supply house in the area and bought a package of the same shingles previously installed on his house by the Respondent in order to get the nailing instructions that came with them. Allen bought the shingles from the same supply house where Respondent had purchased the ones installed on his property. After examining the instructions which came with the shingles he purchased, Allen then called the office of the building inspector and spoke with the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Pat Sura, who came out to inspect the roof. Allen went up on the roof with Sura and lifted several shingles in different places to see how they were affixed. In most cases, he found two staples in each shingle, but in some cases he found none. Of the 20 or so tabs he lifted (each shingle having three tabs), he found that some, but not many, were nailed in three places. Sura confirms the fact that he was called by Allen. After the call, Sura checked his files and found that the permit for construction of the house was issued to Allen with Respondent listed as the contractor. When the complaint came in from Allen, Sura asked Mr. Cherry, a Department investigator, to go out and look at it with him, as is his standard practice. Sura does not recall exactly when this was done, but it was shortly after the call from Allen. Sura went up on the Allens roof with Cherry and pulled up a few tabs to look for the nailing pattern. He found that the nailing pattern was misaligned, that a stapling gun was used, and that both staples and nails were, in his opinion, too short. Based on this viewing, Sura called a Mr. Canepa, who was a representative of the shingle manufacturer at the time, and asked him to inspect the roof himself. Canepa also found both nails and staples and pulled at least one of each out of the roof. He did not take many, however, because most of the shingles had only one or two fasteners per shingle. The ones that were pulled, however, were pulled from shingles that had four nails or staples in them. Sura also went into the attic on the first visit with Cherry and examined the roof from the inside. He found very few staples or nails protruding through the inside of the subroof. Approximately 40 percent of the nails were not showing through. Based on his examination, Sura concluded that approximately 70 percent of the shingles were not properly fixed, having three or less fasteners per shingle. Only 30 percent had four. These figures were based on spot samples from different sections of the roof. In Sura's opinion, it appeared to him that the staple gun used to apply the staples was out of order. The top of the staple is supposed to be horizontal to and flush with the top surface of the top shingle. Many of the staples and nails which he observed were not horizontal. In some cases, the cross piece on top of the staple extended as much as an eighth of an inch above the tab and had not been hammered down. In Sura's opinion, at least 70 percent of the staples he examined were in that condition. Unless the staple is flush with the roof, the result is that the staple does not go in far enough and also makes a raised area on the shingle. According to the standards of the National Asbestos Roofing Manufacturer's Association (NARA), either nails or staples are supposed to be inserted below the glue tab on the shingle approximately five-eights inch above the top of the cut-out. A fastener is supposed to be above the top of the cutout and on each end. This would result in four fasteners per shingle. Sura found that in most cases the fasteners were on the glue tab or above it, very few were below it. An examination of 24 separate shingles revealed that those which had four fasteners were either crooked, raised or in the wrong place and, of these, 40 percent were in the wrong place. The building code of Suwannee County does not contain detailed specifications of how shingles are to be installed. The code refers to other specifications, such as the NARA standards, and incorporates them by reference. On one of the visits Sura made to the Allen home, the Respondent was also present with at least one of his sons. At Sura's request, Respondent or his son gave Sura some staples which he said are the type used on this job. However, Sura's examination revealed that these staples are not like the ones he took out of the roof. The staples used in the roof were three- quarter inch staples. Sura contends the ones given him by the Respondent were one-inch staples. At the hearing, Respondent and both his sons testified that they used three-quarter inch staples and did not give Sura one inch staples. The likelihood is that the proper sized staples were used. The roofing of the Allen house was accomplished by using a one-half inch plywood decking (actually 15/32 inch). A sheet of felt is laid over the decking and the shingles laid over the felt. In some cases, the fastener is driven through all of that plus an additional tab as well. As a result, the fact that no staple or other fastener was protruding through into the attic is not necessarily pertinent, and the use of a three-quarter inch staple could be acceptable if it was installed properly. As to the flush nature of the staple, a slight variance is accepted. It was recognized that it is impossible to get an exactly flush installation. The degree of acceptable variance is a subjective call, however. The staple that was removed by either Sura or Canepa (there is some uncertainty as to who pulled the staple but no uncertainty that one of the two actually accomplished that task) was protruding approximately one-eighth inch above the surface of the shingle. Gordon K. Perry, Respondent's son and employee, worked on the Allen house as the roofer. He, another brother, and a third employee worked as a team to install the roof, with his brother on the lower line, himself in the middle, and the other employee-on the upper line. As he and his associates laid the shingles, Perry, as the man in the middle, affixed them to the roof with a stapling gun. Perry indicates that he installed the shingles exactly as called for in the instructions contained on the wrapper around the shingles as they come from the manufacturer. Perry contends he used four staples to each shingle, and always does, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. Perry tried to affix the staples so they are flush with the shingles, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. If the gun misfires and leaves it protruding above the shingle, he and his team members all had hammers with which they would hammer the protruding staple down flush with the shingle. He contends he had no trouble installing this roof and that the gun he used was working properly. This testimony was confirmed by that of the other son, Frederick L. Perry, who also indicated that the crew followed the instructions on the wrapper for the installation of the shingles with one exception at the corner a staple was driven through two shingles instead of one. This procedure would however, in his opinion, at least meet the requirements and he feels even exceed them. He observed the way his brother was stapling the shingles on the Allen roof and could see nothing wrong with the procedure followed. His father, the Respondent, came to the job site frequently during the three days it took to install the Allen's roof and actually came up on the roof to observe but did not do any of the actual installation work. He explains the reason for the four or five loose shingles dislodged by the wind as being the result of the air hose for the staple gun getting caught under the tabs of these several shingles while the crew was working with the gun on the other side of the roof. When Mr. Perry observed what had happened he told the employee to go back to that area, put the tabs down and tack them down. Unfortunately, he did not check to see if that was done. He subsequently found out that the employee put the tabs back down but did not affix them as instructed. When he, on this later occasion, checked this area, he saw that where the shingles had broken loose, the nails were still in the roof and the felt was still there. Finding some broken shingle pieces on the lawn, he used them to make a temporary patch for the roof fully intending to report this situation to his father immediately. He did not have an opportunity to make the permanent repair did not feel he should do so without his father's instructions. Not withstanding his father's knowledge of the situation, he received no instructions from his father to make the repairs. The final and permanent repair was accomplished approximately a week prior to the hearing after the granting of the first continuance. On that occasion when he checked the other shingles, Perry found four staples in every shingle that he checked and they were, for the most part, properly flushed. Ron W. Williams, a building contractor registered in Lake City and coincidently a member of the Board of County Commissioners, also examined the Allen's roof on June 19, 1984. Independently he went up on the roof, pulled back tabs and looked at the shingles and their method of affixing in five different locations on the roof. He could see nothing wrong with how the shingles were installed and attempted to pull several staples using a pair of pliers and screwdriver. The difficulty he experienced in extracting the shingles is, in his opinion, an indication of how well they were installed. None that he saw were raised up. Some were at a permissible angle. Mr. Williams found anywhere from 7 to 8 staples in each shingle consisting of 3 or 4 staples across the top of each shingle plus fasteners from the higher shingle as well. In his opinion the roof looked good. The lines were straight, there was no waving. He could see no indication of any problem with the shingles or of weakness or that the shingles would be subject to wind removal. Another contractor who made his inspection at the same time was D. B. Espenship, a 35 year building contractor in Lake City, who has during his career constructed in excess of 500 homes. Mr. Espenship also independently went to 5 or 6 different areas on the Allen roof and pulled up the shingle tabs. He saw nothing to indicate any problems with the way the shingles were applied. The roof looked good, the lines were straight, staples flush and the angles not bad. David Morgan, a licensed roofing contractor in Lake City for more than 15 years does mostly residential roofing including shingles. On the same date as the others described, supra, he also went up on the roof .and watched Mr. Williams do his inspection. He also did his own inspection as well. When Mr. Morgan lifted the tabs he saw the staples and could see nothing to indicate that they were improperly installed. He could see no code violations nor could he see any potential problems. The roof was in excellent shape. In fact, "about as good as you could get." Mr. Perry, Respondent, first learned of the problems with the Allen roof when he was contracted by Mr. Cherry to go out and look at it. This was shortly after the storm which removed the shingles. Cherry asked Respondent to meet with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sura at the premises. When he arrived, no one showed up. However, at approximately a half hour later, Mr. Sura came up without Mr. Cherry. Mr. Sura would not go up on the roof. He said that at that time it was "out of his hands". The matter was in the hands of Mr. Allen and Mr. Cherry. In any case, Respondent went up on the roof as requested and lifted several shingles, but could find no problem. Thereafter, when Respondent called Mr. Cherry, Cherry said he would have to talk to Mr. Sura about it. Mr. Sura indicated he would ;nail respondent a copy of Mr. Canepa's report, but he never received it. In fact until he got the administrative complaint through the mail, he contends he could never get a straight complaint from anyone. He tried to get together with Mr. Allen on several occasions, but in his opinion, could not seem to satisfy him. Respondent also went up on the roof June 19 to make another inspection. At this late date, even in light of the administrative complaint he can still find nothing wrong with the roof. The lines are straight, the proper number of staples are installed and they are installed properly. The roof is in his opinion good and he, on the record, guaranteed to replace it if, with the exception of tornado damage, the roof blows off within the next 18-20 years. Mr. Perry has been a building contractor since 1966. He does all types of construction including the construction of between 300 and 400 homes over the years. Normally he does all the work within the firm. If they are very busy however, he subcontracts some. In this case, the Allen home was built "in-house" and he, himself, worked along with his workmen. He is, in addition to being a contractor, an ordained minister in the Baptist church in Lake City and has been so for the past 20 years. He does not know Mr. Canepa and knows of no reason Mr. Canepa would have to lie. The same is true of Mr. Sura. He feels that both individuals just did not examine the roof closely enough. He contends they are mistaken in their description of the roof's condition. Mr. Sura contends that the building code in this case was violated by respondent in the following particulars; violation of the provisions of the Southern Standard Building Codes: The use of 3 or less fasteners; Placing the nails or fasteners either on or above the glue tab, Failure to have the tops of the fasteners flush with the surface of the shingle; and Failure to have the top of the staple parallel to the shingle line. All these defects were brought to the attention of the Respondent in August, 1983. No corrective action was taken until one week prior to the hearing. On balance, considering the relative probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony of the witnesses and their interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or their lack thereof, it is found that Respondent, through his roofing crew, improperly installed a large number of shingles on the Allen roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore. RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Fred Perry, be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.90 which fine shall be remitted up a positive showing by affidavit of the owner or County Building Inspector that the roof defects have been corrected. DONE and RECOMMENDED THIS 10th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-0062 Terry McDavid Post Office Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32056 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, licensed as a registered roofing contractor, certified roofing contractor, and certified building contractor, committed various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Joseph H. Rayl, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0034055; certified roofing contractor license no. CC C035625; and certified building contractor license no. CB C033206. Petitioner previously disciplined Respondent's license RC 0034055 through the imposition of a $250 fine by order dated July 11, 1985; and Respondent's license CB C033206 by suspension of license for six months and imposition of a fine of $2,500. Petitioner also found probable cause for three cases in 1987 that were closed with letters of guidance to Respondent. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Unique Construction, Inc., (Unique) at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Further, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Superior Roofing & Construction Inc., (Superior) since February, 1988. On June 19, 1984, Mary Lois Brining, owner of a day care center for children known as Town and Country Schools of Bradenton in Manatee County, Florida, entered into a contract with Respondent to reroof the day care center. Respondent's personnel arrived at the school and removed the roof. Heavy rainfall then caused extensive damage to the interior of the facility and Brining complained to Unique. A representative of the company assured her that the situation would be resolved. Brining later paid Unique $623 to paint the school's interior, in addition to the cost of the roof replacement. While Respondent was never present during the construction, his workmen finished the roofing project on June 26, 1984. When leaks to the roof developed after completion of the job, Brining advised Unique of the leakage on numerous occasions. No action was taken by Respondent or Unique in response to Brining's telephone calls about the roof's leakage. Water leakage also damaged the carpet in Brining's facility, which she replaced at a cost of $2,000. In 1988, Brining finally hired another roofing company to correct the roof leakage. Helen M. Hayes, a resident of Gulfport, Florida, contracted with Unique to reroof the flat portion of the roof to her home on April 12, 1984, for a sum of $2,890. The job was finished on April 15, 1984. Two days later, the roof leaked. Hayes advised Unique and a representative came to the house and attempted to stop the leaks. After every rain, the roof leaked and Hayes would advise Unique. She never saw or spoke with Respondent. Finally, after 22 contacts with the company over a period of two and a half years, Hayes contacted local government building authorities. The building inspector for the City of Gulfport inspected the roof and told the company to replace it. Unique's workmen removed the roof in July, 1986, and left the house uncovered. That same day 10 inches of rain fell in the area of the residence, resulting in extensive damage to the home's interior and clothing which Hayes had stored in the home. Hayes called the police. The police called the building inspector who, in turn, called the roofing company. On July 28, 1986, Unique completed replacing the roof on Hayes' house. That new roof still leaks, the floor to the house is cracked from the leakage, the carpet has been saturated with water, plaster from the ceiling is falling to the floor, and there are water stains on the ceiling and walls throughout the residence. The proof further establishes that the City of Gulfport, located in Pinellas County, Florida, retained a private contractor to conduct an inspection of Hayes' roofing job in July of 1986. That inspection established that the roof should be replaced with a roof complying with building code requirements. Notably, while Unique obtained permits for the job, no final inspection of the project was ever obtained by Respondent's company in accordance with the Southern Building Code adopted as an ordinance by the City of Gulfport. James Oliver Prince is a resident of Lake Hthchineha, a settlement located in Polk County, Florida. He has never met Respondent. Prince entered into a contract with Unique in September of 1985. The reroofing job was completed on or about September 26, 1985. Leaks developed with the onset of the first rain after the completion of the job. Prince notified Unique and a representative came out to the residence to attempt to repair the roof and stop the leaks. This procedure continued on numerous occasions until November of 1987 when Prince attempted to contact Unique regarding the roof's leakage only to be informed that the telephone had been disconnected. Prince tried to locate Unique at the various offices listed on his contract, but received no answer. Eventually, due to the seriousness of the leaks and his inability to contact Unique, Prince hired a carpenter and replaced the roof at a cost of approximately $6,000. As established by testimony of Charles Fant, fire chief and building official for the City of Treasure Island, Florida, Unique obtained a construction permit for a reroofing job for the home of Vincent Ferraro located at 62 North Dolphin Drive in that city. The city has adopted the Southern Building Code as a city ordinance. However, the company never obtained the required final inspection for that job as required by the building code. On August 13, 1986, Carl and Ludie Buice of Bellview, Florida entered into a contract with Unique for a reroofing job on their home. Carl Buice passed away in November of 1986 Later, their son assisted Ms. Buice when leaks developed in the roof by attempting to contact the roofing company. The son, Alfred Buice, was unable to contact Unique. He then contacted the local offices of the Better Business Bureau; thereafter a representative of Superior, Respondent's successor company to Unique, came to the Buice residence on or about May 25, 1988, and gave Alfred Buice a check for $200 in connection with money previously spent by Buice to repair leaks to the roof. Even after repairs, the roof continued to leak to the point that it began to cave in around the roof's edges. Eventually, Alfred Buice had his mother's residence reroofed by another contractor on March 21, 1989, for $5,800. Testimony of Petitioner's expert witness establishes that Respondent was grossly negligent in meeting his qualifying agent responsibilities to supervise financial activities and construction practices of Unique. Further, Respondent's subordinates, who actually carried out roofing activities, performed those tasks incompetently. Respondent failed to comply with existing construction industry practices to inspect jobs where successive complaints were lodged by customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's licenses as a registered roofing contractor, certified roofing contractor, and certified building contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County. Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-42. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 320 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that at all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C58099. Respondent passed the licensing examination in August 1995. Case No. 99-0261 Respondent is not a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent's Certified General Contractor's license did not and does not permit him to obtain roofing permits to perform any type of work on roofs. Respondent's Certified General Contractor's license number was not low enough for him to be grandfathered in by the State to allow him to lawfully perform roofing work with his Certified General Contractor's license. On or about February 23, 1998, Delfina Valdes contracted with Johnny Hatcher, d/b/a Hatcher's Roofing, to repair the roof on her residence located at 18101 Northwest 32 Avenue, Miami, Florida. They contracted for Hatcher to remove Valdes' old roof and install a new roof at a cost of $4,000. Valdes paid Hatcher $2,000 as a down payment toward the cost of the roof's repair. At no time material hereto was Hatcher a licensed roofing contractor. Furthermore, at no time material hereto was Hatcher's Roofing qualified by the State of Florida to perform contracting. Hatcher removed the roof from Valdes' residence. After removing the roof, he did not perform any more work. Respondent met with Valdes and represented to her that Hatcher was working for him. Respondent further represented that he would obtain the permit for the roofing work. Respondent paid Cayetano Alfonso to obtain a roofing permit for the work on Valdes' roof. On or about March 26, 1998, Alfonso made application to Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation for the roofing permit, which was subsequently issued. Alfonso was a Certified General Contractor who was licensed to perform roofing work. Alfonso's Certified General Contractor's license number was low enough for him to be grandfathered in by the State to allow him to lawfully perform roofing work with his Certified General Contractor's license. Alfonso was not the qualifier for Hatcher's Roofing nor was he Respondent's qualifier. Alfonso did not enter into the contract with Valdes for repairing her roof. Alfonso was not a party to the contract for repairing Valdes' roof. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Hatcher was not acting on behalf of Alfonso when he entered into the contract with Valdes. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent was not acting on behalf of Alfonso when he represented to Valdes that he would obtain the permit for the roofing work. When Respondent discovered that Hatcher had received a $2,000 deposit from Valdes, he requested Alfonso to cancel the permit. On or about April 20, 1998, Alfonso cancelled the roofing permit. On or about June 5, 1998, Valdes cancelled the contract between her and Hatcher Roofing. Valdes received a refund of the $2,000 from Hatcher, through a third party, that she had paid him. Case No. 98-4859 On or about April 9, 1995, Respondent entered into a contract with Susan Casper to construct an addition to her residence located at 17350 Northeast 12th Court, North Miami Beach, Florida, at a cost of $38,135. Casper paid Respondent $36,285.00 toward the cost of the addition. Respondent was not licensed at the time that he entered into the contract. On or about March 20, 1996, Respondent obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation for the work on the addition. Several delays were encountered during the performance of the work. Some of the delays resulted from changes by Casper, which changes required approval by Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation; however, most of the delays were Respondent's own doing. In October 1996, Casper paid $2,588 to Best Truss Company for a claim of lien filed on her residence, associated with the work being performed on her residence. Respondent worked sporadically on Casper's addition through April 1997. He would inform her at times that he was returning but failed to return. At one point, Casper's children constructed a sign in their own handwriting, instructing Respondent to keep out and indicating that there was no trespassing by him. The sign was posted on the door of Casper's residence. Casper informed Respondent that her children constructed the sign. It was obvious that the keep out, no trespassing sign was constructed by children. Respondent's assertion that he was kept away from Casper's residence by the children's sign is not credible. Even after the children's sign was posted on the front door of Casper's residence, Respondent agreed with Casper to resume work, and he did so. However, his work was sporadic. In or around June 1997, Casper sought assistance from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation to get Respondent to complete the work. In July 1997, Respondent obtained a window permit for the work on Casper's residence. After July 1997, Respondent ceased working on Casper's residence. He did not provide Casper with any notice that he was ceasing work. Respondent had no valid reason for ceasing the work. In September 1997, Casper transferred the permit for the work on her residence from Respondent's name to her name. Respondent failed to perform all the work under the contract. Some of the work performed by Respondent or caused to be performed by Respondent contained code violations and needed correcting. Certain work performed by Respondent or caused to be performed by Respondent needed correcting. Wood doors, glass block, electrical work, and a sprinkler were in need of correction. Casper bore the expense of the corrections. The corrective work was completed at a cost of $1,675.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on Casper's residence was $18,272, minus the cost of the corrective work of $1,675, which equals a total value of the work at $16,597. This cost value includes overhead and profit. Even though the value of the work by Respondent was $16,597, Casper paid Respondent $36,285, a difference of $19,688. Casper hired a new contractor on or about September 17, 1997, to complete the construction on her residence at a cost of $16,350. As to Case No. 98-4859, as of January 26, 1999, Petitioner incurred a cost of $1,108.76 for the investigation and prosecution of Respondent. Petitioner previously disciplined Respondent for violating Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (1995), including violating Subsection 489.127(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1995), abandonment of a construction project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order and therein: As to Case No. 99-0261, finding that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). As to Case No. 98-4859, finding that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), in Count I; and dismissing Count II. Revoking Respondent's license. Ordering Respondent to pay restitution to Susan Casper in the amount of $19,688.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire 10300 Sunset Drive, No. 499 Miami, Florida 33173 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, 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.
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.
