The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is required to pay to the Department a penalty assessment, as set forth in the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued June 25, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rainbow Roofing Services, Inc., is a Florida corporation transacting business in Broward County, Florida. Paul Albert is the owner and president of Rainbow Roofing. On June 20, 2006, one of the Department's investigators Mark Mark was driving to work when he noticed men working on the roof of a house. He stopped and learned that Rainbow Roofing was the company performing the work. When he arrived at his office, he checked various records to ascertain who had obtained the building permit for the work and whether the company had workers' compensation coverage. He returned to the job site and spoke with the men present. He then talked with Paul Albert by telephone. Paul Albert had a corporate officer exemption from workers' compensation. He advised Mark that the men on the job site worked for Sampson Riley, a subcontractor of Albert's. Although Albert had seen Riley's exemption when they first started working together, Albert had not requested a copy of the renewed exemption when that one expired. Riley's last exemption had expired December 31, 1999. On that same date, Mark issued and served on Albert a Stop Work Order, together with an Order of Penalty Assessment for an unspecified amount, and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation due to Rainbow Roofing's failure to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees. The Request for Production included records for the three-year period preceding the issuance of the Stop Work Order. The Stop Work Order recited that it would remain in effect until the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation issued an order releasing the Stop Work Order. Mark told Albert that he needed to either obtain workers' compensation coverage or enter into an employee leasing agreement in order to have the Stop Work Order released. Albert provided to the Department tax records, business checking account records, business check ledgers, copies of cancelled checks, and checking account statements for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The Department utilized these records to compute the penalty it was assessing against Rainbow Roofing. The Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on August 3, 2006, which contained a specific penalty assessment amount. Two subsequent amendments resulted in the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, issued June 25, 2007, which is the subject of this proceeding. On June 23, 2006, three days after the Stop Work Order was entered, Albert obtained a quote from an employee leasing company in Texas. He signed the written quote on June 26. On June 28, Rainbow Roofing entered into a Staff Leasing Agreement with AMS Staff Leasing, and on June 30, Rainbow Roofing's employees completed applications for employment by AMS Staff Leasing. On July 6, 2006, the former employees of Rainbow Roofing became covered by workers' compensation insurance, and Albert provided a copy of the certificate of coverage to the Department's investigator the next day, as he had said that he would. Since Rainbow Roofing had come into compliance with the requirement for workers' compensation coverage, Rainbow Roofing re-commenced business operations on July 7, 2006, using the employees who formerly worked for Rainbow Roofing but now worked for AMS Staff Leasing. At the time that Rainbow Roofing commenced working again, there was no penalty assessment which needed to be paid, or even which could be paid. The Department did not determine the amount of penalty it was assessing against Rainbow Roofing until August 3, 2006. On September 19, 2006, investigator Mark was driving down the street. When he saw two Rainbow Roofing trucks, he followed them to a job site. Albert and one of his leased employees were doing clean-up work at a job site. Mark told Albert that he was in violation of the Stop Work Order, and Albert shut down the job. Albert admits that Rainbow Roofing worked approximately ten jobs between June 20, 2006, when the Stop Work Order was issued, and September 19, 2006. Since the penalty for working while a Stop Work Order is in effect is $1,000 a day, investigator Mark contacted AMS Staff Leasing to obtain that company's records regarding its employees leased to Rainbow Roofing. The Department obtained records from the Valleon Group, a company that does marketing for AMS Staff Leasing under some type of partnership agreement, according to Shawn Snider's deposition testimony. As such, both companies have access to at least some of each other's business records, and they share control over those records. The records produced by Valleon appear incomplete, and Snider testified that the dates on some of them are not correct dates, but represent some internal record-keeping system. However, the Verification of Wages forms signed by AMS' employees leased to Rainbow Roofing reflect wages paid for five days a week commencing July 7, 2006, and continuing through August 3, 2006. After that date, the records of whichever company they belong to, AMS Staff Leasing or Valleon Group, are not clear as to whether those employees were paid, let alone whether they worked. The Verification of Wages forms demonstrate that those leased employees received wages for working 20 days. In addition, since one employee was observed working by investigator Mark on September 19, 2006, the Department has proven that Rainbow Roofing worked 21 days while the Stop Work Order was in effect. Using the records of Rainbow Roofing which Albert gave to him, investigator Mark calculated a penalty assessment to cover the time period of June 21, 2003, through June 20, 2006, the three years prior to the issuance of the Stop Work Order. He obtained class codes from the SCOPES Manual, performed the multiplication formula, and added the daily penalty for working while the Stop Work Order was in effect. His calculations were subsequently modified twice, resulting in the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which is the subject matter of this proceeding. His calculations must be again adjusted since the Department only proved that Rainbow Roofing engaged in business operations for 21 days while the Stop Work Order was in effect, not the 41 days assumed by investigator Mark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing against Rainbow Roofing a penalty in the amount of $505,760.08. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Gary L. Brown, Esquire Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, Fichtel and Wander, P.A. 8201 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Andrea S. Carollo, was, at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0229337. The last licensed issued was as a broker c/o Florida Leisure Realty, Inc. t/a ERA, 27427 SR 54, Wesley Chapel, Zephyrhills, Florida 33543. Randy Locke and Geoffrey Bickerdike are not and have not been licensed, during times material, in any capacity with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board or the Florida Real Estate Commission. During July 1990, the Beardsleys entered into a contract to purchase realty situated at 220 Debbie Lane, Lutz, Florida. Additionally, the Beardsleys executed an addendum providing for the replacement of the roof. Negotiations for the contract and sale and the contract with its addendum were prepared by Respondent's licensed real estate salesman, Frank Kinsinger, an employee of Florida Leisure. The subject property was owned by Respondent's relatives, the Barettas, (aunt and uncle) who resided in Illinois. In anticipation of the sale of their rental property, the Barettas requested that Respondent obtain proposals to repair the roof. Pursuant to their request, Respondent obtained several proposals including proposals from Sun Roofing of Tampa, Hardy Roofing & Construction, Imperial Roofing Contractors, Inc. and Geoffrey Bickerdike. The proposals from all of the companies, with the exception of Bickerdike, all claimed that they were licensed roofing contractors. Respondent was acquainted with Bickerdike who represented himself in the past as a licensed contractor. Respondent was unaware that Bickerdike was not licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board or the local board (Pasco County). Of the proposals received from the various contractors, the Barettas selected Bickerdike's proposal to repair the roof since his proposal also included additional work that the home needed. During the period when the Respondent accepted the proposals and the Beardsleys entered into the contract, the Barettas replaced the roof and undertook certain FHA repairs that were required. After execution of the contract, Bickerdike subcontracted with Randy Locke (Locke) a subcontractor to replace the roof. A permit was not pulled for the removal and replacement of the roof. Respondent was unaware that Bickerdike had subcontracted the roofing job and the other repairs to Locke and that a permit had not been pulled for the repairs. The roofing repairs were completed prior to closing and the inspection was approved by the FHA as required by the contract and other lending requirements. Following a period of approximately two months from completion of the roof replacement and closing on September 11, 1991, no water leakage was observed in the house by the Beardsleys when they subsequently visited the home. At closing, the Barettas paid for and provided the Beardsleys with an ERA home warranty. The Barettas likewise reimbursed Florida Leisure the sum of $1,930.00 for roof repairs which had been advanced by Florida Leisure on behalf of the Barettas. Approximately two months after the closing, the Beardsleys experienced water leaks from the roof of their home. The Beardsleys called Florida Leisure to complain of the leaks. Initially, agents and employees of Florida Leisure contacted Bickerdike such that he could return to the house and correct the leaks. Bickerdike, in fact, made several attempts to correct the roof leaks and after further calls, Florida Leisure furnished the Beardsleys Bickerdike's beeper number which they used to directly contact Bickerdike. Respondent did not hear from the Beardsleys and considered the problem to have been resolved. On August 8, 1991, the Beardsleys contacted the Pasco County Building Department to report the leakage problem. On August 11, 1991, Joe Creech, a Pasco County Building Construction Inspector, inspected the roof and reported the roof replacement by Bickerdike and Locke as being unworkmanlike. Creech concluded that the roof needed to be torn off and corrected. Creech also determined that neither Bickerdike or Locke had a roofing contractors license and that no permit had been pulled for the job. On October 29, 1991, Respondent, after being advised of the problem, obtained a proposal from RFP Roofing Company, Inc. to replace the roof. During November 1991, Creech first met with Respondent to discuss the Beardsley's roof problem. At that meeting, Respondent advised Creech that he had been unaware until then that Bickerdike was unlicensed. On November 19, 1991, Al Shevy, an inspector and investigator with Petitioner, first met with Respondent in connection with the Beardsley complaint filed on October 8, 1991. At that meeting, Respondent advised Shevy that he thought that Bickerdike was responsible for the roofing problems experienced by the Beardsleys and that Bickerdike never advised him that he had gotten someone else to do the roof replacement. Respondent's proposal from RFP Roofing Company, Inc., predates his meeting with Creech and Shevy. Respondent contracted with RFP Roofing Company to have the roof replaced and other repairs done related to interior water damage and drywall for a cost of approximately $5,000.00. Respondent corrected, at his expense, the roof leak problems as soon as he realized that Bickerdike would not or could not correct the problems. The Beardsleys, although provided with an ERA home warranty, never reported their roof problems to the home warranty claims division for repairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 March, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 3, rejected, not probative and unnecessary. Paragraph 6, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 8, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 10, adopted as modified, Paragraph 5, Recommended Order. Paragraph 13, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 15 first sentence, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 17, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 15 and 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 18, adopted as modified, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Last sentence, rejected as being irrelevant. Paragraph 20, adopted as modified, Paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 20-22, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 25 and 26, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 27, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 35, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 17 and 21, Recommended Order. Paragraph 36(sic) second 35 and 36, rejected, irrelevant and not probative. Paragraph 39, adopted as modified, Paragraph 17, Recommended Order. Paragraph 40, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 41, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 45-49, adopted as modified, Paragraph 7, Recommended Order. Paragraph 50, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 51-54, rejected, not probative. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, Paragraph 17, Recommended Order. Paragraph 11, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 12 and 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 15, adopted as modified, Paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 24, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 27, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jacob I. Reiber, Esquire LINSKY & REIBER Post Office Box 7055 Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's enforcement of a condominium declaration requirement for window treatments is a discriminatory housing practice based on Petitioner's gender and alleged handicap, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if not, whether Respondent should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a condominium in Windsor Place at Berkshire (Lakes)(Windsor Place). Windsor Place is a covered multifamily dwelling unit, and Petitioner’s condominium is a dwelling, defined in Subsections 760.22(2) and (4), respectively. Petitioner is a female, aged 65. Petitioner does not have a handicap defined in Subsection 760.22(7). Petitioner suffered physical injury from a bicycle accident in 1990 and has a surgically rebuilt tibial plateau, but a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the injury substantially limits one or more major life activities. Petitioner walks approximately 1.5 miles to the grocery store and carries her groceries back to her dwelling unit. Petitioner uses her key to access the Condominium pool and swims in the pool. Petitioner attended the hearing and represented herself with no apparent physical or mental difficulty. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of Petitioner’s gender. Rather, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent has legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for requiring Petitioner to comply with the Declaration of Condominium and has not subjected Petitioner to disparate treatment. Section 27.1 of the Declaration of Condominium prohibits window coverings in any dwelling unit except interior draperies, curtains, shades, or shutters that have a neutral- colored backing. Beginning sometime in 1997, Petitioner has displayed various items in her windows including rags, unidentifiable “shiny things,” towels, bed sheets, a car floor mat, window stickers, items resembling garbage bags, and window wallpaper. Petitioner claims her alleged handicap prevents Petitioner from standing on a ladder to hang appropriate window treatments. Respondent’s representatives purchased standard window treatments and offered to install them in Petitioner’s condominium at no cost to Petitioner. Petitioner refused and has continued to hang non-conforming window treatments in violation of the relevant condominium declaration. Respondent seeks attorney's fees in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.595. Pursuant to Subsection 120.595(1)(c), this Recommended Order finds that Petitioner has participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.595(1)(e)1. The evidence submitted by Petitioner presented no justiciable issue of fact or law. Petitioner was her only witness. Her testimony was vague and ambiguous, lacked precision, and was not specific as to material facts. Cross-examination of Respondent's witnesses may be fairly summarized as consisting of comments on the answers to questions and argument with the witnesses. Petitioner repeatedly disregarded instructions from the ALJ not to argue with witnesses and not to comment on the testimony of a witness. The ALJ allowed Petitioner five days after the date of the hearing to provide copies of her exhibits, and Petitioner did not submit any exhibits for admission into evidence. Respondent is the prevailing party in this proceeding, and Petitioner is the non-prevailing party. Petitioner has participated in two or more similar proceedings involving Respondent, the same dwelling unit, and the same factual issue of whether the window treatments utilized by Petitioner violate the relevant condominium declaration. In the previous proceedings, Petitioner did not establish either the factual or legal merits of her position. The factual and legal position of Petitioner in this proceeding is substantially the same as her position in the previous proceedings. Respondent fined Petitioner for early violations of the relevant condominium declaration, and Petitioner paid the fine. However, Respondent had to fine Petitioner for subsequent violations, and Petitioner refused to pay those fines. Respondent obtained counsel and filed a Petition for Condominium Arbitration with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes. The Department issued a Summary Final Order dated September 17, 2002. Petitioner refused to comply with the Summary Final Order. Rather, Petitioner filed a Fair Housing Complaint with the Commission. That complaint contained substantially similar allegations as those at issue in this proceeding. The Commission issued a detailed Determination of No Reasonable Cause in February 2004. Petitioner filed a complaint against Respondent with the Department of Agriculture. The Department dismissed the complaint. During the holiday season in December 2006, representatives for Respondent informed Petitioner that Respondent intended to seek legal recourse in court if Petitioner continued to violate the relevant condominium declaration. Petitioner continued to hang nonconforming items in her windows including shiny objects, garbage bags, and decals. In March 2007, Respondent filed suit in County Court for Collier County, Florida, to enforce the Summary Final Order issued in 2002. Respondent was unable to serve Petitioner until sometime in November 2007. Petitioner filed the complaint at issue in this proceeding on December 12, 2007. Respondent seeks attorney's fees totaling $7,424.00 and costs totaling $680.88. The hours, hourly rate of $285, and the items of costs are detailed in the attorney’s affidavit and attached exhibits. The amount of fees and costs are reasonable and appropriate, and Respondent is awarded fees and costs in the amounts requested pursuant to Subsection 120.595(1)(d).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and requiring Petitioner to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amounts awarded herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 15th day of September, 2008.
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 The issues presented are whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent's license as a roofing contractor for knowingly and willfully performing roof repairs without first obtaining a permit and recording a Notice of Commencement and without obtaining interim and final inspections of the work, and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the local agency responsible for disciplining contractors licensed by Petitioner. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner licensed Respondent as a roofing contractor pursuant to license number C-2779. Sometime after October 8, 2004, Respondent knowingly and willfully repaired the roof (roof repair) of a private residence located in the City of Dunedin (the City) without first obtaining a permit and recording a Notice of Commencement, both of which are required by the City. Respondent performed the work, valued at approximately $4,200, on a residence located at 778 San Christopher Drive, Dunedin, Florida. Respondent failed to obtain interim and final inspections of the roof repair. Respondent did not request the City Building Department (the Department) to perform interim inspections or final inspections, and the Department did not perform any inspections of the roof repair. Respondent met with Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director for Petitioner, to discuss the allegations against Respondent. During that conversation, Respondent admitted to performing the relevant roof repair without a permit. Respondent offered several reasons for the failure to obtain a permit and recording a Notice of Commencement prior to performing the roof repair. The work performed was to repair damage from a previous hurricane. Time was of the essence because another hurricane was approaching. The homeowner was in the hospital and was not able to replace Respondent with another roof contractor. Respondent objects to the disclosure of information required by the City in the permit application and Notice of Commencement. Respondent claims that requirements for disclosure of the value of the work to be performed discloses to competitors the pricing structure utilized by Respondent and provides an unfair competitive advantage for large roofing contractors. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the unauthorized roof repair caused harm to the homeowner or to any other member of the public. Neither the homeowner nor a private citizen filed a complaint against Respondent. The homeowner obtained a permit after Respondent completed the roof repair and is not subject to penalty. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that any previous discipline has been imposed on Respondent's license. As Petitioner admits in its PRO, Respondent has had similar complaints against his license in the past relating to the failure to pull permits for jobs requiring permits. Complaints are not synonymous with convictions and discipline. The purpose of the relevant requirement for a permit is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons that come into contact with the work. The requirement is also imposed to ensure the integrity of the structure through interim inspections. There is no evidence that the roof repair is faulty or is likely to harm the health, safety, and welfare of the homeowner or others. The City requires a Notice of Commencement to be filed prior to the issuance of a permit in order to ensure that all material suppliers and subcontractors are put on notice that notices to the owner of a property must be provided in accordance with the construction lien provisions of Chapter 713, Florida Statutes (2004). The requirement ensures that a property owner will not be required to pay twice for materials or services rendered. There is no evidence that the homeowner paid twice for the roof repair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $400. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 30th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Neal Davis 9770 130th Avenue, North Largo, Florida 33773 Donald S. Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 3, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing, regulating, and inspecting public lodging establishments to protect public safety. To accomplish this purpose, Petitioner employs persons trained to respond to citizen complaints about public lodging establishments. Such inspectors visit and inspect the premises about which complaints are made, gather facts, and make reports to document their findings. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Sean Sylvester Grovesnor ("Grovesnor") as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist assigned to its Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent 1015 Apartments was a licensed public lodging establishment within the meaning of Section 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, operating under license control number 16-04182H, and located at 1015 Northeast 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304-2465. Responding to a complaint on or about February 10, 2000, Grovesnor visited 1015 Apartments. Grovesnor's inspection revealed various violations. Specifically, Grovesnor observed: balcony railing supports in disrepair in front of Apartment No. 204; no smoke detector in Apartment No. 201; an exit sign hanging from exposed wires by Apartment No. 205; a broken window on south side of the building; water stained ceiling tiles in living room of Apartment No. 201; holes in kitchen cabinets in Apartment no. 201; cold water knob in Apartment No. 201 would not work; faucet head not properly attached to the bathtub in Apartment No. 201; mildew and mildew holes in bathroom ceiling of Apartment No. 104. the sewer line clean out pipe cover was missing in the parking lot. Respondent was informed that all violations must be corrected by February 17, 2000. On or about February 18, 2000, Grovesnor made a callback/reinspection visit for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had corrected the violations noted on the previous visit. None of the violations previously noted had been corrected. Each of the above-described violations constitutes a separate and distinct potential hazard to the health and/or safety of individuals on the premises. The balcony railing violation was corrected on March 17, 2000, by Tim's Welding of Fort Lauderdale.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-specified provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 13th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jean Pierre-Louis 1015 Northeast 17th Avenue Apartment 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304-2465
The Issue Whether respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause, and if so, whether its license should be revoked or suspended, or whether a civil penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant- to this cause, Real Estate Rentals, Inc. held license number 39-926-H issued by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) for the premises known as Ippolito Apartments located at 112 South Brevard Avenue, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The president of Real Estate Rentals, Inc. is E. L. Ippolito. On February 27, March 14, and March 25, 1986, Pablo Mercado inspected the Ippolito Apartments. Mr. Mercado is employed by the Division as an Environmental Health Specialist and his duties include the inspection of hotels, apartments, and other buildings. Mr. Mercado inspects between 40 and 50 buildings a week. Each building is routinely inspected four times a year. When Mr. Mercado inspected the Ippolito Apartments on February 27, 1986, he found several conditions which he considered to be statutory or rule violations. Mr. Mercado noted these violations on a standard form of the Division. The Division's form lists various items numbered 1-36. Items 1 (Fire Extinguishers), 5 (Fire Hazards), 11 (Building Repair/Painting), and 19 (Screening) were checked on the form as minor violations, and comments were made concerning each item. As to Item 1, Mr. Mercado noted that no fire extinguishers were in the building and that a fire extinguisher was needed on each floor or one in each apartment. As to item 5, Mr. Mercado noted that furniture needed to be removed from the hall. As to item 11, Mr. Mercado made the following comments: Need window facing st. apt. #1. You need a window in bathroom apt. #1. Paint inside bldg. Stairs need repair. Hole in bathroom floor apt. #3. Water leaking in the bathroom from the upstairs apt. into apt. #1. As to Item 19, Mr. Mercado noted that all the screens missing on the windows had to be replaced. The form was sent to Real Estate Rentals, Inc., with the indication that the document was a warning and that all violations had to be corrected by March 14, 1986. When Mr. Mercado made his inspection on February 27, 1986, he did not observe a hole in the bathroom floor in apartment #3 or observe any water leaking into the bathroom in apartment #1, and there was no competent evidence presented at the hearing to establish that either of these conditions existed. Mr. Mercado did observe that there were no fire extinguishers in the hall, and he did go into one apartment and observed that there was not a fire extinguisher in that apartment. Two other tenants informed him that they did not have a fire extinguisher in their apartments. Mr. Mercado observed that one of the windows facing the street contained no window pane but simply had a plastic bag taped over the window frame on the outside of the building to cover the empty space. On other windows jalousie slats were missing, and the window on the bathroom of apartment #1 was covered with a piece of plywood. Some screens were missing and some screens were torn up. One of the steps on the stairs was missing part of the two-inch lip, which created a hazard to individuals using the stairs. On March 14, 1986, Mr. Mercado made a return inspection. He noted that the furniture had been removed from the hall. However, he did not feel that any of the other violations listed had been corrected. Therefore, Mr. Mercado filled out a Call Back/Re-Inspection Report", which referred to the warning issued on February 27, 1986, and made the following comments: Violations: #1--#5--#11--#19 (See DBR-226) Only violation #5 is complied. The rest of the violations #1,#)1,#19 are not complied. The report indicated that the time to correct the violations had been extended to March 24, 1986. This report was sent to the respondent by certified mail. On March 25, 1986, Mr. Mercado again inspected the Ippolito Apartments. The conditions had not changed from the time of his previous inspection on March 14, 1986. Mr. Mercado visited the Ippolito Apartments again on April 7, 1986, and also on June 10, 1986. The pictures admitted into evidence as petitioner's exhibits No. 6 were taken on June 10, 1986. On June 10, 1986, the building was in the same condition as it had been on February 27, March 14, and March 25, 1986, except that several of the windows on the front of the building had been replaced with plywood boards. Mr. Mercado did not believe that the replacement of the windows with the boards corrected the violation as to the windows, but he could not remember whether the windows had been replaced with the plywood as of March 14th or the March 25th inspection, or whether they were replaced at a later time. Since slats were still missing from other windows on all of his inspections, he did not feel the violations as to the windows had been corrected. By June 10, 1986, the windows in front of the apartment had been replaced with plywood backed by 2 x 4 studs. According to Mr. Howell, who performed the work, the replacement of the windows with the plywood structure occurred approximately 2 1/2 months prior to the hearing, which would have been early or mid-April, 1986. In that the only competent evidence as to the date of the replacement of the front windows was Mr. Howell's testimony, it is found that the windows in the front of the building had not been replaced with plywood at the time of Mr. Mercado's inspections on March 14 and March 25, 1986. There was no competent evidence presented as to the condition of the windows in the front of the building on March 14 or March 25, 1986.
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 three violations of Rule 7C-1.03(1) and one violation of Rule 7C-1.04(1) on February 27, March 14 and March 25, 1986, as set forth in charges 1 through 4 of the Notice to Show Cause, finding respondent not guilty of the violations set forth in charges 5 and 6 of the Notice to Show Cause, and imposing a total civil penalty of $975 assessed as follows: (1) failure to provide adequate fire extinguishers, $100 for each offense for a total of $300, (2) failure to maintain windows in good repair, $100 for each offense for a total of $300, (3) failure to maintain stairs in good repair, $50 for each offense for a total of $150, (4) failure to maintain screens in good repair, $75 for each offense for a total of $225. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 9th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1800 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Accepted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Accepted generally in paragraph 2. Accepted in paragraph 3. Accepted in paragraph 4, except that competent evidence showed only that at least one apartment did not have fire extinguisher. The only evidence as to other apartments was hearsay. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial in that evidence showed there was not a fire extinguisher in each apartment. 8.-9. Accepted in paragraph 4. 10. Rejected as irrelevant in that respondent was never notified or charged with a violation based on that condition. 11.-12. Accepted generally in paragraph 4. 13. Accepted in paragraph 3. 14.-15. Accepted in paragraph 5. Accepted in paragraph 6. Accepted in background, not finding of fact. Accepted in part in paragraph 7, however, whether violations were corrected was irrelevant because respondent was not charged with violations on April 17, 1986. Rejected as not a finding of fact in that it is a recitation of testimony. Rejected, date of repair set forth in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Rejected as immaterial and as recitation of testimony. 24. Rejected to the degree it is a finding of fact in that replacement of windows occurred after relevant time period. 25.-31. Rejected, not finding of fact. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondents Accepted in paragraph 1. Rejected as irrelevant and also not supported by the evidence in that a violation was noted for correction. Accepted in paragraph 3. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set forth in paragraph 4. Accepted in paragraph 5. Accepted in part in paragraph 8, however, repair work irrelevant since it occurred after date of inspections. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted in part in paragraph 4. Whether bathroom had exhaust fan is irrelevant since the issue was whether the window was in good repair. Reject that Mr. Mercado was not a credible witness. COPIES FURNISHED: James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Hugh Snow, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lynne A. Quimby, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Emilio L. Ippolito 901 South Rome Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
Findings Of Fact James Wells is a registered building contractor having been issued license number RB 0008753. In June, 1985, Christiane J. Guignard hired James Wells to do repairing and rebuilding on parts of her home, including roofing work. The roofing work consisted of building a roof extension with hot tar and gravel roofing and a shingle roof. Guignard maintains that Wells agreed to guarantee his roof work against leaks for five years. Wells maintains that there was no explicit warranty, but he understood that he was responsible for "about a year" for leaks in his work. Wells did the work agreed on and completed it at the end of July, 1985. Guignard paid Wells a total of $4,575 for all of the work he had done. Prior to Wells' roofing work, Guignard had three leaks in her roof. Wells' work eliminated those leaks. According to Guignard, she had five leaks after Wells completed his work: 3 leaks around chimneys, 1 leak in a valley, and 1 leak in the overhang roof. Guignard called Wells and he came to perform repairs at the end of August, 1985. He applied silicon in the valley, around the chimneys and around a picture window, and he inserted extra shingles in the valley. According to Guignard, none of the leaks stopped. According to Guignard, she called Wells incessantly from the end of August, 1985, to March, 1987, regarding the leaks. Wells came back several times to inspect the roof for leaks. Wells determined that one leak was the result of an electrician who put a hole and two nails in the roof. Wells repaired this leak even though it was not the result of his work. Wells flashed two chimneys. In June or July, 1985, Wells replaced the shingles in the valley. Wells repaired all the leaks except the one in the overhang. Wells never found any evidence of a leak in that area. Guignard believes that area is leaking because the siding has become discolored and because she saw rain water running around the siding when she stood under the overhang in a heavy rain. Wells says that he told Guignard that the possibility existed that excess rain water from a heavy rain could run down the siding because of the slant of the roof. He saw the discoloration of the siding and says it results from the tree buds of a nearby tree falling on the roof, mixing with rain water, and running over the siding. Wells told Guignard that she needed to treat the siding with a water sealer to seal the wood. Sealing the wood was not part of his job and Guignard said she would do it, but never has. No independent or expert testimony was offered to show that a leak exists in the overhang or that any leak which is alleged to exist is the result of Wells' work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against James Wells. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5603 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Wells Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted as a Conclusion of Law. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9-11 are rejected as being unnecessary for the resolution of this matter. Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 695 Quincy, Florida 32351 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Notice To Show Cause issued November 9, 1989 by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Barkap, Inc., d/b/a Flamingo Inn (Flamingo) held a valid public lodging establishment license located at 2011 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, license number 74-03605H. Flamingo is operated by Peter Kappelman, President of Barkap Inc., and his wife who is also a corporate officer of Barkap, Inc. Flamingo has only 24 rental units. Prior to June 1988, George Houllis, Environmental Health Inspector, with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), was assigned to inspect Flamingo's establishment. While attempting to inspect a fire extinguisher Houllis broke the glass in the door of a cabinet containing a fire extinguisher. Houllis contends that the glass door was already cracked, while Kappelman contends that it was not cracked, and that Houllis attempted to "cover it up". At Kappelman's insistence, the Division paid for the repair at a cost of approximately $35.00. However, as a result of this incident, Charles Casper, another Environmental Health Inspector with the Division, was assigned to inspect the Flamingo establishment beginning June 1988. The Division's policy is to inspect licensed public lodging establishments on a quarterly basis and, in accordance with that policy, Charles Casper inspected the Flamingo on at least a quarterly basis beginning in June 1988. Shortly after Casper began inspecting the Flamingo, the relationship between Casper and Kappelman deteriorated and reached a point where each party became personal with their remarks, with Kappelman refusing to sign the inspection report, describing Casper's behavior as "Gestapo methods", and alleging that the Flamingo was being treated differently than other establishments along the "strip" on Daytona Beach. While Casper may have been strict with his inspections of the Flamingo, there is insufficient evidence to show that his behavior could be described as arbitrary or that he treated the Flamingo differently than any other licensed establishment. Violations of a minor nature are normally cited on the inspection report to document, warn or educate the licensee of corrections that need to be made, usually by the next routine inspection date. However, where corrections of minor violations are not made by the date indicated on the inspection report, a minor violation can become a major violation, usually at the discretion of the inspector. The Flamingo had been warned on the September 12, 1988 inspection report by Casper for having exit doors propped open on all floors and listed the violation as a minor violation. There was no date for making the correction on the report, but two subsequent inspection reports dated December 15, 1988 and January 12, 1989 did not show exit doors being propped open as a violation on those dates. The record is not clear as to why another inspection was made within a month of the December 15, 1988 inspection, but apparently it was a follow-up inspection concerning a major violation listed on the September 12, 1988 inspection report concerning locking devices on doors wherein a Notice To Show Cause was issued. However, this matter was settled without the necessity of a hearing and the case dismissed. Flamingo was cited again on June 5, 1989 for having exit doors propped open with wooden wedges and advised to remove all props from the exit doors and given until the next routine inspection date to make the correction. The next routine inspection of the Flamingo was on September 25, 1989, and at that time Flamingo was cited again for having exit doors propped open with wooden wedges on the first second and third floors. Since the same violation had been cited on June 5, 1989 and not corrected by the time of the next routine inspection on September 25, 1989, Casper considered this violation as a major violation and requested that a Notice To Show Cause be issued. In addition to the major violation cited on September 25, 1989, Casper cited six minor violations on the inspection report issued on September 25, 1989. These violations were as follows: (1) Failure to provide exit sign for stairway exit door; (2) Failure to maintain walkway emergency light in good repair; (3) Failure to maintain fiberglass shower liners, building exteriors, stairways, inside cabinet under sink and walls in good repair and failure to maintain proper cleanliness of back panel and wall behind trash can; (4) Failure to maintain proper cleanliness of tub and bathroom walls in good repair (walls need paint); (5) Failure to provide covers for exterior trash cans and; (6) Failure to provide room rate for door in unit number 204. A Notice To Show Cause was issued by the Division on November 9, 1989 charging Flamingo with the major and minor violations discussed above. Casper conducted a pre-conference re-inspection of Flamingo on November 28, 1989 to determine compliance with the September 25, 1989 inspection report. While Flamingo did not totally comply by correcting all cf the violations cited in the September 25, 1989 inspection report, it did correct several of the violations. For convenience, Kappelman leaves the wooden wedges in the vicinity of the exit doors for use by the guest in propping open doors while carrying luggage in and out of their rooms and the cleaning staff while carrying linen and other items in and out of the rooms and other areas of the motel. Kappelman did not remove the wooden wedges from the vicinity of the exit doors after Flamingo was cited for this violation on June 5, 1989. Casper did not observe any persons, including maids or guest, in the vicinity of the exit doors that were propped open on September 25, 1989. Although not every inspection report shows the time of day the inspection was made, those reports that do show the time indicate the inspection was made during the time of day when the maids would be cleaning and guests would be checking out of their rooms. Flamingo is aware that the doors are being propped open for short periods of time for the purposes previously stated but does not feel that this is a violation. The minor violation cited in the September 25, 1989 inspection report concerning the missing exit sign on second floor west was not cited in the November 28, 1989 inspection report as a violation. Apparently it had been corrected, because the exit sign was missing on September 25, 1989 as admitted to by Kappelman. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that there was not another approved exit sign that clearly marked the exit and visible from any direction of the exit access. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to show that low level exit signs were specifically required in the Flamingo. The minor violation cited in the September 25, 1989 inspection report for failure to maintain the walkway emergency light by Room 106 in good repair in violation of Rule 7C-1.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, was also cited in the November 28, 1989 inspection report as a violation. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that the area of Flamingo serviced by this emergency light would not be well-lighted during the day and night in the event the regular light was not functioning. On September 25, 1989 Casper inspected Rooms 204 and 303 as suggested by Kappelman because these rooms were unoccupied and available for rent. In both rooms (204 and 303) Casper cited Flamingo for bathtub liners having loose caulking resulting in the liner separating from the wall. The violation had not been corrected at the time of the re-inspection on November 28, 1989. Casper cited cleanliness violations on September 25, 1989 as follows: (1) in room 204 a substance on back portion of cabinet; (2) hair on tub in room 303; (3) splatter on wall behind trash can in room 303; and (4) exterior trash can lid missing by rooms 103 and 106. The re-inspection report indicates the splatter on wall behind trash can to be in room 204 rather than room 303 as indicated in September 25, 1989 inspection report. Kappelman admits that a splatter the size of a quarter was present. The remaining cleanliness citations in the September 25, 1989 inspection report appear to have been corrected at the time of re-inspection. Numerous cracks were noted on the exterior of stairwell and outer walls on September 25, 1989. Casper assumed these cracks to be maintenance cracks and not structural in nature (settling cracks) because, with one exception, the cracks did not have any monitoring devices (measuring gauges). These cracks were still evident at the re-inspection. However, the cracks previously had measuring gauges to determine if there was settling, but had been removed without Kappelman's knowledge. The record is not clear whether the cracks were eventually determined to be structural or maintenance cracks. However, all of the cracks were monitored for a period of time. In any event, the cracks had not been repaired at the time of re-inspection, but are now repaired. Casper determined that the "paint job" on the bathroom walls in Room 303 was poor because it appeared that there was only one coat of paint resulting in the dry wall bleeding through. There was no mention of the bathroom walls needing paint in Room 204. However, in the re-inspection report Casper noticed that the bathroom walls in Room 204 needed painting. It is not clear whether Casper made an error in room numbers or if both rooms needed painting and Room 303 had been corrected on November 28, 1989. However, it is clear that the bathroom walls in all rooms were not painted as such but the drywall was impregnated with paint to give the appearance of being painted. There is insufficient evidence to show that painting would be applicable in either room due to the type of wall. Flamingo was cited on September 25, 1989 for failure to have room rates posted in room 204. Based upon Casper's thorough job of inspecting that day, as testified to by Rappelman, it has been shown that that the room rates were neither posted on the door nor in the room, notwithstanding Kappelman's testimony to the contrary.
Recommendation In making the following recommendation I am mindful of the Division's "guidelines" of increasing the penalty five times for a major violation and doubling the penalty of a minor violation when the violation is not corrected at the time of the Informal Conference Call-Back Inspection. However, these guidelines would appear to have a "chilling effect" on a licensee's decision to challenge the Division in the administrative forum, and also conclusively presume that the penalty should be the same regardless of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the violations, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of: (1) the major violation of securing exit doors in an open position in violation of Section 17-2.2.1(a) and 5.2.2.8 of the Code as adopted by Rule 4A-43.006, Florida Administrative Code; (2) the minor violation of failing to properly maintain the fiberglass liner and the cleanliness of the inside of the cabinet and the area behind the trash can in violation of Section 7C-1.003(1), Florida Administrative Code; (3) the minor violation of failing to keep the lid on an exterior trash can in violation of Section 7C-1.003(5), Florida Administrative Code, and (4) the minor violation of failing to post room rates in room 204 in violation of Section 7C-3.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, and for such violations assess an administrative fine of $100.00 for the major violation and $50.00 for each of the three minor violation for a total fine of $250.00. It is further recommended that all other violations cited in the Amended Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0183 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3 and 3, respectively. 5-7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 5, respectively as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 9. 11-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, and 10, respectively. 13-16. Adopted in Findings of Fact (4,6), (7,9), 18, 19, and (20,21), respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23 with the exception of the room number which should be 303. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 19-21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 5, and 25, respectively. 22. Not material or relevant to this proceeding. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not file any proposed findings of fact with the Division of Administrative Hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C. Masters, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Paul J. Dubbeld, Esquire First Union Bank Building Suite 815 444 Seabreeze Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Fred Fluty, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as a roofing contractor, having been issued license number CCC 57995 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for and did business as “Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. of the Fla. Keys” (Victor’s Roofing). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Johnson was an owner of property located at 3214 Harriet Avenue, Key West, Florida (the subject property). Mr. Johnson lives in Hollywood, Florida. The subject property is rental property. Respondent and his company are not licensed to do drywall work in Key West, Florida, and they are not licensed with Petitioner other than as a roofing contractor. ROOFING WORK On November 3, 2008, Respondent, on behalf of Victor’s Roofing, entered into a contract with Mr. Johnson to re-roof the subject property. The proposal submitted by Respondent to Mr. Johnson contained Victor’s Roofing’s full corporate name; its office address in Marathon, Florida; two telephone numbers; and a fax number. The proposal was signed by Respondent. The proposal described in some detail the scope of the work. The price of the work was $7,000.00. Mr. Johnson accepted the proposal. Victor’s Roofing completed the roofing job to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. A leak developed after the roof was completed and Victor’s Roofing promptly repaired the leak to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint alleged that Victor’s Roofing had failed to obtain a permit for the roofing job on the subject property and that it had failed to obtain required inspections. Those allegations were the result of an error by Petitioner’s investigator. Ms. Del Rio obtained records from the City of Key West Building Department for the wrong address. Instead of obtaining the permit history for the subject property (3214 Harriet Avenue) she requested and obtained the permit history for 3314 Harriet Avenue. Respondent applied for a permit for the roofing job on the subject property on November 11, 2006, and he obtained an inspection of the roof on November 27, 2007 [sic]. There was insufficient evidence to establish that any other permit or any other inspection was required for the roofing work. DRYWALL WORK After the roofing job had been completed (but before the inspection on November 27, 2007),2 Mr. Johnson informed Respondent by telephone that he needed someone to replace drywall that had been damaged during the period of time the subject property’s roof leaked. Mr. Johnson asked Respondent whether he knew anyone who could do the job. Respondent replied in the affirmative and told Mr. Johnson he would have someone contact him about doing the work.3 Thereafter, Respondent’s brother, Early Harris, contacted Mr. Johnson and the two of them verbally agreed on a price of $4,000. At the time Respondent put Early Harris in touch with Mr. Johnson, Respondent knew that Early Harris was not licensed to do drywall work in Key West. After giving Mr. Johnson’s telephone number to Early Harris, Respondent had no further involvement with the drywall work on the subject property. The price of the drywall work escalated to $9,000.00 after the work began. On November 25, 2006, Early Harris and Mr. Johnson signed a written proposal agreeing to the price of $9,000.00.4 This was a form proposal with the following: Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. 2nd Generation Serving South Florida Licensed & Insured Marathon, Fla. The only telephone number on the proposal other than Mr. Johnson’s, was the number for Early Harris’ cell phone. The contract signed by Respondent on November 3, 2006, for the roofing work was on a different form and utilized a different font than the contract signed by Early Harris on November 25, 2006. The name of the corporation on the proposal for the drywall work, while similar to the name of Respondent’s company, was different. Early Harris has worked for Respondent’s business for several years, but there was no clear and convincing evidence that Early Harris had the authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business in November 2006. There was no evidence that Early Harris is a part owner of Respondent’s business or that he is an officer or director of Respondent’s business. Respondent testified, credibly, that Early Harris was not authorized to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business at the times relevant to this proceeding. There was no clear and convincing evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion that Earl Harris had no authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business. Early Harris did the drywall work on the subject property. Mr. Johnson paid Early Harris $9,000.00 for the drywall work. Mr. Johnson could not find the check(s) he wrote for the drywall work and, consequently the check(s) were unavailable as an exhibit. His recollection as to the name of the payee of the check(s) was not clear. Respondent testified, credibly, that neither he nor his business received any of the money for the drywall work. The drywall work Early Harris did was not to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 to a drywall contractor for corrective work. In addition, Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 for a permit to have the repair work done.5 The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $191.16.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2010.
