Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 16th day of November, 1981.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, License Number CB C043621, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on July 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified Building Contractor, having been issued license number CB C043621, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as an individual. At no time pertinent to this proceeding was Respondent the licensed qualifying agent for Merrill Homes. On or about June 17, 1992, Kathy Rose and Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, executed a Letter of Intent to build a house for the Roses in the Heathrow Woods subdivision in Seminole County, Florida. At the time the Letter of Intent was signed, Kathy Rose gave Respondent a check for $2,500.00 as a partial deposit. Subsection D of the Letter of Intent provided that "[s]hould the Buyers not proceed with construction of the residence, the Builder will refund the Buyers' deposit less any expenses incurred on the Buyers' behalf by the builder." On or about June 25, 1992, Respondent stopped by the Rose residence and picked up a second check for $2,500.00 made out to Merrill Homes by Jeff Rose as the second half of the Rose's $5,000.00 deposit. On or about August 10, 1992, Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, and Jeff and Kathy Rose executed a contract to build a house in the Heathrow Woods subdivision as described in the Letter of Intent. The contract executed between Respondent and the Roses did not list Respondent's state contractor's license number. Respondent provided the Roses with a set of drawings of the proposed house, but did not provide the Roses with any other goods or services. Performance by Respondent under the contract was contingent upon the sale of the Roses' existing house. From the time the contract was signed until about October or November 1993, the Roses were unable to sell their existing house. Therefore, no work as performed by Respondent under the contract except for the production of the drawings of the house. In October or November 1993, Heathrow Realty contacted the Roses and informed them that someone was interested in the lot that they had placed a down payment on in Heathrow Woods Subdivision. Since their existing house had not sold in over a year, the Roses decided to release their option on the lot in Heathrow Woods and to cancel the contract with Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Kathy Rose contacted Respondent in November 1993 and informed him that they had released the lot. They requested that their deposit be returned from Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Respondent informed Kathy Rose that he would have their deposit refunded sometime after the first of December 1993. Having heard nothing from Respondent, the Roses had their attorney send a letter, dated December 30, 1993, to Respondent demanding a refund of their deposit. In January 1994, Kathy Rose once again contacted Respondent via telephone. At that time, Respondent informed Ms. Rose that their refund would only be $500.00, the balance of their deposit having been used for the house plans Respondent had provided. Respondent also informed Ms. Rose that he would mail an accounting to her. Respondent has not provided the Roses with an accounting, refunded all or any part of their deposit, or had any contact with them whatsoever since January, 1994. Examination of the plans, supplied to the Roses by Respondent, indicated that they were not really house plans per se, but rather hand-drawn sketches of a floor plan. The plans have no value with respect to their use in building the house depicted and could not be used to obtain a building permit in Seminole County. The plans Respondent supplied the Roses are valued somewhere between one and two hundred dollars. As a Certified Building Contractor, Respondent knew the actual value of the plans he supplied to the Roses. Respondent knowingly attempted to deceive the Roses by making false statements as to the value of the plans in order to deprive the Roses of a substantial portion of their down payment that they were entitled to have refunded to them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order, as follows: Dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint. Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(c), (g), (j), (m) and (n), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1992). Suspending Respondent's license as a Certified Building Contractor for a period of three months, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500,and requiring, as a condition of reinstatement, restitution to Jeff and Cathy Rose in the amount of $4,800, and such other reasonable and necessary conditions as the Board may require. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 13th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0669 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-19, 21-24. Rejected as subsumed : paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Senior Construction Attorney G. W. Harrell, Esquire Lead Construction Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Alan Merrill 813 Largo Court Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue DOAH Case No. 89-3902, the Barona and Carrow Complaints Whether Respondent violated Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(d), by willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof. Whether Respondent violated Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(m), by being guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 90-1900, the Grantz, Victor, Beckett, Maffetonne, and Wolfe Complaints Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j), and 489.105(4), and 489.119, Florida Statutes, by being guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(h), (m), (j), and 489.119, and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of financial mismanagement or misconduct. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by wilful or deliberate violation or disregard of applicable local building codes and laws. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j), 489.119, and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, by failing to properly supervise contracting activities he was responsible for as qualifying agent, which supervisory deficiency also reflected gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(m), and (j), Florida Statutes, by giving a guarantee on a job to a consumer and thereafter failing to reasonably honor said guarantee in violation of Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 90-1901, the Klokow Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by wilfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or any municipalities or counties thereof. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of fraud or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 90-1902, the Meister Complaint Whether the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by failure to obtain a permit. DOAH Case No. 91-7493, the Antonelli Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 91-7951, the Insurance, Palomba, Romanello and Marin Complaints The Insurance Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of his profession. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by wilfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state or any municipalities or counties thereof. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 455.227(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by intentionally violating a Board rule. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Palomba Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Romanello Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The Marin Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 92-0370, the Pappadoulis Complaint Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing financial misconduct. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing gross negligence, incompetence and misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Findings Of Fact Pre-Hearing Admissions 3/ Admissions Applicable to All Cases Respondent is currently licensed as a contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent's current license number from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board is CG C040139. Respondent is licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified general contractor. Respondent holds Florida Certified Roofing License No. CC-042792. Respondent is the qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc. As qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc., Respondent is responsible for all work performed. DOAH Case No. 89-3902 Respondent was licensed as set forth in items 1, 2, 3 and 4 above at the time of the job alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Exhibit "A", attached to the Request for Admissions 4/ is a true and correct copy of the contract between Sarah S. Carrow and the firm Respondent qualified at the time the contract was executed. As a qualifier for Tropical Home Industries, Inc., Respondent was responsible in his capacity as a certified general and roofing contractor for all work performed by Tropical Home Industries, Inc., pursuant to its contract with Sarah S. Carrow. Pursuant to the contract between Sarah S. Carrow and Tropical Home Industries, Inc., all work under said contract was to be completed in three (3) to six (6) weeks. Respondent, acting through Tropical Home Industries, Inc., failed to complete all work under the contract with Sarah S. Carrow within six (6) weeks after work was commenced. Respondent, acting through Tropical Home Industries, Inc., failed to obtain a final inspection of the work under the contract with Sarah S. Carrow prior to the building permit's expiration date. Broward County, Florida, has adopted the South Florida Building Code as its local ordinance governing residential construction. Respondent's failure to obtain a timely final inspection of the work performed pursuant to the contract between Tropical Home Industries, Inc., and Sarah S. Carrow is a violation of Section 305.2 of the South Florida Building Code. Section 1405.1 of the South Florida Building Code requires installation of either a window or vent fan in each bathroom. Section 3407.9(a) of the South Florida Building Code requires that flashing be installed on plumbing vent pipes which are installed through the roof. Any problems or deficiencies in the work performed by Tropical Home Industries, Inc., pursuant to its contract with Sarah S. Carrow were caused by employees and/or subcontractors of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. DOAH Case Nos. 89-3902, 90-1900, 90-1901, and 90-1902 DOAH Case No. 89-3902 The Baronas' house is located at 1251 Westchester Drive East, West Palm Beach, Florida 33417. Respondent contracted with the Baronas as the qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. The Baronas' house is located within Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County is the appropriate Building Department under which all inspections were to have been performed. DOAH Case No. 90-1901 On or about December 5, 1988, Respondent contracted with Mel Klokow, acting for Linda Klokow ("Klokow"), for the renovation of a screen porch with a roof to her home. Respondent contracted with Klokow as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Permit No. 88-8085 was issued by the local building department. The work at the Klokow residence did not pass final inspection. DOAH Case No. 90-1902 In December of 1987, Respondent contracted to close in a screen porch for Janet Meister ("Meister"). Respondent contracted with Meister as the qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the work performed at the Meister's. Respondent's failure to obtain a permit for the Meister job violated local building codes and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes. DOAH Case No. 90-1900 The Grantz home is located at 10878 Granite Street, Boca Raton, Florida. The approximate amount of the contract price with the Grantz was $1,890.00. Respondent contracted for the Grantz job as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Respondent began work at the Grantz residence on or about May 10, 1989. The work at the Grantz residence failed final inspection on July 12, 1989. Respondent wilfully violated applicable local building codes and laws on the Grantz project. Respondent wilfully disregarded local building codes and laws in connection with the Grantz project. Respondent deliberately violated applicable local building codes and laws in connection with the Grantz project. Respondent deliberately disregarded applicable local building codes and laws in connection with the Grantz project. On or about April 12, 1989, and April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Stephen Victor ("Victor") to install sliding glass doors at his home. The Victor residence is located at 9768 Majorca Place, Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price with Victor was $3,293.00. Respondent contracted with Victor as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Victor paid a total deposit of $670.00 to Respondent. Respondent never began work at the Victor residence. On or about April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Vinton Beckett ("Beckett") to install windows at her home. The Beckett residence is located at 2501 N.W. 41st Avenue, Unit 302, Lauderhill, Florida. The contract price with Beckett was $1,684.00. Respondent contracted with Beckett as a qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. On or about October 29, 1988, Respondent contracted with Thomas and Sherry Maffetonne (the "Maffetonnes") to construct a patio enclosure at their home. The Maffetonne's residence is located at 22980 Old Inlet Bridge Drive, Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price for the work to be performed at the Maffetonnes was $4,350.00. Respondent contracted with the Maffetonnes as a qualifying agent for Tropical Home Industries, Inc. A five-year warranty on materials was given by Respondent for the work to be performed at the Maffetonne's. A one-year warranty on labor was given by Respondent for the work performed at the Maffetonne's. On or about June 6, 1989, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Morton Wolfe (the "Wolfes") to install windows at their home. The Wolfe's residence is located at 7267 Huntington Lane, #204, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent contracted with the Wolfes as the qualifying agent of Tropical Home Industries, Inc. Respondent failed to obtain a timely permit or call for required inspections at the Wolfe residence. DOAH Case No. 91-7951 On June 21, 1990, Tropical's general liability insurance coverage (policy number 891006GL327), produced by Steven Adams and Associates, Inc., (hereinafter "Adams and Associates") and afforded by Guardian P & C Insurance Company, expired. On July 17, 1990, Tropical issued a check to Adams and Associates in the amount of $2,475.00 to obtain general liability and workers' compensation insurance. Upon receipt of the check, Adams and Associates issued a Certificate of Insurance to the Davie (Florida) Building Department indicating that Tropical had general liability (policy number GL 235810) and workers' compensation insurance in force through July 17, 1991. After said Certificate of Insurance was issued, Tropical stopped payment on the check issued to Adams and Associates. Tropical failed to issue an additional check or remit payment of any kind, resulting in both the general liability and workers' compensation insurance being canceled, effective July17, 1990. In September of 1990, a Certificate of Insurance was submitted to the Davie Building Department indicating that Tropical had general liability insurance in effect from September21, 1990, until September 21, 1991. Said certificate had been altered in that the issue, effective, and expiration dates had been updated to reflect that the policy coverage was current and in force. The policy listed on the certificate (number 891006GL327, produced by Adams and Associates with coverage being afforded by Guardian P & C Insurance Company) expired on June21,1990, and was never renewed or kept in force after that date. The Davie Building Department had no other certificates or records indicating that Tropical had insurance coverage. Between July 17, 1990, and April 8, 1991, Tropical obtained five (5) building permits from the Davie Building Department. At no time during the aforementioned period did Tropical have general liability insurance, thereby violating Section 302.1(b) of the South Florida Building Code which requires that building permit applicants be qualified in accordance with PartI of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Licensees are required to maintain public liability insurance at all times as provided by rules promulgated pursuant to Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Construction Industry Licensing Board records indicate that Tropical has general liability insurance coverage through Equity Insurance (hereinafter "Equity") of Hollywood, Florida. Effective June 8, 1988, Tropical's insurance with Equity was canceled. On February 20, 1991, Tropical entered into an agreement with Michael and Margaret Palomba (hereinafter "Palombas") to perform enclosure and remodeling work at the Palombas' residence located at 130 North East 5th Court, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The approximate contract price was $11,978.00. On March 13, 1991, Tropical received a $2,994.50 deposit from the Palombas. On March 25, 1991, Tropical obtained a permit for the project from the Broward County Building Department. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed an interior closet from the area that was to be remodeled. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed interior plaster from the area that was to be remodeled. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed exterior doors from the area that was to be remodeled. Tropical then stopped work stating that rotten wood had been discovered, and requested an additional $2,800.00 to continue with and complete the project. Tropical refused to perform any additional work without the Palombas agreeing to the added cost. Tropical failed to continue with the project pursuant to the original agreement. Tropical refused to continue with the project pursuant to the original agreement. Tropical failed to return any monies to the Palombas. In May 1991, the Palombas hired a second contractor, Dan Sturgeon, to complete the project for $13,830.00. On or about July 11, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Don Romanello (hereinafter "Romanello") to construct a screen room on an existing slab at Romanello's residence located in Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price was $9,500.00. Tropical received $4,800.00 in payments from Romanello, but failed to obtain a permit or perform any work pursuant to the agreement. Tropical has failed to return any portion of Romanello's payments. Tropical refused to communicate with Romanello. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. On or about June 23, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Marcelina Marin (hereinafter "Marin") to construct a screen room at Marin's residence located in Broward County, Florida, for $4,021.00. Tropical received a $2,000.00 deposit from Marin at the time the agreement was entered into. Tropical failed to perform any work under the terms of the agreement. Tropical has failed to return Marin's deposit. Tropical has refused to return Marin's deposit. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case No. 91-7493 On July 2, 1988, Respondent contracted with Anthony Antonelli ("Antonelli") to construct an aluminum roof over the patio and gutters of his residence at 9303 Laurel Green Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida. The price of the contract was $2,016.00. Antonelli paid a deposit of $500.00 to Tropical Home Industries. Respondent informed Antonelli that he would not be able to perform the work at the contracted price. Respondent never performed any work at the Antonelli's home. Respondent canceled the contract with Antonelli. Respondent failed to return the deposit paid by Antonelli to Tropical Home Industries. Testimony at Final Hearing Facts Applicable to All Cases Respondent is, and has been at all times hereto, a certified general and roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C040139 and CC 2042792. For all contracts and jobs referenced in all of the administrative complaints in these consolidated cases, Respondent acted through the contracting business with which he was associated and for which he was responsible in his capacity as a licensed contractor. DOAH Case No. 89-3902, The Barona and Carrow Complaints Respondent contracted with Rhonda Barona to build an addition to her home at 1251 Westchester Dr. East., West Palm Beach, Florida, for approximately $5,124. The work performed at the Barona residence took an unreasonable amount of time to complete. The permit issued to perform the work at the Barona residence was canceled and Respondent failed to obtain a final inspection. Respondent contracted with Sarah Carrow to build an addition at her home located at 1421 N. 70th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida, for approximately $14,460.60. Respondent allowed the permit to expire and failed to obtain required inspections at the Carrow residence. Respondent failed to fully comply with applicable local codes by failing to install a window or vent fan in the bathroom. DOAH Case No. 90-1900, The Grantz, Victor, Beckett, Maffetonne and Wolfe Complaints On or about March 31, 1989, Respondent contracted with John and Lori Grantz to install windows at 10878 Granite Street, Boca Raton, Florida, for the amount of $1,890.00. Work at the Grantz residence began on or about May 10, 1989. At the time work began, no permit had been obtained. A late permit was obtained on June 15, 1989, in violation of local codes. The work performed by Respondent at the Grantz residence failed final inspection on July 12, 1989, because the structure was not constructed as for the intended use. The windows which were installed were designed as a temporary structure, removable in cases of severe weather and not as a permanent enclosure. On or about April 12, 1989, and April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Stephen Victor ("Victor") to install sliding glass doors and windows at 9768 Majorca Place, Boca Raton, Florida, for the total amount of $3,293.00. Victor paid Tropical a total deposit of $670.00, but work never began. On or about April 17, 1989, Respondent contracted with Vinton Beckett ("Beckett") to install windows at 2501 N.W. 41st St., Unit 808, Lauderhill, Florida, in the amount of $1,684. A five-year warranty on materials and a one-year warranty on labor were provided to Beckett by Tropical. Respondent failed to obtain a timely permit or call for required inspections in violation of local law. Respondent failed to correct defects and deficiencies in the work performed at the Beckett residence in a reasonable amount of time. On or about October 29, 1988, Respondent contracted with Thomas and Sharee Maffetonne to construct a patio enclosure at 22980 Old Inlet Bridge Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the amount of $4,350.00. A five-year warranty on materials and a one-year warranty on labor were given. Respondent failed to correct defects and deficiencies in the work on the Maffetonne residence in a reasonable amount of time. On or about June 6, 1989, Respondent contracted with Morton Wolfe to install windows at 7267 Huntington Lane, #204, Delray Beach, Florida, for the amount of $1,668.13. Respondent failed to obtain a timely permit or call for required inspections at the Wolfe residence in violation of local codes. DOAH Case No. 90-1901 The Klokow Complaint On or about December 5, 1989, Respondent contracted with Mel Klokow, acting for Linda Klokow, for the construction of a screen porch with a roof to her home at 5292 N.E. 10th Terr., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for the sum of $4,473.00. Permit number 88-8085 was issued by the local building department. The work performed at the Klokow residence initially failed to pass the final inspection, and the Respondent failed to return to correct the code violations in a reasonable amount of time. DOAH Case Number 90-1902 The Meister Complaint In December of 1987, Respondent contracted to close in a screen porch for Janet Meister. Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the work performed, which is a violation of local building codes. DOAH Case Number 91-7493 The Antonelli Complaint On July 2, 1988, Respondent contracted with Anthony Antonelli ("Antonelli") to construct an aluminum roof over the patio and gutters at his residence at 9303 Laurel Green Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida. The price of the contract for the work to be performed at the Antonelli residence was $2,016.00. Antonelli remitted a deposit of $500 to the Respondent. Respondent informed Antonelli that he would not be able to perform said job for the contracted price and no work ever began. Respondent canceled the contract with Antonelli and failed to return the deposit to Antonelli. DOAH Case Number 91-7951 The Insurance, Palomba, Romanello and Marin Complaints On June 21, 1990, Tropical's general liability insurance coverage, policy number (891006GL327), produced by Stephen Adams & Associates, Inc., ("Adams & Associates") and afforded by Guardian Property & Casualty Company, expired. On July 17, 1990, Tropical issued a check to Adams & Associates in the amount of $2,475.00 to obtain and/or renew general liability and workers' compensation insurance. Upon receipt of the check, Adams & Associates issued a certificate of insurance to the Davie Building Department in Davie, Florida, indicating that Tropical had general liability (policy number 235810) and workers compensation insurance in force through July 17, 1991. After said certificate of insurance was issued, Tropical stopped payment on the check issued to Adams & Associates. Tropical failed to issue an additional check or remit payment of any kind resulting in the general liability and workers compensation insurance being canceled, effective July 17, 1990. In about September 1990, a certificate of insurance was submitted to the Davie Building Department indicating that Tropical had general liability insurance in effect from September 21, 1990, until September 21, 1991. Said certificate had been altered in that the issue, effective and expiration dates had been updated to reflect that the policy coverage was current and in force. The policy listed on the certificate (number 891006GL327), produced by Adams & Associates and afforded by Guardian Property & Casualty Company, expired on June 21, 1990, and was never renewed or kept in force after that date. The Davie Building Department has no other certificates or records indicating that Tropical has insurance coverage. Between July 17, 1990, and April 8, 1991, Tropical obtained five (5) building permits from the Davie Building Department. At no time during the aforementioned period did Tropical have general liability insurance thereby violating Section 302.1(b) of the South Florida Building Code which requires that building permit applicants be qualified in accordance with Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Licensees are required to maintain public liability insurance at all times as provided by rules promulgated pursuant to Part I of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB") records indicate that Tropical has general liability insurance coverage through Equity Insurance Company ("Equity") of Hollywood, Florida. Effective June 8, 1988, Tropical's insurance with Equity was canceled. On February 20, 1991, Tropical entered into an agreement with Michael and Margaret Palomba (the "Palombas") to perform enclosure and remodeling work at the Palomba's residence located at 130 N.E. 5th Ct., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The approximate contract price was $11,978.00. On March 13, 1991, Tropical received a $2,994.50 deposit from the Palombas. On March 25, 1991, Tropical obtained a permit for the project from the Broward County Building Department. Subsequent to receiving the permit, Tropical removed an interior closet and exterior doors from the area that was to be remodeled. Tropical then stopped work stating that rotten wood had been discovered, and requested an additional $2,800.00 to continue with and complete the project. Tropical refused to perform any additional work without the Palombas agreeing to the added cost. Tropical failed or refused to continue with the project pursuant to the original agreement and failed to return any monies to the Palombas. In May, 1991, the Palombas hired a second contractor, Dan Sturgeon, to complete the project for $13,000.00. 156. Based on the foregoing, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. On or about July 11, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Don and Norma Romanello (the "Romanellos") to construct a screened room on an existing slab at the Romanello's residence located in Boca Raton, Florida. The contract price was $9,500. Tropical received a $4,800.00 payment from the Romanellos but failed to perform any work pursuant to the agreement. Tropical has failed or refused to return any portion of the Romanellos payments and has refused to communicate with the Romanellos. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. On or about June 23, 1990, Tropical entered into an agreement with Marcelina Marin to construct a screened room at Marin's residence located in Broward County, Florida for $4,021.00 Tropical received a $2,000.00 deposit at the time the agreement was entered into. Tropical failed to perform any work under the terms of the agreement, and has failed or refused to return Marin's deposit. Based on the preceding, Tropical committed misconduct in the practice of contracting. DOAH Case Number 92-0370 The Pappadoulis Complaint On or about February 11, 1990, the Respondent contracted with John Pappadoulis ("Pappadoulis") to remodel a Florida room for the agreed upon amount of $11,448.00 at his residence located at 983 Southwest 31st Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent received a deposit of $648.00, but never obtained a permit nor began work. The Respondent failed or refused to return Pappadoulis' deposit. John Pappadoulis has since passed away. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Monetary Damages Several of the customers in these cases suffered monetary damages. The Baronas had to hire an attorney to deal with the Respondent. The Baronas also incurred additional costs in the work they performed to complete the contract. John and Lori Grantz also suffered monetary damages due to their dealings with the Respondent. The work at the Grantz residence was never completed by the Respondent. The Respondent filed a lien on the Grantz property and also filed a lawsuit to receive the full amount of the contract price. The Grantz had to hire an attorney to obtain legal advice and to defend the lawsuit. The Grantz prevailed in that lawsuit and a judgment was entered requiring the Respondent to refund the $500.00 cash deposit. The Grantz also spent at least $150.00 on attorney fees. The deposit money was never returned and none of their costs were ever reimbursed by the Respondent. Steven Victor also sustained monetary damages in his dealings with the Respondent. Victor paid the Respondent $670.00 as a deposit. No work was ever performed. After requesting the return of his deposit money and failing to receive it, Victor filed a civil action against the Respondent. Judgment was entered in favor of Victor, but the judgment was never paid. The Maffetonnes also sustained monetary damages in their dealings with the Respondent. The Respondent agreed to refund a portion of the contract money to the Maffetonnes due to a problem with the carpet he installed incorrectly, but failed to ever refund any money. The Maffetonnes therefore paid for goods which were defective, and never received a compensatory credit. Klokow also sustained monetary damages in his dealings with the Respondent Because of continuing roof problems, Klokow had to hire an independent roofing expert to inspect the roof and prepare a report. Mr. and Mrs. Palomba also sustained monetary damage due to their dealings with the Respondent. When the Respondent abandoned the Palomba job, the Palombas were forced to hire a second contractor at a higher contract price. The Respondent's actions also caused monetary damages to Antonelli, Pappadoulis, Marin, and Romanello. In each case, the homeowner paid a deposit to the Respondent, and the Respondent failed to ever perform work or return any of the deposit money. The Antonellis paid $500.00, Pappadoulis paid $648.00, Marin paid $2,000.00, and Romanello paid $4,800.00. Actual Job-Site Violations of Building Codes or Conditions Exhibiting Gross Negligence, Incompetence, or Misconduct by the Licensee Several of the jobs involved in these cases had actual job site violations of building codes or conditions which exhibited gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by the Respondent which had not been resolved as of the date of the formal hearing. At the Barona residence, the framing inspection failed twice before finally being passed a third time; the lath inspection failed three times before finally passing on the fourth time; and the final inspection failed and was never satisfactorily completed by the Respondent. At the Carrow residence, the Respondent failed to install a window or vent fan in the bathroom of the room addition which he installed. In addition to the building code violation, the work performed was incompetent as the structure installed leaked for many months. Further, the original permit expired prior to a final inspection ever being obtained. At the Grantz residence, the Respondent exhibited incompetence and misconduct by installing windows that he knew or should have known were unsuitable for the purposes specified by the customer. Severity of the Offense The large number of violations established in these cases indicates that the Respondent is a serious threat to the public. These violations establish that the Respondent had a pattern of failing to conduct any meaningful supervision of work in progress. And perhaps most serious of all is his frequent act of soliciting deposits for projects he apparently had no intention of even beginning, much less finishing. This latter practice borders on constituting some form of larceny. Danger to the Public The Respondent is a danger to the public in two ways. First, he is a financial threat to the public, most significantly by his practice of taking deposits for jobs he apparently did not intend to perform. Second, he is a threat to public safety, because the work he performs is often done in a haphazard, careless manner. The Number of Repetitions of Offenses As is obvious from the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order, the Respondent is guilty of numerous repeated offenses which occurred over a period of approximately three years. The Respondent's numerous offenses are indicative of an attitude of contempt or disregard for the requirements of the applicable rules and statutes. Number of Complaints Against Respondent The charges in these cases are based on fifteen separate customer complaints to the Department of Professional Regulation regarding the Respondent. Further, the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board received four complaints from homeowners regarding the Respondent 5/ and the Broward County Consumer Affairs Department received twenty-nine complaints regarding the Respondent. 6/ Such a large number of complaints indicates that the Respondent's shortcomings were not isolated events, but represent a recurring problem. The Length of Time the Licensee Has Practiced The Respondent was first licensed as a state general contractor in 1987. He obtained his roofing contractor license shortly thereafter. The Respondent's licenses were placed under emergency suspension in August of 1991. Damage to the Customers The damages, monetary and otherwise, suffered by the Respondent's customers has already been addressed. In addition, all of the Respondent's customers mentioned in the findings of fact suffered a great deal of aggravation, stress, and frustration in dealing with the Respondent. Penalty and Deterrent Effect In these cases, the proof submitted demonstrates that no penalties short of revocation of the Respondent's licenses and imposition of the maximum amount of fines will act as a deterrent to the Respondent and others and as appropriate punishment for the many violations established by the record in these cases. Efforts at Rehabilitation There is no persuasive evidence in the record of these cases that the Respondent has become, or is likely to become, rehabilitated. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence is to the effect that the Respondent is unwilling or unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the statutes and rules governing the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of all of the violations charged in each Administrative Complaint and Amended Administrative Complaint as noted in the conclusions of law, and that the Respondent be disciplined as follows: The Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 for each of the twenty-nine counts of violations charged and proved, for a grand total of $145,000.00 in administrative fines; The Respondent's license numbers CG C040139 and CC C042792 be revoked; and The Respondent be required to pay restitution to the following Complainants in the following amounts: Steven Victor - $670.00; John Grantz - $650.00; Don Romanello - $4,800.00; Marcelina Marin - $2,000.00; Anthony Antonelli - $500.00; John Pappadoulis' next of kin - $648.00. All restitution shall earn 12% interest per annum from the date the Complainants paid their deposit to Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of October, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1992.
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 11, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of 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 hereto, a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO13253 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. On or about November 20, 1993, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement (contract) with Kevin Watkins (Watkins) to construct a single family residence at 126 Meadow Lark Boulevard, Lot 65, Indian Lake Estates, Florida. The contract price was $333,944.00. Between December 7, 1993, and February 1, 1996, Watkins and Respondent executed 102 addenda to the contract which increased the contract price by approximately $241,874.43, for a total amount of approximately $575.818.43. On or about December 9, 1993, Respondent obtained permit number 93-120l850 from the Polk County Building Department and commenced work on the project. The contract provided that the "project shall be substantially completed on or about 195 days from the date all building permits are issued." However, due to the 100-plus addenda to the contract, it was estimated that an additional 190 days would be needed to complete the project. Additionally, construction ceased on the home for approximately 60 days so that Watkins could explore the possibility of a construction loan. However, due to the extent of completion, the lending institutions decided not to make any construction loans. On or about May 27, 1996, Watkins moved to Florida with the expectations that his home would be completed within a short period of time. (Watkins' recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of weeks. Respondent's recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of months.) In any event, Respondent did not complete the Watkins home within a couple of weeks or a couple of months. After Watkins moved to Florida, Respondent paid for Watkins to live in a Best Western motel for a few weeks. Subsequently, Respondent moved Watkins into a rental home for which Respondent paid the rent through September 1996. Beginning October 1996 through July 1999, Watkins paid $600.00 per month for a total of $20,400.00 as rent on the rental home. In early 1998, Respondent and Watkins went through the home, identified those items which had not been completed and Respondent made a handwritten list of those items. Respondent failed to complete the items identified on the list. In fact, shortly thereafter, Respondent ceased working on the project and was unresponsive to attempts to contact him. At the time Respondent ceased working on Watkins' home, the home was approximately 75 percent complete. While this estimation of completion may not be totally accurate, it is the best that could be derived based on the evidence presented, including Respondent's testimony to which I gave some credence. Watkins paid Respondent $561,617.91, which represents approximately 97.534 percent of the total contract price plus addenda to the contract. Seventy-five percent of the contract price plus addenda to the contract equals $431,863.82 for an overpayment of $129,754.09. To date, Respondent has not returned any of the money he received from Watkins above the amount completed under the contract. From early 1998, until August 1998, when Watkins had Respondent removed as general contractor on the building permit, Respondent failed to perform any work on the home for a period in excess of 90 days. Respondent contracted with Jack Eggleston to install cabinets in Watkins home. Eggleston performed under the contract but Respondent failed to pay Eggleston in full, requiring Watkins to pay Eggleston $1,200.00. After Watkins' home was partially complete, Respondent advised Watkins that he had the home insured when in fact he did not have the home covered with insurance. While Respondent was building Watkins' home, Respondent and Watkins entered into a joint venture called Contractors of Central Florida to build modular homes sometime after January 1, 1995. Respondent contends that some of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home, were in fact reimbursement to Respondent for funds he had advanced for the joint venture. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that any of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home were in fact reimbursement for funds advanced by Respondent for the joint venture. Up until the time of the final hearing, the Department had incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful review of the guidelines set forth in Rule 61G4-17.001(8) and (11), Florida Administrative Code, and the circumstances for purpose of mitigation or aggravation of penalty set forth in Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department: Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00; Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28, plus any such further costs which have or may accrue through the taking of final agency action and; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Kevin Watkins in the amount of $129,754.09 which represents the amounts accepted by Respondent for work not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Ronald J. Powell Post Office Box 7043 Indian Lake Estates, Florida 33855 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint or is responsible for the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C031547 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for A.A. Home Improvement Company, Inc. (A.A.), 4101 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On August 25, 1990, A.A. contracted with Anthony Williams, Sr., and Janice Williams, 1/ as the owners, to re-roof and perform internal renovations on the owners' house located at 2804 Avenue H, Fort Pierce, Florida, for a contract price of $6,900.00. The contract provided that all repairs and improvements would be done and completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner. The contract between the parties was an installment loan contract that provided for a mortgage on the house and property that was the subject of the contract. On August 25, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Williams and Ethel Nelson gave A.A. a mortgage on the property to secure payment of the amount of the contract. A.A. assigned the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc. on August 29, 1990. Subsequent to the assignment of the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc., Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., consolidated certain debts through a loan from Metropolitan Mortgage Company of Fort Pierce, Florida. With the proceeds of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams paid off the mortgage that had been given to A.A. on August 25, 1990, and assigned to Union Mortgage Company on August 29, 1990. To secure payment of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams gave Metropolitan a mortgage on the subject property. The Williams were still paying off the Metropolitan mortgage at the time of the formal hearing. The contract between A.A. and the owners required A.A. to remove the existing roof of the subject property and to replace the roof with a twenty-year fiberglass roof, repair the ceilings of three rooms with sheetrock, seal off holes in two walls (these holes resulted after two air conditioning units were removed), install a vinyl floor in the dining room, renovate a bathroom to 90 percent completion, and make certain unspecified minor repairs. A.A. is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. Respondent is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. The repair of the roof on the subject property was work that should be performed only by a certified or registered roofing contractor. Workmen from A.A. were present at the job site for approximately a week. After the work was performed, including the roofing work, the owners began having problems with the work performed by A.A. Water began to leak through the walls where the air conditioning units had been. This leaking resulted because A.A. did not properly seal the holes in the wall. Instead, A.A. merely nailed pieces of plywood over the holes where the air conditioning units had been. The roof leaked and caused damage to interior panelling. A.A. did none of the work on the bathroom that had been contracted. Mr. and Mrs. Williams attempted to get A.A. to come back and finish the work or to correct defective work on two occasions. On two separate occasions, a representative of A.A. promised to return to the job site to complete the work and to correct defective work. A.A. did not return to the job site and made no further effort to complete or correct the work on the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Williams will have to expend approximately $6,000 to repair the roof and interior of the house as a result of A.A.'s failure to perform its contractual duties. In negotiating the contract with A.A., the owners dealt with Christine McDonough, who was a corporate officer of A.A. and who had the authority to bind A.A. as a party to the contract. A building permit was required by the City of Fort Pierce Building Code for the construction contemplated by the subject contract. No permit was obtained by A.A. The Respondent did not supervise any of the work performed on the subject property by A.A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $2,250.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and pay restitution to Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, seeks to revoke the registered contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, Respondent, based on allegations, which will be set forth in detail hereafter, that he engaged in conduct violative of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent aided or abetted and/or knowingly combined or conspired with Mr. Howard North, an uncertified or unregistered contractor, to evade the provisions of Chapter 468.112(2)(b), and (c), Florida Statutes, by allowing North to use his certificate of registration without having any active participation in the operations, management, or control of North's operations. Based on the testimony adduced during the hearing and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor who holds license no. CGC007016, which is current and active. On or about July 25, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Csobor entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard North for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for a total price of $35,990. Neither Mr. or Mrs. North are certified or registered contractors in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #2). Respondent applied for and was issued a permit by the Martin County Building Department to construct a residence for the Csobors at the same address stipulated in the contract between the Csobors and the Norths, i.e., Northwest 16th Street, Palm Lake Park, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1). Howard North, a licensed masonry contractor for approximately nine (9) years was contacted by the Csobors through a sales representative from a local real estate firm. It appears from the evidence that North had previously constructed a "spec" house which the local realtor had sold and thus put the Csobors in contact with Mr. North when they were shown the "spec" house built by North. Evidence reveals that North contacted Borovina who agreed to pull the permit "if he could get some work from the job and could supervise the project". Having reached an agreement on this point, North purchased the lot to build the home for the Csobors and he orally contracted with the Respondent to, among other things, pull the permit, supervise construction, layout the home and do trim and carpentry work. North paid Respondent approximately $200 to layout the home for the Csobors. By the time that North had poured the slab and erected the subfloor, the Csobors became dissatisfied with his (North's) work and demanded that he leave the project. According to North, Respondent checked the progress of construction periodically. Prior to this hearing, the Csobors had never dealt with Respondent in any manner whatsoever. According to Csobor, North held himself out as a reputable building contractor. A contractor is defined in relevant part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. . . . real estate for others. . . Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephen J. Borovina 2347 Southeast Monroe Street Stuart, Florida 33494 J. Hoskinson, Jr. Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, 2347 S. E. Monroe Street, Stuart, Florida 33494, Respondent. / This cause came before the FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD at its regular meeting on February 10, 1978. Respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did not appear The FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD on February 10, 1978, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of STEPHEN J. BOROVINA. It is therefore, ORDERED that the certification of respondent STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, Number CG C007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has 30 days after the date of this final order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. DATED this 13th day of February, 1978. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President ================================================================= SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, Respondent/Appellant, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner/Appellee. / This cause came before the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at its regular meeting on August 3, 1979. The respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did appear. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, on August 3, 1979, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded, voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016. On February 13, 1978, the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016, was revoked by order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On April 25, 1979, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, in Case Number: 78-527, reversed the final order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That Court remanded the above captioned case to the Board to further consider the matter and enter such order as it may be advised in conformity with Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977). In accordance with the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, the Board has reconsidered the above captioned matter and finds as follows: The Board rejects the recommended order as the agency's final order. The Board adopts the first paragraph of the hearing officer's finding of fact. The Board, however, rejects the findings of fact found in the second paragraph of the hearing officer's findings. The second paragraph states as follows: A contractor is defined in relevent(sic) part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. real estate for others...Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. The findings of fact found in the above-quoted paragraph were not based upon competent substantial evidence. The competent substantial evidence supports a finding that the respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, did not supervise the project and that Borovina evaded the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The following evidence supports the Board's position: There was no written agreement entered into between Howard North and the respondent which indicated that the respondent was to supervise the construction of the Csobors' house (T- 14); It was conceded at the hearing that the only subcontractors or draftmen who worked on the Csobors' house were contracted solely by Howard North and they had no contract whatsoever with the respondent (T-19, 25); The respondent never advised or informed Mr. and Mrs. Csobor that he was the contractor on the job. (T-51); At all times during the act of construction of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Csobor were under the impression that Howard North was the contractor (T-44-51). It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, Number CG 0007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) days after the date of the Final Order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. Dated this 3rd day of August, 1979. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the two Administrative Complaints filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0010134. Michael P. Freeman (a/k/a Dennis Freeman) was at no time material to the allegations considered herein a registered, certified, or otherwise licensed individual on record with CILB in Florida. In July 1983, Respondent and Dennis Freeman agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of home construction in Florida to be known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. (D & S). The officers of this corporation were to be: President S. A. Stone (Respondent) Vice President Dennis Freeman Sec. Treas. Kristina Freeman The letter from Respondent to his attorney, drafted and written by Ms. Via, but signed by Respondent, requesting that the corporation be established, provided that Freeman was to be responsible for all materials, maintenance, labor, bills, etc., and Respondent was to be responsible only for the "quality of work." This letter served as an agreement between Freeman and Stone which was to be separate and apart from the Articles of Incorporation. Respondent was to receive a 7% commission on "all labor done or any type of construction by Mr. Freeman or D & S Homebuilders . . .", and through his Exchange Realty office, was to receive a 5% commission on all sales of property from the corporation or Mr. Freeman. D & S was organized as a corporation until November 21, 1984, when it was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report. Though the corporation was formed and a Corporate Charter issued, and this action was taken at the request of the Respondent, the corporation was formed in the attorney's name. Neither Respondent nor the Freemans ever officially took over as officers or directors. In short, the corporation while legally born, never breathed. At no time during its life and during the period relative to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint herein, did the Respondent qualify the corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In addition to sending the letter to the attorney requesting that the corporation be established, Mr. Stone, on November 1, 1983, entered into a handwritten agreement with Mr. Freeman, also drawn by Ms. Via, which called for the use of his license: for Freeman to pay Respondent an additional $500.00 for the use of the license on each job over $5,0000.00 and for Freeman to "be solely responsible for anything that might arise against S. A. Stone's license." The first payment was to be made on December 1, 1983, and the agreement was to last through November 1, 1984. Stone never got any financial benefit from his relationship with Freeman. The agreement mentioned above was entered into at the behest of the then Chief of Police in Chiefland, Mr. Underwood, who requested that Respondent do anything he could to keep Freeman, who was then under investigation for other misconduct in the area. Mr. Underwood corroborates this. Pursuant to this request, when Respondent suggested an arrangement with Freeman, Freeman insisted that the agreement be in writing. Stone contends that at no time did he ever intend for the agreement to be permanent nor did he ever intend to make any money out of it. He says he knew it was illegal and he entered it solely because of the request from the police. He contends, and there is no evidence to contradict his contention, that at no time did he ever receive any money from Freeman as a result of this agreement nor from the formation of D & S. On July 26, 1983, Respondent executed an authorization for Dennis Freeman to act as his authorized agent to pull permits on his behalf at the Levy County Building Department. No mention was made on this form of D & S Homebuilders, Inc. The form was prepared by Mrs. Nancy Gilbert, the administrative assistant to Mr. Davis, the Levy County Building Official. At the time in question, Mr. Stone had introduced Mr. Freeman, his agent, to pull permits and Ms. Gilbert prepared the document to do what Mr. Stone wanted. The document is written in plural terms for repeated uses. Mr. Stone contends that his intention at the time was for it to be used for a single operation and that he failed to notice the erroneous pluralism, but other evidence of record disproves this contention. While it is not the policy of the Building Office to prepare these authorizations for contractors, it is a normal practice in Levy County and other counties throughout the State to allow agents to pull permits on the license of their prime contractor or employer as was done here. There is no evidence that the Bell job, which was for the most part accomplished by Respondent, was not satisfactory. Here, the work progressed smoothly and was properly completed, but based on his dissatisfaction with Freeman's performance during this job, he indicated to Freeman that there would be no further relationship between them. Nonetheless, the authorization was not revoked and Stone signed the permit application for the Reagan house as seen below. Without that authorization, the Building Office would not have allowed Freeman to obtain any of the building permits utilized for the other construction projects referenced in the Administrative Complaint. In July 1983, the Fumeas entered into a handwritten contract with Freeman, drafted by Kristina Freeman for the construction of a house for Bertha Reagan, Mrs. Fumea's mother. The contract had a price of $24,000.00. The Fumeas were to receive $10,000.00 for their land on which the house was to be built and Freeman was to receive a $14,000.00 loan from Mrs. Reagan for materials to build the house in question. When the house was sold, the initial $24,000.00 was to be returned to Mrs. Reagan. Any profit was to be divided 40% to Mrs. Reagan, 40% to the Freemans, and 20% to the Fumeas. The contract also called for the construction of a second house upon completion of the first. By check, dated June 9, 1983, Mrs. Reagan provided Freeman with the $14,000.00 to be secured by a second mortgage on the property executed by both Freemans in favor of Bertha Reagan. Thereafter, on August 24, 1983, Respondent, acting for D & S and S. A. Stone and Dennis Freeman, applied for a construction permit to build a residence for Mrs. Reagan as called for. In support of that application, Mr. Stone also furnished an affidavit to the effect that he was the qualifying contractor for residential building for D & S in Levy County. That same day, a building permit was issued to D & S, S. A. Stone, and Dennis Freeman for construction of the house in question. Somewhat later, in August or September, 1983, Freeman began construction of the house. During their negotiations, Freeman had indicated that Respondent was his associate. Nonetheless, it was Freeman who did all the work but in September or October 1983, he quit work on the project. At that point the foundation, the floor, and the 2 x 4 framing was in. No roof, no plumbing, and no electrical work had been installed. Mr. Fumea kept calling Freeman who repeatedly promised to finish work on the property by December 1983, but never did. The house was finally completed by another builder, David Allen, in 1984, for $21,000.00 additional. Allen was unable to complete the work started by Freeman and had to tear it down. Only the original footing was utilized. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Fumea ever dealt with or saw Stone, nor at any time during the period of difficulty with the construction was any attempt made to contact him. The reasoning was that even though Freeman had indicated Stone was the "S" in D & S before the work started, they did not believe Stone had anything to do with the contract. The Fumea's knowledge of Respondent's relationship with D & S was based solely on Freeman's representations. They never dealt with Stone, never saw him at the job, nor did they complain to him when the work was not completed even though Chiefland is a small town and it would be easy to contact him. Somewhat later, on September 7, 1983, Michael (Dennis) and Kristina Freeman entered into a contract with Herman R. and Verenia A. Matthews for the construction of a home in Levy County for a contract price of approximately $21,061.45 which included $17,061.45 which was then owed to the Matthews by Freeman. Freeman was to build them a house on a lot they owned across from their residence for an investment. The $17,641.00 was made up of several loans by the Matthews to Freeman. At this time, the Matthews did not know of D & S. The loans in question had been granted on the basis of a personal friendship between the Matthews and Freeman. At the time, the Matthews were in Michigan and the loans were not secured nor was interest involved. In addition to the $17,061.45 already advanced, the Matthews were to pay an additional $4,000.00 and any sums received from the cutting of timber on the property was to also be paid to Freeman. On or about October 12, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Matthews' house. Attached to the application was an undated, unnotarized affidavit signed by Michael Freeman indicating he was qualifying contractor for D & S. Pursuant to the application, that same day, a building permit for the construction in question, was issued. Actually, construction had started without the benefit of a permit in early September, 1983. On September 9, 1983, the Matthews gave Freeman a $1,000.00 check with second and third payments of $1,000.00 each being paid on September 22, 1983. On October 17, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Freeman a check for $7,000.00 of which $1,000.00 was the remaining amount due on the $4,000.00 balance and $6,000.00 was an unsecured loan. This loan was repaid immediately with an exchange check, post-dated to October 24, 1983, in the amount of $6,000.00 drawn on the account of D & S by Michael Freeman. When the Matthews ultimately deposited the check, however, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds and the $6,000.00 loan was never repaid. The Matthews first found out about D & S Homebuilders, Inc. when the Freemans in late August or September, 1983, indicated they had incorporated. Mrs. Matthews had never met the Respondent nor been aware that Respondent might be involved in the construction. Freeman had represented himself as a licensed contractor and had told the Matthews that he had rented space in Respondent's office. At no time, however, did he say that Respondent was involved in the business. On November 14, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave a check in the amount of $7,000.00 to Kristina Freeman, as a loan to D & S since she had been told that the company was haying trouble paying its bills. This loan was never repaid. By this time, the Matthews knew well that Freeman was in financial difficulties and did not have any money, so they did not ask for their loan back. In addition, on December 2, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Michael Freeman a check for $850.00 as a loan for payroll and on December 12, 1983, gave him a check for an additional $200.00 as a loan to assist him to buy property on which he was to build a house for Mr. Piperski. Neither of these latter two loans were ever repaid. The house to be built for the Matthews was never completed by Freeman or D & S. Work stopped sometime in November 1983. After Freeman went to jail in January 1984, Mrs. Matthews had it finished by someone else. The home was completed by this second contractor in April 1984 and the Matthews now live in it. In addition to the amounts set out above, the Matthews also paid an additional $7,034.00 for materials and $6,590.00 for labor to complete the property. On top of this, they also paid $1,200.00 to RocLen Refrigeration for a dishonored check issued by Kris Freeman on the D & S account in January 1984 for the heating and air conditioning system. They also paid off a claim of lien in the amount of approximately $3,600.00 filed by McCoy Building Supply Center for building materials ordered by D & S for the property; approximately $240.00 to Arrington Tru-Value Hardware for miscellaneous building materials ordered by D & S for the property; and approximately $875.00 to satisfy a claim of lien filed by Keller Building Products of Ocala, based on a contract with D & S for miscellaneous building materials on the property. Mrs. Matthews did not contact Respondent about the house because as far as she was concerned, he had nothing to do with it. Freeman had told her that D & S was owned by Freeman and his wife, most of the checks she gave to D & S were made out to Freeman and endorsed by either Freeman or his wife. All cash paid into the D & S account was done through dealings with one or the other of the Freemans, and she never dealt at all with Stone. On November 25, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, submitted a proposal to Charles Treis for the construction of a home on property in Chiefland, Florida, for a price of $14,000.00 plus a travel trailer valued at $3,000.00. On the same day, Freeman and Treis entered a standard form agreement for the construction of this home by D & S for the amount stated, payments to be made of $5,000.00 as of signing $5,000.00 upon "rough in," and $4,000.00 plus the travel trailer upon completion of specified work. Construction was to begin on November 28, 1983, and was to be completed within 60 days. The contractor was to complete the house except for painting and staining, heating and air conditioning, floor covering, and appliances. Interior trim and doors were to be supplied by the contractor for, installation by the owner. That same day, Mr. Treis gave a check in the amount of $5,000.00 to Michael Freeman as the first payment on account in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract was amended on January 10, 1984 when Freeman agreed to install floor covering, build cabinets for the kitchen, install interior trim and doors, and paint and stain. the interior and exterior. He was also to supply wood ceiling in the living room area and kitchen and in return therefor, was to be paid $2,000.00 plus a travel trailer. On December 20, 1983, Michael Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Treis house and that same day a building permit was issued to D & S. On January 6, 1984, Mr. Treis gave two checks to Mr. Freeman, one for $1,000.00 and one for $6,000.00 additional draws against the contract price. In mid-January 1984, after the foundation was poured and the interior and exterior walls were partially erected, D & S ceased all construction activity because Freeman had been arrested and jailed in Marion County. At this point, the roof had not been installed nor were doors and windows in place. No one from D & S ever returned to complete his own construction. On January 16, 1984, Mr. Treis paid Suwannee Valley Precast Company in the amount of $540.00 for a 900 gallon septic tank ordered by Mike Freeman at D & S. This bill was supposed to have been paid out of the first draw Treis gave Freeman but was not. To avoid a lien being filed against his property, Mr. Treis paid off the amount in question. Mr. Treis also paid $710.33 to Sunshine Concrete and Building Supply for materials ordered by D & S and $189.00 to Lindsey Brothers Construction for labor for laying the foundation walls, also procured by Freeman for D & S. In addition, Mr. Treis paid Harcan Lumber the amount of $4,500.00 for bad checks that Michael Freeman had written in payment for materials to go into the Treis property. As a result of all these additional debts, Mr. Treis was required to sell the property to pay off the creditors not paid by D & S. Mr. Stone was not present at any time during the transactions described regarding Mr. Treis, and Freeman made no mention of him. In fact, Mr. Treis did not know anything about Mr. Stone. It was only after Mr. Treis found out that Freeman was in jail that he had any contact with Stone. Toward the end of January 1984, when he found out that the "S" in D & S was Respondent, Treis and a friend went to Stone's office to find out what Stone intended to do about the property. Stone indicated he was not responsible for anything that Freeman did and that he would not honor the contract that had been entered into with D & S. At some time prior to November 26, 1983, in response to an advertisement placed in the Chiefland newspaper by D & S, Howard Robinson contacted Freeman to obtain an estimate for the construction of a home in Levy County. During the contract negotiations, Freeman provided Robinson with a D & S business card which bears only Freeman's name. Robinson is a resident of Largo but owns property in Levy County. On November 26, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, entered into a contract with D & S which was signed by Michael Freeman, for the construction of a home for the price of $16,900.00. Payments were to be made one-third upon acceptance of the contract, one-third upon "rough-in" inspection, and one a third upon completion. The owner was to install floor coverings, heating and air-conditioning and appliances, and the contractor was to provide a one year warranty on construction. Construction was to begin by November 29 and the house was to be completed within 60 days. Three days later on November 29, 1983, Mrs. Robinson issued a check in the amount of $5,633.33 to D & S Homebuilders, Inc. as the first payment for the construction of their home. This check was endorsed by Michael Freeman for D & S. It should be noted here that, as previously, the business card given to Mr. Robinson by Freeman at the time of their first meeting reflects only Freeman's name, not that of Respondent. After the contract was executed, Mr. Robinson returned to Largo and did not come back to Levy County until January 1984. On December 22, 1983, Mr. Freeman came to Largo to see the Robinsons for purpose of securing the second draw. At that time, he indicated the foundation and slab had been poured and that walls erected and the roof trusses were to be installed the following day. Based on these representations, Mrs. Robinson issued another check for $5,633.33 to Freeman for the second draw under the contract even though the second draw was not due until after erection of the roof trusses. As inducement to pay prior to the time called for in the contract, Freeman agreed to amend the contract to provide air conditioning and heating, furnish the floor covering, and build a 10 x 12 foot pump house. After paying these additional sums, Mr. Robinson found out that construction on his house had not been started even though Freeman had indicated that it had. Therefore, in January 1984, Mr. Robinson made his first trip back to Chiefland since the signing of the contract to visit the construction site and discovered that the only work accomplished had been the digging of a footer. On or about January 10, 1984, Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a building permit to construct the property in question and this permit was issued that same day. The only construction accomplished on Robinson's property was an oversized footer, approximately three feet wide and four or five feet deep, out of which the steel company had already taken the steel originally installed. Even after this however, Mr. Robinson did not contact Respondent because his dealings had always been with Freeman and he had never seen nor talked to Stone. Neither Stone or any of his agents or employees has ever contacted Mr. Robinson concerning either completing the construction or repaying the money paid under the contract. The only thing Mr. Robinson has ever been reimbursed with was a $300.00 payment from the County when Mr. Freeman was on a work- release program while in jail. In November 1983, Mitchell Piperski saw an ad in the paper for a home built by Mr. Freeman. This ad was in the name of D & S Builders and Mr. Piperski contacted Freeman at the phone number in the ad. Freeman thereafter came to Piperski's house and they discussed the possible construction of a home for the Piperskis. As a result of these discussions, Mr. Piperski, on December 19, 1983, entered into a contract with D & S signed by Michael and Kris Freeman for the construction of a home in Chiefland for a contract price of $16,500.00. Since Mr. Piperski did not have a lot on which to build the house, Freeman took him a see a lot which he said he, Freeman, owned. The lot in question was a five acre corner and when Piperski said he did not need so much land, Freeman said he would keep one half. Since, however, the two parties could not agree on the property, Piperski purchased a lot from someone else. A short time thereafter, the Freemans came to the Piperskis and indicated they would be in financial difficulty if the Piperskis did not buy their property and as a result, the Piperskis agreed to allow Freeman to build the house on the property which, by warranty deed on December 19, 1983, Freeman conveyed to the Piperskis. At closing Freeman was paid $5,000.00 called for upon acceptance of the contract, and $12,500.00 for the lot. During the negotiations, Freeman had told Mr. Piperski that there were three people involved in D & S. These three were Freeman, his wife, Kris, and someone else, undisclosed, who was in the real estate business. Mr. Piperski had known Stone from the lodge to which they both belonged but he had no idea that Stone was the "S" in D & S. No work on the construction of the Piperski house was ever accomplished. When Piperski called the building department, he was told that Freeman could no longer build homes because Mr. Stone had pulled the authorization for him to use Stone's license. This disclosure was made to Mr. Piperski on January 8, 1984. Prior to that date and all through the negotiations, he had no idea that Stone was involved in the transaction. That afternoon, Mr. Piperski went to a lawyer about the situation and the lawyer called Stone. When Piperski asked Stone for his $5,000.00 back, Mr. Stone said he would allow Freeman to use his license to complete the house. Notwithstanding this promise by Stone, Freeman never made any effort to secure a permit to begin construction. Mr; Piperski did not contact Stone again after that one instance because he felt Stone knew what the situation was and what had to be done. Stone, on the other hand, did not contact Piperski either, nor did Freeman, and at no time was Piperski reimbursed the $5,000.00 deposit he made under the terms of the contract. On January 9, 1984, Stone wrote to Mr. A1 Simmons, the attorney who formed the corporation known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. In this letter Stone recalled that Simmons had formed the corporation in which Freeman was President, his wife was Secretary/Treasurer, and he, Respondent, was Vice-President. Stone also cited that there was a communications gap between Freeman and himself and as a result, asked how he could be removed as an officer of the corporation. Stone indicated that he was "going to notify the County that I am no longer going to authorize the use of my license as D & S Homes." At the bottom of the letter, he states that it constitutes official notification to Freeman and to Mr. Davis, the building official, that his license is no longer to be used under D & S Homes. By this letter, Mr. Stone recognized that as of January 9, 1984, he was still a part of D & S Homes and was aware of the use of his license by D & S under the authorization given earlier in the year. It has already been found that in November 1983, Stone and Freeman entered into an agreement for Freeman to pay Stone for the use of his license by D & S Homes. It is also noted, however, that on January 5, 1984, approximately two months later, Mr. Stone wrote to Freeman indicating his dissatisfaction with the way Freeman was managing the company and because of Freeman's failure to communicate with Stone in response to inquiry. In this letter, he makes it very clear to Freeman that if Freeman does not keep in touch, he will terminate the relationship that he has with D & S. By so doing, Stone puts to rest any question that he was still a part of D & S and agreed to Freeman's using his license for construction by that firm as late as January 5, 1984 - well after the contracts described above were entered into by Freeman. D & S had a checking account with the Bank of Florida in Chiefland on which both Respondent and Freeman were authorized to write checks. In October 1983, Mr. Freeman drafted a check to Exchange Realty, which is owned by Respondent, in the amount of $500.00 which bears the notion, "commission on burnout." This check was deposited to the account of Exchange Realty. The handwriting on the endorsement appears to be that of Penny Via as does the name of the payee. On October 24, 1983, Mr. Stone wrote a check, apparently on a counter check payable to Exchange Realty in the amount of $500.00. Again, this check is endorsed for deposit to the account of Exchange Realty and not only the endorsement but also the check itself, with the exception of the signature, appears to be drawn in the handwriting of Ms. Via. While offered to show Respondent's receipt of benefit from his association with D & S, this evidence does not do so. Respondent knew of this account, nonetheless, and agreed to be a signatory on it so that he could work on the account when Freeman was out of town. After a short period, however, he took his name off the account though he cannot remember when that was. Respondent's contention that he had little if any connection with the actual construction work accomplished by Freeman under the D & S banner is supported by the testimony of Earl Jones, a plumber, who did the plumbing work on some of the houses constructed by Freeman during the Summer of 1983. Jones was hired by Freeman who, at the time, advised him that he was a general contractor and owned the business. Freeman admitted that he was a friend of the Respondent but during the whole period of his association with D & S, Jones never dealt with Stone and he feels that his employer was Freeman, not Stone. During the period of their association, Jones had no contact at all with Respondent. All bills for services rendered were sent directly to Freeman. Andrew Sension, an electrical contractor, met Freeman when Freeman solicited bids for the drawing of house plans. Thereafter, Sension drew five house plans for Freeman through D & S and also did some electrical work. At that time, Freeman indicated that he and his wife owned D & S and throughout their relationship, Sension assumed that Freeman was licensed. He has, however, worked for Respondent but never any project where Freeman and Respondent were involved together. To his knowledge, Respondent had a good reputation in the County as a contractor. Respondent has lived in Chiefland for approximately 15 years and is licensed as a contractor in both Florida and Virginia where he operated as a general contractor for 10 or 11 years before coming to Florida. In addition, he worked as a contractor in Ft. Lauderdale for 5 or 6 years and in all his construction history, never had any disciplinary action taken against him. Stone met Freeman some time in the middle of 1983 when Freeman came to his real estate office to buy a lot to build on. Later on, Freeman came back and said his brother an attorney, had suggested he contact Stone to form a corporation to build homes. At the time, Freeman, whose real name was Michael, was using the name Dennis Freeman, actually the name of his brother. When Stone checked Freeman's reputation out with the credit bureau, he checked the name, Dennis Freeman, and found that there was no adverse comments recorded. He did not know at the time that he was checking the record of a different individual. Nonetheless, satisfied with the results of his inquiry, and willing to go into the proposition suggested by Freeman, the parties made an appointment with attorney Simmons to form a corporation. Stone contends, and Simmons concurs, that though the corporation was formed, it never became operative because while formed in the name of Simmons for incorporation purposes, the transfer of authority to the true officers, Stone, Freeman, and Freeman's wife, was never accomplished. Were this all there were to it, there would be little difficulty in accepting Stone's exculpatory rationale. The fact remains, however, that his conduct and communications with his attorney in January 1984, several months after the corporation was formed, clearly reveals that though the official transfer of names never took place, he was well aware that D & S was active, that Freeman was building homes under the D & S banner, and that Freeman was using his, Stone's license, to do so with Stone's permission. The letter of January 9, 1984, to the lawyer clearly defeats Stone's contention that he felt the authorization for Freeman to pull permits was a one time proposition. If that were the case, he would not have indicated in these later communications that he was aware of what was going on and wished it stopped as of that time. There is no doubt that Respondent never met Mrs. Reagan, the Fumeas, the Matthews, the Robinsons, Mr. Treis, or the Piperskis in the capacity of a contractor. None of the people ever indicated that they dealt with Stone. Respondent admits that his contractor's license was withdrawn by the County but contends that this action was taken at a meeting to which he was not invited and did not attend. He did pot know of the action taken, he claims, until he read it in the newspaper. There is no evidence to contradict this. He firmly believes that his problem with the County is the direct result of the fact that he failed to contribute Mr. Davis' church when asked-to do so at the time he executed the general authorization for Freeman to use his license. Whether Mr. Davis is the complainant and the cause of the disciplinary action being taken here is immaterial however, and in any case, there is no evidence to support Respondent's contention. As for Freeman, on January 30, 1984, he entered a guilty plea to one count of a third degree felony by failing to redeliver and one count of a third degree felony by forgery and committing grand theft. Thereafter, he was found guilty of the charges and placed on probation for two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-1468 be dismissed. It is further recommended that based on the violations established in DOAH Case No. 85-0690, Respondent's license as a registered general contractor be suspended for six months and that thereafter Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 16th day of January, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED W. Douglas Beason, Esquire 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire 1 East Silver Springs Blvd. Ocala, Florida 32670 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2, Jacksonville, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by parties to this case. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 2 · Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 1 through 3 are irrelevant. Sentence 4 is accepted as to it relates to the letter being prepared by the building department but rejected as to this being done at Respondent's request. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 1O. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the first sentence which is irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the last sentence which implied Freeman signed as affiant when in fact he signed as a witness. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and misleading. There is no indication in the record that Respondent knew of this contract or that any demand for reimbursement was made upon him. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 and 22, except for sentences 3 & 4, which are rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and inaccurate. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35, except that November 6 in the proposal should be November 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 and 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Accepted but not adopted as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted n Finding of Fact 45 and 46, except that it was the building office that advised Piperski that Freeman did not have a permit, not Respondent. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Sentence 1 through 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 4 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 5 and 6 adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Sentences 3 through 5 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Findings of Fact 26- 29. Sentence 3 rejected as not being a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Mrs. Reagan did not sign the contract. Mrs. Fumea did. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 4 adopted in general. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 17, 35 and 41. Sentence 3 rejected by contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Sentence 5 is ejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that he failed to show the proper concern for the use of his licenses. Rejected as irrelevant to the issues herein. 8 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted as a general fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52-55.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (g)3., (j), (o) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Spencer holds a current, active Florida State Certified Building Contractor License, having been issued license number CBC 1252039. He is certified with the Department as doing business as KCLS Spencer, Inc. (KCLS), and is the primary qualifying agent thereof. Mr. Spencer submitted a Proposal, bearing the letterhead of KCLS and dated September, 14, 2004, to Jesse J. Ross, Sr. (Mr. Ross), which pertained to the exterior remodeling of Mr. Ross' jewelry store located at 6290 North Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Initially, the Proposal put the cost for the remodeling at $48,762.86. After some negotiating, the Proposal that ultimately formed the basis of their contract set the cost at $45,000.00 and relieved Mr. Spencer of the obligation of constructing walkways. The Proposal's explicit terms provide: As per specifications and blueprints pricing is as follows; labor and material to renovate existing exterior building. Prices to include all demolition of all exist [sic] structures, installation of siding, columns, dormers, cupolas, two (2) French doors, windows, front gutters and down spouts, electrical, and final painting. Notes: Signs by owner. Paint colors by owner. Power and water supplied by owner. Color of pre-painted metal roof determined by owner. Material storage space to be provided by owner. Quotes good for 10 days (after 10 days, please reconfirm material pricing). 20% deposit $9752.57 due to start project, invoicing to [sic] made weekly per actual costs. Essentially, much of the exterior remodeling to be performed is simply stated as being based on the specifications and blueprints, which Mr. Ross provided to Mr. Spencer. These specifications and blueprints have not been received in evidence, but there appears to be no dispute among the parties regarding the scope of the work. The terms of payment were for an initial 20 percent deposit of $9,752.57, with weekly invoices to follow based on actual, ongoing costs. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Ross' lender, Coastal Bank, drafted a loan check for $9,752.57 made payable to KCLS. Sometime shortly thereafter, KCLS began the work of remodeling the exterior of Mr. Ross' store. As work progressed, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with an invoice, dated November 11, 2004, requesting payment for costs incurred. Despite listing on the invoice an "off set balance" of $2,515.32 that applied costs to date against the initial deposit, the total amount due was nevertheless listed as $12,268.04. On November 23, 2004, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $12,268.04 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. Later, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with another invoice, dated December 23, 2004, requesting payment for further costs incurred. The total amount due was $8,475.24. By check dated that same day, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $8,475.24 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. At this time, Mr. Ross received assurance from Mr. Spencer that no further money would be due, until the work was entirely completed. Sometime between Christmas 2004 and New Year's 2005, Mr. Spencer returned again to Mr. Ross' store and requested from him an additional $3,000.00. At this point, Mr. Ross refused, because of Mr. Spencer's earlier assurance that no further ongoing payments would be demanded and because of the lack of any work performed since the last payment. Mr. Spencer insisted that he had all of the necessary materials in his warehouse and that he would be back on the Monday following the New Year's holiday to work on the store. He never returned and could not be contacted by Mr. Ross. As the storefront remained in disrepair, Mr. Ross was compelled to contract with other parties to complete the work. Sunland General Contractors, Inc. (Sunland); Baker Roofing (Baker); and D.A.B. Painting, Inc. (DAB), completed the work that Mr. Spencer had previously been contracted with to perform. According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, they based their work upon the same specifications and blueprints that Mr. Ross had previously provided to Mr. Spencer. Sunland, except for the roofing and painting, performed what work that remained. Based on a payment history dated December 16, 2005, the total cost of Sunland's work for Mr. Ross was $23,770.00. However, this cost includes $3,990.00 for walkway decking, which Mr. Ross and Mr. Spencer, in their previous negotiations, had agreed would not be part of their final agreement. As such, the relevant cost in the instant case for Sunland's work is $19,780.00. According to a Baker invoice, dated November 10, 2005, the cost to Mr. Ross for the new roof was $14,935.00. According to a letter from DAB, dated April 23, 2005, Mr. Ross paid $6,500.00 for the painting of his store. In sum, the relevant costs to Mr. Ross for this subsequent work total $41,215.00. Sometime in October of 2005, Mr. Ross provided Mr. Frank A. Wisniski (Mr. Wisniski), a general contractor and owner of Sunland, with a set of blueprints and asked him to takeover the job that Mr. Spencer had not completed. Mr. Wisniski further testified on the condition of the building, as Mr. Spencer had left it. According to his testimony, some of the siding was not nailed properly, and the columns in the front of the store were not well secured, a potentially hazardous situation. Overall, in his opinion, he felt that Mr. Spencer had completed approximately 25 percent of the total scope of the job. Mr. Robert T. Shindo (Mr. Shindo) is an investigator for the Department. He responded to Mr. Ross' complaint to the Department regarding Mr. Spencer's work on the store. He found, "basically, a building that was not in repair." Some siding work had been done on the north face of the building, as well as some column work. However, the columns appeared damaged or incomplete, and the siding appeared incomplete as well. Besides the siding and columns, Mr. Shindo testified that "[t]here did not appear to be any other work." Overall, Mr. Shindo had familiarized himself with the Proposal and estimated that between ten and 15 percent of the job appeared to be complete. Mr. Michael McCaughin (Mr. McCaughin) is employed at the Building Code Division of Brevard County and is the chief building official for the county. Mr. McCaughin concluded that based on the work specified in the Proposal of Mr. Spencer, the only item which would not have required permitting is the gutters. Mr. McCaughin personally searched the county permit database, and no permits were ever pulled by Mr. Spencer for the remodeling of Mr. Ross' store. Petitioner's Exhibit 14, a printout of the permits that have been pulled for Mr. Ross' store, confirms Mr. McCaughin's testimony. Moreover, Mr. McCaughin "performed a search of Mr. Spencer under his name, under his state license number, and also under the company name, KCLS and, could not find any record of any permits being pulled, nor was he registered with Brevard County contractor licensing." Mr. Spencer, in testifying in his own behalf, mainly confirmed the testimony of the other witnesses and the other facts in evidence. Among other things, he confirmed that he and Mr. Ross had an agreement for KCLS to remodel the exterior of the store and that the agreement was based on the Proposal he had submitted to Mr. Ross. He agreed that he received the payments that Mr. Ross testified to having paid and testified that he never pulled the permits for the job, because he "[j]ust didn't take the time to do it." Mr. Spencer's recollection of his final conversation with Mr. Ross was substantially the same as Mr. Ross' testimony, with Mr. Spencer testifying that he had told Mr. Ross he would be back to work on the job and that there was an understanding that final payment would be made at the end of the project. He goes on to testify that he did actually go back after this final conversation to finish up the siding on the south side of the store and that the siding was completed. This last testimony is not credible. In Mr. Spencer's defense, some of the work was farmed out to subcontractors, and they were paid in full. He then testified that he was planning on continuing the work but that he was waiting on a roofer. While he was waiting for the roofer, he testified that there was some dispute between himself and Mr. Ross regarding a ring he had received from Mr. Ross. He testified that the ring fell apart and that the dispute ended their working relationship. But for "$8200 - Ring" being handwritten on the Proposal alongside the other payments made by Mr. Ross, no mention of this ring was made by the Petitioner. Presumably, this ring was given as in-kind payment to Mr. Spencer, but without anything more to go on, the insufficiency of the relevant evidence precludes any recognition of the ring as payment. Therefore, the three previously described checks, furnished by Mr. Ross and made payable to Mr. Spencer or KCLS, are found to represent the entirety of the consideration furnished. To refresh, these checks are dated October 25, 2004; November 23, 2004; and December 23, 2004, and amount to $9,752.57; $12,268.04; and $8,475.24, respectively. In sum, they total $30,495.85. Mr. Spencer also testified about the installation of French doors at Mr. Ross' store. Mr. Ross earlier testified that he had refused delivery of two French doors, when a subcontractor arrived to install them, because they were not the style, size or number he desired. He further testified that Mr. Spencer was aware that he desired six doors with plastic slats (not two as listed in the Proposal), because he had directed Mr. Spencer to examine the doors of a nearby storefront, whose style he wished to replicate. Mr. Spencer was questioned about these doors by opposing counsel. Opposing counsel asked, "Were the French doors ever installed into the building?" Mr. Spencer responded, "Not that I know of, by Bill, no." Several questions later, opposing counsel asked, "Okay. My point is, the doors were never installed in the project; is that your understanding?" Mr. Spencer responded, "My understanding from Bill was that, yes, they were installed." On this issue, Mr. Spencer could only speculate, because he never returned to the job site to check whether the doors had been installed. Mr. Spencer's testimony on this topic is not credible. Despite never being installed, Mr. Ross paid a $4,700.00 deposit for the French doors that was never refunded. When asked why this money was never refunded to Mr. Ross, Mr. Spencer goes on to testify that he trusted the subcontractor delivering the doors, that he assumed they were delivered, and that that's why he never attempted to receive a refund of the doors' cost from the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; requiring Respondent to make restitution to Mr. Ross in the amount of $26,710.85; placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years; and requiring Mr. Spencer to attend a minimum of seven additional hours of continuing education classes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
