Findings Of Fact In General: Respondent is, and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, a certified general contractor, having been issued license no. CG C016774 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the Administrative Complaint was Stephen Karlan licensed, registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. As to Counts I--III: There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to tie any participation by Stephen Karlan to any event at the Reyes' home (Administrative Complaint Counts I--III). Mrs. Carolyn Reyes is the wife of Augustin Reyes, both of whom have resided at 9355 Southwest 180th Street, Miami, Florida, for approximately 12 years. They first met with Respondent Gomez sometime in July of 1983, and after a series of discussions concerning the work which the Reyes' desired, their budget restrictions, and charges proposed by Respondent, a contract was prepared by Respondent on Respondent's stationery. (P-3) The contracted work included: completely remodeling the kitchen and living room; the installation of central air conditioning and heating; the construction of a swimming pool; and the construction of a covered patio. The Reyes provided Respondent with a check in the amount of $4,227.40, representing a twenty percent down payment on the contract price of $24,237.00. Although signed by Mr. Reyes, who did not testify, Mr. Reyes' signature was identified by Mrs. Reyes on the contract and on the September 20, 1983 check. She was present at the execution of the contract and tendering of the check on the Reyes' joint bank account to Respondent Reyes on September 20, 1983. Existence of this contract and its terms is not disputed by Respondent. Subsequently, approximately $3,100.00 was deducted from the total contract price by way of a change order. This amount represented the cost of installing a roof over the patio and brought the new contract price to $21,137.00. (P-3 and P-6) A change order, prepared by Respondent, and signed by Mrs. Reyes, was agreed to approximately October 18, 1983, for installation of more expensive bronze-tone sliding glass doors in the family room and $250.00 was paid additionally by the Reyes. From September through November, 1983, Respondent performed construction work at the Reyes' residence. Under the terms of the contract, the Reyes provided Respondent with the following amounts, mostly by checks drawn on their joint account and issued over Mrs. Reyes' signature. DATES AMOUNTS September 20, 1983 $ 4,227.40 (20 percent down payment) October 5, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (installation of kitchen cabinets) October 13, 1983 $ 3,170.55 (pool framing inspection) October 24, 1983 $ 250.00 (change order--glass doors) October 25, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (air conditioning equipment) October 28, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool gunnited) November 3, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (kitchen remodeling) November 4, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (plumbing payment) November 21, 1983 $ 2,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 23, 1983 $ 1,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 28, 1983 $ 982.00 December 6, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool decking) $21,211.50 TOTAL (P-6) All of these checks were cashed by Respondent. During October and November, 1983, work was localized in the kitchen. Mrs. Reyes recalled not being able to use her kitchen for Thanksgiving, 1983. Except for recurring problems of improperly installed tiles, cabinets and appliances, related infra., Respondent completed the bulk of the kitchen remodeling in early December, 1983. Also in early December, 1983, the swimming pool was dug and gunnite was sprayed for the pool. Gunnite is a base of a spray used for installing the concrete bottom of a swimming pool prior to installing further marble-type finishing material, tile, and accouterments. In this same time period, the overhang above the anticipated patio was torn off the existing house by Respondent with the apparent goal of tying the existing roof beams into the new roof. After December 6, 1983, Respondent failed to perform any actual construction at the Reyes' residence until May, 1984. 2/ His crew only worked there one day in December of 1983. Approximately December 20, renegotiation of pool costs and kitchen tile costs were indulged-in by the the participants. The final result was that the Reyes would pay $80.00 more for kitchen tiles and $106.00 more for pool tiles and would be permitted by Respondent to deduct $246.00 from the total owed on the contract to him. Mrs. Reyes purchased the pool materials and paid cash for them rather than turning over any monies to Respondent but she stored them on her property so that the work could go forward. Respondent testified that shortly before that point in time, he realized that he had underestimated the cost of doing the Reyes' job by $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 and attempted to explain to them that having received approximately 90 percent of the contract price, but having not completed that much of the work contracted-for, he would have to do the work as he was able between other jobs in order to stay afloat financially. Respondent's proposal was not initially acceptable to the Reyes and they hired a lawyer who thereafter prohibited Respondent making direct contact with the Reyes. At that time, the following items remained to be completed at the Reyes' residence. The pool tile had not been installed; the pool equipment had not been purchased or installed; the living room windows had not been installed; and the patio roof had not been completed. There were also numerous problems with the quality of the workmanship of the completed items. The kitchen cabinets and the dishwasher were both initially improperly installed. As a result of the Reyes complaining to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, one of that agency's code enforcement officers, John Delaney, inspected the Reyes' home on April 20, 1984. At that time, Mr. Delaney noted all of the items listed in Paragraph 8 as needing completion and also noted that the patio roof overhang was still exposed to the elements and that the air conditioning unit was only balanced on a concrete slab. Mr. Delaney estimated that at that time the contract work was approximately 55 percent to 60 percent complete. Upon investigation and a record search, Mr. Delaney determined that Respondent had obtained an approved building permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the open beamed porch. (P-13) The building permit did not specify installation of the pool's piping. Likewise the building permit did not specify that Respondent might perform the interior remodeling work. This permit which Respondent did obtain lists, and Respondent's signature acknowledges, that Respondent knew that "unless specifically covered by this permit" separate permits must also be obtained for electrical, plumbing, roofing, and paving and pool, among other items. Upon concluding his investigation, Mr. Delaney felt sufficient evidence existed to charge Respondent with violation of Section 10-22 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code and forwarded his investigative report to the official for the appropriate unincorporated municipality. This report indicates that Respondent also pulled permits for mechanical air conditioning and heating and an electrical permit for the swimming pool. To Mr. Delaney's knowledge, no charges were ever filed by that official against Respondent. 3/ Mr. Delaney conceded that a state certified general contractor such as Respondent can legitimately do pool piping and that the only failure of Respondent was in not pulling the county permit. He indicated that the kitchen work in the Reyes' home would require a special permit because there is electrical and plumbing work in replacing old appliances with new. However, as to the kitchen cabinets he felt it would be permissible for either the general contractor to pull a general permit or for a subcontractor to pull a specialty cabinet permit. By questions on cross-examination of Mr. Delaney, Respondent asserted that no electrical work was done, no switches were moved and his only work was replacement of kitchen cabinets, floor, and acoustical tile but this is in the form of his questions and not sworn testimony. Respondent eventually came back to the Reyes job. He finished the pool in July, 1984. He finished the open beamed roof in October 1984. Respondent's carpenters or subcontracting cabinetmakers Carlos and Hector eventually fixed a kitchen door drawer Mrs. Reyes had complained about. (It was never established what these workers' status was/is.) Despite her general dissatisfaction with the tiles in her kitchen, despite a chipped sink, and despite personally having to explain to the plumber (again the tile setter and plumber's contract or employment relationship with Respondent is unclear) how to install the dishwasher, Mrs. Reyes currently feels 95 percent of the contract work has been completed by Respondent. 4/ She acknowledged that Respondent has provided additional bronze fixtures in her family room by way of mitigation. As to Counts IV--VII: In March, 1982, June Mildred Cooper contracted with one Steve Karlan for the construction of a bathroom addition on a residence located at 4835 Westwood Lakes Drive, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $6,700.00. Steve Karlan is not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. See supra. All oral representations made by Karlan to Mrs. Cooper are total hearsay and excludable, but it is clear that Respondent was never mentioned or otherwise identified during the contract negotiation of Cooper and Karlan. Cooper submitted contract payments directly to Karlan and never paid anything to Respondent. Cooper found Respondent on the job one day and thinks he said something to her like, "I'm the boss," but her memory of the exact language, if any, is vague. Cooper was admittedly not on the premises most of the time the construction was in progress because she repeatedly visited her other residence in Indianapolis for several months at a time. Respondent admits he was approached by Steve Karlan to give an estimate for the bathroom job and they thereafter agreed that Respondent should do the work. Respondent admits Karlan later gave him a piece of paper, probably a tax assessment, showing June Cooper's name as the owner, which Respondent used as the basis for filling out the building permit application which he applied for and received covering the portion of the construction work he did at her Florida residence. At the conclusion of his job, Respondent also executed a waiver-of- mechanic-lien affidavit which did not specify any owner and gave it to Karlan. Gomez never inquired into the relationship between Karlan and Cooper and just assumed Karlan was a relative, probably a son, living at the same address, and initially assumed Karlan had authority to authorize the work because Karlan opened the door to him the first time Respondent came to do the requested estimate. At the time Karlan opened the door to Respondent, some construction was already in progress in the house. Respondent represents that this scenario of obtaining a construction job is so customary in the trade that he never questioned Karlan's statement until Mrs. Cooper ultimately complained about the construction after completion. He recalls meeting her at the house twice during construction, but does not think he told her he was the boss. In mitigation, he represents that he made good on Mrs. Cooper's complaints. Respondent admits he later entered a contract with Steve Karlan as a "salesman" after satisfying Mrs. Cooper but that contract had nothing to do with the Cooper job.
Recommendation Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay a penalty of $1,000.00 and monitoring his license for one year in a probationary status. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Albert J. Ruocco, is licensed as a registered building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RB00030112. His last address in the Department's file is 604 Citrus Court, Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951. Sometime prior to the date of the administrative complaint, the Department received a complaint from Mrs. Dale Normington that Ruocco told her he had obtained a termite treatment for the addition he constructed on her home, but that no treatment was done. DPR investigator, John Allen, told Mrs. Normington to send her back-up information. John Allen received in the mail a copy of the purported contract between the Normingtons and Rivers Edge Construction Company, Inc., Ruocco's Company. He also received a series of cancelled checks and a copy of a letter purportedly sent by the Normingtons to Albert Ruocco. John Allen checked the Department's licensing files and obtained the licensing information on Ruocco. He also personally served the Administrative Complaint on Ruocco, but did not, to the best of his recollection, discuss the complaint with him or have any other contact with him. Ruocco never responded to any investigative correspondence. Douglas Vanderpoest, owner of Slug-A-Bug, a pest control company, established that his company never treated the addition to the Normington resident. Brevard County Building Inspector, Howard Stott, knows Albert Ruocco and is familiar with the addition Ruocco installed for the Normingtons in 1985. A permit was obtained and Stott performed three inspections, including the slab, pre-lath and final on the addition. Brevard County requires evidence of termite treatment of soil for any new construction or modifications to an existing structure. The practice is usually for the inspector to require a receipt or evidence of treatment prior to approving the slab. Stott does not remember whether he required the evidence on the Normington job. The permit in those days did not have a space to indicate the termite treatment. However, Stott did approve the slab, as noted on the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint dated November 2, 1987, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Albert J. Ruocco 604 Citrus Court Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case are as follow: Did Respondent violate the Dade County building code, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint? Did the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board discipline Respondent? 3) Do Respondent's alleged acts violate Chapter 489, Florida Statutes? Petitioner submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, McArthur Carter, is a registered residential contractor holding license number RR 0009875, which he held at all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent contracted to construct an addition to the residence of Milton and Imogene Harvell. A copy of this contract was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The contract provided as follows: Front of House Forming of 2 arches Pouring 4" slab between arches Forming planting area Existing Carport Area - Remove existing Roof Enclose form arches Placing of new laundry area Room for tools All electric as shown on plans One window to utility Garage Section Floor trowel finish Ceiling 1/2 sheet plaster finish Work bench out 3/4 plywood One (1) double two light window Two (2) garage doors allowance (150.00) each Roof standard asphalt shingle 2x6 rafters Plugs and lights according to plans Den Extention [sic] Remove existing windowns [sic] & walls Replace window into new wall Match existing ceiling Match existing wall Two new lights - 3 new plugs Existing Utility [sic] Remove all fixtures and replace to new area Painting between owner & builder. (Owner to pay half of painting) exterior WE PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor -- complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($13,500.00). Payment to be made as follows: 1/3 after signing of contract, 1/3 after exterior walls are complete, balance upon comple- tion of job. Authorized Signature: M. Carter (signed) In addition, plans of the building were prepared by Respondent, and these were approved by the local building official. The job began two weeks after the contract was signed, and an initial sum of $5,000 was paid by the Harvells to Respondent. After approximately three months, after the exterior walls were up, Respondent ceased work because the Harvells had not paid him. He came back to work when he was paid another $5,000. Respondent continued to work on the project for several more months, then again halted work on the project. By this time, there was a conflict between Respondent and the Harvells over the project, money and the Harvells' relationships with subcontractors. After approximately six weeks, Mrs. Harvell called the local building officials. An inspection was made and an order to show cause issued. After a hearing in September of 1980 before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, the local board acted to discipline the Respondent. However, at the same time the local board agreed to reinstate Respondent when the work was performed correctly and completely. This action of the local board was based upon Respondent's "abandonment" and changes to the plans for the garage ceiling. The record indirectly indicates that the local board's action on the change to the plans was tied to a fire code violation, because when the ceiling was redone with fire-resistant dry wall it was approved. The initial installation of dry wall that was not fire-resistant was not intentional but a simple mistake. The substitution of dry wall for plaster and lath is not per se a critical alteration, and it was not shown to be critical to the construction. Respondent returned to the job in November of 1950 and finished the work in November, 1951. Final inspection was called for in June of 1982, and all the defects were corrected, the job was completed in accordance with the contract, and all code violations were corrected. The local board has reinstated Respondent's license based upon his adherence to their agreement when action was originally taken against Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, McArthur Carter, receive a letter of reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 19th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 SW 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. McArthur Carter 17325 NW 18th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a registered electrical contractor should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated July 6, 1982 This case was consolidated for hearing with Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. Raymon E. Johnson, DOAH Case No. 82-2393, pursuant to Rule 28-5.106, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent appeared at the hearing without legal counsel and, after being advised by the Hearing Officer as to his rights to counsel and as to procedures involved in an administrative proceeding, acknowledged that he understood such rights and elected to represent himself. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner moved to amend paragraph 1 of the Administrative Complaint to correct a scrivener's error to delete the words "certified residential contractor" and substitute therefor "registered electrical contractor." Respondent did not object to the amendment and it was therefore granted. This proceeding involves allegations by Petitioner that Respondent constructed several residences in Sarasota, Florida from 1979 to 1981 without subcontracting electrical work on the said residences, as required by Sarasota, Florida, in violation of pertinent provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and that he further practiced contracting in a county where he was not properly registered, and on an inactive registration, also in violation of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses at the hearing, and submitted nine exhibits in evidence. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted three exhibits.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Raymon E. Johnson is a certified residential contractor and was so licensed at all times material to the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint. He was also registered by the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board as an electrical contractor on April 9, 1979, but such license was not renewed and became delinquent on July 1, 1980. During the valid licensing period, he was registered to perform contracting in Gainesville, Florida and Alachua County. (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 1). At an undisclosed date, Respondent, a resident of Gainesville, Florida, purchased a lot at 505 South Shore Drive, Sarasota, Florida. On November 30, 1979, Respondent applied to the Building Construction Department of Sarasota County for an owner's building permit to construct a residence on the lot, and the permit was issued on December 14, 1979. The application and permit form provided that if the applicant did not possess a contractor's license and was constructing a single family residence on his land, such structure could not be offered for sale or sold during the valid existence of the current building permit, and that all contracted services must be with licensed contractors. Respondent completed construction of a residence on the property in the spring of 1980, and sold it on or about May 10, 1980. During construction of the house, Respondent had placed a sign on the property which stated "Custom Homes by Ray Johnson." Respondent constructed the home himself and did not subcontract any of the work. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4, 8) In 1980, Respondent purchased a lot at 3625 Beneva Oaks Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, and obtained an owner's building permit from Sarasota County on August 7, 1980, to construct a residence there. During construction, Respondent had a "For Sale" sign on the premises. Officials of the Sarasota County Building Construction Department informed him that he would have to take the sign down, and he did, until receiving the certificate of occupancy in early 1981 when he again placed the sign on the property. Respondent sold the house on August 8, 1981. The permit issued for construction contained the same prohibition against offering the property for sale or selling it during the existence of the building permit. Respondent constructed the house himself and did not utilize subcontractors. (Testimony of Respondent, Hayek, Taylor, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3, 6, 9) On February 2, 1981, Harry W. Mathley obtained an owner's building permit from the Sarasota County Building Construction Department to construct a residence at 3759 Beneva Oaks Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. Mathley entered into an oral contract with Respondent to perform the framing, electrical and plumbing work on the house. At the time, Respondent told Mathley that he was not licensed in Sarasota County to perform electrical and plumbing work. Mathley paid Respondent a lump sum for the electrical materials and work. Mathley paid for a portion of the plumbing fixtures himself, and paid Respondent a lump sum for the remainder of the fixtures and for the plumbing work. Mathley indicated on a county Subcontractors Verification Form, prior to issuance of the building permit, that he would perform the electrical and plumbing subcontracting himself. During the course of construction, Mathley permitted Respondent to place a sign "Custom Homes by Ray Johnson" on the property to help him get business. Officials of the County Building Department placed a stop order on the premises on May 11, 1981, which recited that the reason for such notice was that subcontractors were not licensed. Respondent went to the Building Department where the supervisor of licensing explained to him that his sign did not correspond to the owner's building permit taken out by Mathley. Respondent performed the electrical and plumbing work as provided in the oral contract. (Testimony of Hayek, Mathley, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 6, Respondent's Exhibit l.) On March 6, 1981, Robert L. Rogers obtained an owner building permit from the Sarasota County Building Construction Department to construct a residence at 3735 Beneva Oaks Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On the Subcontractors Verification Form which was completed prior to obtaining the building permit, Rogers stated that the electrical and plumbing work was to be performed by himself as owner. He entered into an oral contract with Respondent to do the framing, electrical and plumbing portions of the house and paid him in a lump sum for this work. Respondent advised him that he was not licensed to perform electrical and plumbing contracting in Sarasota, but was qualified in another county. Respondent performed the electrical and plumbing work as provided in the oral contract. (Testimony of Rogers, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 2) Section 113.1 of Sarasota County Ordinance No. 80-90 makes it unlawful for any person to do any construction work in the various trades, including electrical and plumbing, unless he holds an active Sarasota County Operating Certificate, in addition to an applicable Sarasota County Certificate of Competency and State of Florida Registration, or a valid certification by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The ordinance further provides in that section that no person who is to perform all construction work on his own building is required to hold an operating certificate, provided that the building is for his own single family residence and the required permit is issued. It further provides that the hiring out by "day labor" in order to avoid operating certificate requirements shall be deemed a violation of the ordinance. Section 106.3(c) of the ordinance provides that all work contracted for under a construction permit shall be performed by contractors holding operating certificates for the particular trade involved. Respondent did not hold an operating permit or certificate of competency from Sarasota County at the time he did the work on the residences of Mathley and Rogers. (Testimony of Hayek, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had originally intended to build the residences at 505 South Shore Drive and at 3625 Beneva Oaks Boulevard as personal residences and to move his family from Gainesville to Sarasota when his daughter completed high school in the spring of 1981, but that he was unable to do so because of financial difficulties involving unsold houses in Gainesville. However, he conceded that "Well, I am a builder. Any house that I build is for sale." He further testified that he has resided for several days a week in the residence at 3625 Beneva Oaks Boulevard from the period after it was completed until it was sold. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent Raymon E. Johnson. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Allen R. Smith, Jr. Department of Professional Executive Director Regulation Board of Electrical Contractors 547 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Raymon E. Johnson Department of Professional Post Office Box 13981 Regulation Gainesville, Florida 32604 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Respondent/Licensee, Tomas Perez, d/b/a Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. (Lifetime), engaged in conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, which warrants the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) to take disciplinary action respecting his license and to impose an administrative fine based on said alleged conduct.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Tomas Perez, d/b/a Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. (Respondent), is a certified general contractor who holds license No. CGCA 04170, which is active. On September 24, 1975, Mr. Perez used his license to qualify Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., as the entity through which he would conduct his business activities (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On August 15, 1978, Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. , entered into an agreement with James Laughery of Fort Myers, Florida, for a franchise agreement to use Lifetime's license in the immediate area of Fort Myers, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). That agreement provides, among other things, that Respondent Lifetime authorized James Laughery to use its license in the Fort Myers area for a fee of $50.00 per job or $1,500.00. The agreement does not provide, nor was any evidence offered to establish that Respondent Perez played any supervisory or managing role in agent Laughery's contracting activities in the Fort Myers area. During October of 1978, Mr. Andrew Szarfran entered into an agreement with Respondent's agent, Laughery, to perform certain roofing repairs to his residence for the sum of $1,000.00. Mr. Szarfran paid Laughery $500.00 and Laughery abandoned the project prior to completion (Testimony of Szarfran and Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4). Mr. Szarfran engaged the services of another contractor to complete the project. On May 17, 1979, the Lee County Construction Board reviewed a complaint filed against Respondent by the Szarfrans. Based on that review, the Lee County Construction Board revoked Respondent's licensing privileges in the county at its June, 1979, meeting (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4 and testimony of witnesses Richard M. McDole and Maxine Allred, Administrative Director of Court Enforcement and Permit Clerk, respectively, for Lee County). On or about October 17, 1978, Respondent's agent, Laughery, also entered into an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Swanson for the erection of aluminum siding to the exterior walls of their residence for a full price of $5,000.00. The Swansons gave Respondent's agent, Laughery, a downpayment of $2,500.00 and agent Laughery abandoned the project prior to the commencement of any work (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8 and testimony of Mrs. Swanson). Richard Newmes, the chief inspector for building and zoning, Cafe Coral, Florida, testified that the Construction Industry Licensing Board for Cape Coral, Florida, revoked Respondent's contractor license on January 17, 1979, based on his violation of Cape Coral Code Section 5-1/2 - 21(J), to wit: "Failure to make good faulty workmanship or materials performed or installed to evade performance of the contract or specifications as agreed upon." (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) On or about January 4, 1979, Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., became aware of its agent, James Laughery's mismanagement of funds and his failure to honor contractual obligations he had entered in the Fort Myers area. Respondent and its agent Laughery therefore entered into an agreement which rendered the franchise agreement between the parties null and void. Agent Laughery, in said agreement, promised to pay, from his commissions due, monies owed to Lifetime Chemicals, Inc., which apparently was brought about due to the restitution that Lifetime Chemicals had made to customers whom agent Laughery had defaulted. As mitigating evidence, it was noted that the Respondent, Tomas Perez, was not party to or familiar with the activities and/or difficulties that the designated agent for Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., James Laughery, was encountering in the Fort Myers vicinity before early January, 1979. As soon as Respondent became aware of Laughery's problems, steps were immediately taken to halt such acts insofar as they related to Respondent (Testimony of Tomas Perez and Michael Arfaras).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the mitigating evidence which revealed that although the Petitioner is authorized and in fact holds the qualifier license of a registered entity responsible for the acts of its agents, in view of the undisputed evidence which reflects that neither Respondent Perez or Respondent Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc., in any manner benefited from the acts of its agents and in fact attempted to thwart the illegal acts of its agent as soon as such became known, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: l. That the Respondent, Tomas Perez's Certified General Contractor's license, CGCA 04170, be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. 2. That the Respondents, Tomas Perez and Lifetime Chemicals of America, Inc. , be issued a written letter of reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Tomas Perez 2395 West 12th Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33010 Michael Harold Arfaras 820 S.W. 20th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director 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. CASE NO. 79-2173 THOMAS PEREZ, CGCA 04170 Respondent. /
