Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent was licensed as a general contractor, holding license number CG C003564, qualifying WSCON Corporation. On or about September 27, 1990, the Respondent, acting on behalf of WSCON Corporation, entered into a contract with Emilio and Jennie Delgado to build an addition to the Delgado's residence at 13562 Southwest 286th Terrace, Miami, Florida, for a price of $12,756.00. On or about January 5, 1991, the parties to the contract agreed to a change order which increased the contract price by $1,248.00, to a total of $14,004.00. The Respondent obtained a building permit for the job from Dade County and the Respondent began work on the job about a month after signing the contract. The Delgados made payments to the Respondent pursuant to the contract in the total amount of $10,500.00. The final payment was due upon completion of the job. The Delgados never made the final payment because the Respondent never finished the job. After about September or October of 1991, the Respondent performed no further work under the contract. At that time, the Respondent had completed the majority of the work, but there was still some work that remained to be completed. 1/ The Respondent discontinued performing work called for by the contract because of financial problems he was having due to his not having received certain funds owed to him by Dade County. He offered to continue working on the job if the Delgados would advance him sums under the contract that were not yet due, but the Delgados refused to do so. The Delgados never discharged the Respondent. The Delgados completed the job themselves, paying a total of $6,046.21 to various suppliers of labor and materials other than the Respondent. 2/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charges alleged in Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing the following penalty: an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and a one year period of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 23rd day of June 1994.
Findings Of Fact In March, 1974 Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Francis T. Kent for the construction of a residence for a price of $46,700. After Kent had paid Respondent $26,000 he became aware of a problem in satisfying claims of subcontractors with the resulting possibility of liens against the house. At the time the Kents were in Michigan preparing to move to Florida. They came to Florida in September and met with Selner at their attorney's office at which time a secondary agreement was entered into whereby Kent would make checks payable to Respondent and subcontractor jointly. An additional $18,589.93 was paid to Selner pursuant to this secondary agreement. This made a total payment to Respondent of $44,589.93 as of December 31, 1974. After crediting Respondent for sewer hookup and crediting Kent with allowances provided in the contract for carpets, landscaping, etc. the Kents had paid $46,552.44 of the total contract price of $46,700. Thereafter four liens totaling $3,348.63 were filed against the residence. Kent paid one in full, settled a second lien at a discount and two remain pending. The total still owned to lienors is approximately $1,700.
Findings Of Fact On July 2nd, 1974, Closet Maid Corporation (CMC) acquired Beechcraft model BCO from Elliott Flying Service under an agreement which was not introduced into evidence at this hearing. Respondent contends that this is a lease agreement with option to purchase at the expiration of sixty (60) months. Exhibit 3 is a transfer of CMC's interest in this aircraft to NOS Corporation. The Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 1) claims a tax due of $9,633.70, penalties of $481.69, and interest of $1,011.54 or a total tax due of $11,126.93. The accuracy of this sum was not contested. CMC is a corporation the majority of whose stock is owned by Norman Sauer. NOS Corporation was formed to be the transferee of CMC's interest in the airplane and the stock of NOS is wholly owned by Sauer. CMC and Nodorana Farms, another corporation wholly owned by Sauer, entered into agreements with NOS to lease back the aircraft at a guaranteed minimum monthly rental in excess of $8,000.00, which will provide NOS with sufficient revenues to make the monthly payments on the aircraft of $4,214.89 plus operating expenses. Elliott Flying Service is the registered owner of the aircraft. The only documentary evidence presented regarding the agreement between CMC and Elliott Flying Service is Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 is a Beech Acceptance Corporation, Inc. (BAC) Transfer of Interest Agreement form which states that the "note, conditional sale contract, lease, chattel mortgage, or other security agreement, herein called 'Instrument'", representing the agreement between CMC and Elliott, requires the consent of BAC for its transfer to NOS. At the date shown on Exhibit 3 of August 1st, 1976, Exhibit 3 recites the balance due on the aircraft of $240,842.39 "is payable in forty-seven (47) consecutive monthly installments of $4,214.89 each, first installment payable August 2nd, 1976, and one final installment of $42,742.56." Exhibit 3 further shows BAC to be the assignee of the "instrument" executed between CMC and Elliott. Exhibit 2C is headed NOS CORPORATION and shows monthly aircraft expenses. Included therein is depreciation of $2480.00 and interest expense of $2192.00. Accounting procedures prescribed by AICPA provide that equipment held on long term lease be capitalized. Accordingly, essentially the same accounting procedures would be used whether the aircraft was obtained on lease or conditional sales contract.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark O. Holland, is a licensed registered building contractor holding license number RB 0039443. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Sometime around June 19, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Mary Sue Thames. Ms. Thames resided in Tennessee. The contract covered Ms. Thames' partially burned out home located at 528 Dement Circle, Panama City, Florida. Respondent was to rebuild the damaged portions of the home and to build an addition onto the home. The contract improvements were to be completed within sixty days of the contract date. The contract contemplated installment payments by Mrs. Thames, by September 5, 1986, she had paid $15,000.00 of the total contract price of $17,300.00 to Respondent. The remaining $2,300.00 was to be paid upon completion of the job. Mrs. Thames became concerned that the job was not progressing in a reasonably timely manner in September 1986 when she visited the job site from Tennessee. She observed that "nothing was done" even though the sixty day contract period had expired. Suppliers were removing items from the job that Respondent had not paid for under the contract. Mrs. Thames throughout the job had telephoned the Respondent weekly to check on the progress. Respondent would assure Mrs. Thames that he would "get right on it" and finish the job. Due to Respondent's assurances, Mrs. Thames elected to stay with Respondent so that he could complete the contract. Respondent never substantially performed the job although he did perform part of the contract. Between September 1986 and January 1987, Mrs. Thames in an effort to get the job finished, paid for supplies and materials that Respondent was contractually obligated to purchase. She paid for sheet rock, vinyl, carpet and doors. Respondent had told Mrs. Thames that he had no money to finish the job and that if she would purchase those materials he could finish the job. Mrs. Thames knew the contract obligated the Respondent to furnish the materials she purchased but was trying to work with the Respondent. The effort did not pay off. Respondent had in effect abandoned the job. As stated earlier, Respondent did not complete Mrs. Thames' job. In March 1987, Mrs. Thames' family assisted her in obtaining other subcontractors and suppliers to complete the job. She incurred costs of $8,000.00 to these subcontractors and suppliers, an amount less than the amount already paid to Respondent. Mrs. Thames testified that at least two subcontractors have not been paid by the Respondent those being Stephens Heating and Air Conditioning and M.D. Stewart Plumbing Company. Mr. Lester Stephens, owner of Stephens Heating and Air Conditioning subcontracted with the Respondent. Stephens' company roughed in the central ducts system valued at $700.00 on September 1, 1986 and as of September 27, 1988, had not been paid by Respondent. Coastal Insulation of Northwest Florida, Inc. filed a lien against Mrs. Thames' property as a result of Respondent not paying for supplies. The lien was apparently discharged by Respondent. Mr. Richard Dodson confirmed the testimony of Mrs. Thames. Mr. Dodson added that in addition to the $8,000.00 Mrs. Thames paid to complete the job, she also incurred hotel and travel bills. She also lost approximately 1 - 1/2 years worth of rental income on the house because of Respondent's misconduct and abandonment of the job. Respondent was disciplined by the Panama City Beach Board of Examiners on September 10, 1987 for misconduct and violations of the Building Regulations and Ordinances of the City of Panama City Beach during the Thames job. Respondent's competency card was revoked by the Board. Respondent has never refunded any of the contract price to Mrs. Thames.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 be levied against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2489 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 2 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Tectonics Section Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark O. Holland Route A, Box 366 Youngstown, Florida 32466 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Nine bids were received for Contract E4571, Project/Job No. 99004-3516 ("E4571"). Petitioner's bid was timely received. Respondent opened bids on December 13, 1991. Respondent posted its intent to award E4571 to J & D Tropical Landscape Design on December 20, 1991. Section 1.2 of the Bid Specifications for E4571, as modified by the Special Provisions, states: A contractor's bid shall be in the form of a unit price for each unit expected to be accomplished. The Special Provisions to E4571 require each bidder to submit a single unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. Item 4 in the Special "Provisions provides: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to submit to the Department A SINGLE unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. The Contractor shall be responsible for his/her method of averaging. Failure to comply shall result in the Contractor's Bid Proposal being declared "Irregular" and such Bid Proposals will be rejected. (emphasis added) Petitioner's Bid Proposal was properly declared irregular and rejected by Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Item 4 in the Special Provisions by failing to submit a single unit price for each pay item, by failing to correctly average a unit price, and by failing to state the unit price in words. The Unit Price Sheet on page 23 of the Bid Proposals contains the following table listing item numbers A582- 2 through A584-4. Petitioner listed item number A583 as follows: ITEM PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE $ AMOUNTS NUMBER QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE (IN FIGURES) (Exten- (IN WORDS) sion Price) 3/ A583 4 200.000 TREES (8' TO 20, 85 20400 PLANT ' HEIGHT OR CLEAR TRUNK) @ DOLLARS CENTS The actual extension price 4/ for 200 trees at $85 per unit is $17,000 rather than the $20,400 stated by Petitioner in the table on page 23. The "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the table is $37,013.20. The "Contract Total" that should have been stated if Petitioner intended the extension price of item number A583-4 to be $17,000 would have been $33,613. The "Contract Total" listed by a bidder on the Unit Price Sheet is the unverified contract price. The actual contract price is determined by Respondent pursuant to the formula given in Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications. Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications foil E4571 states: The contract price is defined as the sum of the unit bid price times the planned work for each item as shown on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner would have been the lowest successful bidder irrespective of whether Respondent had replaced the extension price for item number A583-4 and the "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner with the actual extension price for item number A583-4 and the actual "Contract Total" . However, Respondent is precluded from doing so by Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications For Road ,and Bridge Construction ("Standard Specifications"), published by the Florida Department of Transportation (1991) and by the Special Provisions for E4571. Respondent follows "Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications for the purpose of evaluating bid proposals. Section 3-1 is used, in part, to determine the extension price for item numbers listed on the Unit Price Sheet. Section 3- 1 provides in relevant part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price of any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, In which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Petitioner did not show the unit price in words for any item number on the Unit Price Sheet, including item number A583-4. There is a discrepancy in the three entries for item number A583-4 on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner failed to show the unit price for item number A583-4 in words, and the unit price and extension price are not in agreement. Under such circumstances, Respondent interprets Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications as requiring that Petitioner's bid be declared irregular and rejected. Respondent's interpretation of Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications is reasonable and is consistent with the mandate in Item 4 of the Special Provisions for E4571. See Finding 4, supra. Furthermore, in practice, the correct unit price of a pay item is necessary to process payment under the contract and the contractor must submit invoices based upon the pay items and unit prices listed in its bid. The bid specifications for E4571 provide that a bidder is responsible for his or her own averaging of a stated unit price, and that if a bidder fails to provide a single unit price for each pay item on the Unit Price Sheet the bid shall be declared "Irregular" and will be rejected. The requirement to provide a single unit price for each pay item was emphasized by Respondent at the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Petitioner's representative attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. No challenges were made to the bid specifications by any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (964) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1992.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed in Florida as a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C018621, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's license had been suspended. At no time material was Respondent licensed to practice contracting in Florida through Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. On or about November 13, 1995, Respondent, doing business as Florida East Coast Properties, entered into a contract with Kazimierz and Maria Charchut (the Charchuts) for construction of a single family residence to be located at 8 Farmsworth Drive, Palm Coast, Flagler County, Florida. The original contract price was $124,000. At the time of the signing of the contract, the Charchuts lived in Brooklyn, New York, and continue to reside there. The Respondent's license number does not appear on the contract. The Respondent's notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund does not appear on the contract. Between September 13 and November 28, 1995, the Charchuts paid Respondent a total of $44,000 of the contract price towards construction of the residence. This amount constituted more than 10% of the contract amount (10% of the contract amount would have been $12,400). A closing on the construction loan was scheduled for October of 1995. Respondent called Mr. Charchut a couple of days before the first scheduled closing telling him they could stop the closing so that they could get better interest rates. Between October 1995 and June of 1997, Respondent failed to appear at a total of three scheduled closings on the construction loan. The Charchuts wrote several letters and made several phone calls to Respondent expressing concern that the closing had not yet occurred although they had already paid him a substantial amount of money. The closing finally took place in October of 1997. Because of some change orders that were to be made to the house, including wooden floors and a longer driveway, the Charchuts paid an additional $14,813.75 at the closing bringing the total cost of the construction of the home to $138,813.75. Included on the Change Order form was an amount of $2,001.75 for water and sewer assessments, which comprised part of the $14,813.75 total additional moneys paid by the Charchuts. The closing agent testified that this closing was atypical, because the bank was concerned that Respondent held too much money in the construction project. She testified that the bank requires that builders have no more than ten percent deposit. Consequently, Respondent was required to reimburse the bank $16,786.25 of the Charchut's $44,000 deposit at the closing. This was accomplished by Respondent bringing a check to the closing in the amount of $25,000 and receiving a refund overage check from Flagler County Abstract Co., (written to Florida East Coast) in the amount of $8,213.75, resulting in Respondent paying a net amount of $16,786.25 at the closing. At the closing, the bank received a check from Flagler County Abstract Co. for $31,600 to put in the construction loan account. This amount was composed of the Charchut's payment of $14,813.75 plus Respondent's payment of $16,786.25. Mr. Charchut wrote to Respondent in March of 1998 expressing concern that the closing had taken place in October of 1997 but the construction of his home had not yet begun. Respondent replied to Mr. Charchut in a letter dated April 8, 1998, stating that he was sorry for the delay in beginning construction of the home and that he intended to begin construction the week of April 20, 1998. Respondent applied for the building permit on May 7, 1998. Respondent applied for water and sewer service on May 5, 1998. He began construction of the house in June or July of 1998. By the end of July 1998, Respondent finished the slab foundation and rough plumbing of the Charchut's home. Consequently, the mortgage company paid $14,769.40 out of the first draw payment on the construction loan to Respondent's company. Of that amount, $3,485.86 was for reimbursement for payment to subcontractors. In addition to the amounts paid to Respondent, the mortgage company paid Mastercraft Plumbing $1,894 and $5,656.60 to CRS Rinker Materials Corp. The total first draw was $22,320. After payment of the first draw in August of 1998, little if any work was done on the construction of the Charchut's home. After the initial work on the slab, Respondent stopped construction and told the Charchuts that he did not want to continue to build their home and was looking for another contractor to finish the house for them. After being told that Respondent did not want to work on the home, the Charchuts wrote to Respondent on October 5, 1998, notifying Respondent to stop doing further work on the property and asking him to notify the Building Department so a transfer of the construction permit to another builder could take place. The Charchuts subsequently engaged another contractor, Mr. V. M. Zarbo. Mr. Charchut testified that he paid approximately $160,000 for the house to be built, including the money paid to Respondent. Mr. Charchut testified that when Mr. Zarbo began his work, Palm Coast Utility asked him to pay the impact fee for water and sewer. Despite the Charchut's having paid Respondent $2,001.75 toward water and sewer assessments, Respondent's check for that amount made out to Palm Coast Utility Company was returned for insufficient funds. Consequently, the Charchuts had to pay $2,116.75 for this fee again through their subsequent general contractor, notwithstanding Respondent claiming that he had incurred this expense. When added together, the Charchuts paid Respondent a total of $51,650.50 for the work Respondent did on the house. The total is composed of the sum of $27,213.75 (the net Respondent retained on the original down payment), $14,769.40 paid to Respondent from the first draw, and $1,894 and $5,656.60 paid to Respondent's suppliers/subcontractors from the first draw. Additionally, the Charchuts paid $2,116.75 for payment of the utility impact fee that the Charchuts had to pay twice. The Charchuts asked their subsequent contractor to prepare an estimate of the cost of the work that Respondent performed on the home. His written estimate was for a total of $21,536.68. The Charchuts included that written estimate in a letter to Respondent dated November 16, 1998, asking for a refund of amounts they paid in excess of his costs. Roy Brand testified as an expert witness for Petitioner. Mr. Brand has been a certified commercial contractor for about 20 years. He reviewed the estimate of Respondent's expenses that was provided by the Charchut's subsequent contractor. It was Mr. Brand's opinion that the cost estimate was appropriate and, if anything, Respondent's expenses might have been less. Respondent testified that he spent more on some items that were listed in the estimate. Respondent, during the investigation leading up to this case, was given an opportunity to provide receipts to Petitioner's investigator of expenditures made to the house. The receipts supplied to Petitioner's investigator do not total an amount in excess of the estimate made by the Charchut's subsequent builder. Based upon Respondent's failure to provide receipts to prove that the estimate total was too low, Mr. Zarbo's good faith estimate of building expenses made after his inspection of the property, and testimony of Petitioner's expert witness as to the reasonableness of the estimate, the estimate of expenses for Respondent's work in the amount of $21,536.68 is accepted as appropriate. Thus, Respondent has failed to account for or return to the Charchuts $30,113.82, the difference between the amount paid by the Charchuts and the estimate of expenses.1 As of September 20, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $1,498.66. Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, (Final Order No. BPR-2000-01399) dated April 4, 2000, which found Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations to a client; Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes,2 by acting in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as set forth on the issued certificate or registration; Section 489.129(1)(h)1, Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing a statement with respect to a project or contract with false information; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting and imposing the penalties of placing Respondent on probation for two (2) years and payment of an administrative fine, costs and restitution to a customer. The second occasion that Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, (Final Order No. BPR-2000-01443) also dated April 4, 2000, which found that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a certificate or registration other than in the name of the certificateholder; Section 489.129(1)(h)1 and 3, Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing a statement with respect to a project or contract falsely indicating that payment had been made for all subcontracted work; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; and imposing the penalties of probation, payment of fines, costs and restitution. Respondent apparently did not satisfy the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders as Respondent's license was suspended on May 17, 2000, for non-payment of fines, costs or restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $11,250, revokes Respondent's license, orders that Respondent pay restitution to the Charchuts in the amount of $30,113.82, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through September 20, 2000) in the total sum of $1,498.66 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 12th day of December, 2000.
