Findings Of Fact Randall Labadie owns the corporation, Labadie's, Inc., d/b/a Atlantic Coast Steamatic, a business engaged in interior cleaning and air duct cleaning, with a principal office located at 1599 SW 30th Avenue, Suite 11, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. Randall Labadie has owned the business in Florida for ten years and has been personally involved in air duct cleaning for approximately 20 years. He holds a State of Florida building contractor's license, but not a sheet metal, air conditioning or mechanical contractor's license. Approximately fifty percent of the company's business is air duct cleaning, with thousands of jobs having been completed over its years of operation. Respondent, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) is responsible for regulating various professions in the construction industry pursuant to Chapter 489, F.S. On August 8, 1984, CILB Administrative Assistant, Milton Rubin, issued this written opinion in response to an inquiry from the executive director of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board: In response to your inquiry for an opinion on the following questions, the answer is in the affirmative: Does a person or firm performing "cleaning" services for air conditioning systems have to be licensed? Yes. If, in the process of "cleaning", a person or firm cuts access openings in existing duct work, does that person or firm require competency licensure? Yes. Does "servicing" in 489.105(h) include cleaning? Yes. (Exhibit #2) * * * The Board did not adopt a rule reflecting its official position on the matter because it felt that the interpretation would have been an unnecessary restatement of the language of Chapter 489, F.S. (Stipulation of the parties filed 11/20/92) On March 13, 1992, the CILB took this official action as reflected in its General Session Minutes: There was a presentation by Mr. Dean Ellis and Jim Hasbrook of Pinellas County regarding a request from two industries. The two industry associations include The Florida Air Conditioning Contractors Association and the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association. The issue concerns duct cleaning and air conditioning system cleaning. This Board had previously taken a position in August of 1984 that this work must be performed by a licensed contractor in one of three categories: air conditioning, mechanical, or sheet metal. At that time the opinion was rendered by Mr. Rubin but included a disclaimer stating that it did not reflect the official position of the Board. These associations now request a formal position from the Board stating that the licensed contractor must perform this work as stated in Mr. Rubin's letter of 1984. Mr. Lopez-Cantera made motion to ratify that position as a policy of the Board. Second by Mr. Manrique. Motion carried. (Exhibit #1) After the Board action was taken, various industry organizations sent notices of the Board's position to their members. The Florida Air Conditioning Contractor's Association "...urge[d] all parties concerned to act on the FCILB decision... [and to] ...report any unlicensed activity through the proper channels." (Exhibit #4) Steamatic, Inc., is engaged in the business of franchising cleaning operations, and has a home office in Fort Worth, Texas. Around 1975, it expanded from fire and water restoration cleaning into other cleaning services, more specifically, air duct cleaning or air conditioning system cleaning. Steamatic, Inc., has approximately 144 franchises in the United States, including 14 in the State of Florida. Prior to March 13, 1992, no Florida franchise was cited for engaging in cleaning activity without a license under Chapter 489, F.S. Since March 1992, at least two franchises, in Jacksonville and in Bradenton, have received notices from Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigators that complaints have been filed alleging unlicensed practice of air conditioning contracting. The CILB policy formally adopted in March 1992, has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S. The CILB has not adopted rules setting acceptable standards for air duct cleaning, and at the March 13, 1992, Board meeting, Board member, Cosmo Tornese stated that there are no accepted standards regarding air duct cleaning. As of March 13, 1992, the National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) had not adopted standards. The duct cleaning activity conducted by Petitioner and other Steamatic franchisees is nonstructural work only. These companies do not "repair", "maintain", or "adjust" air conditioning systems. They generally obtain access to the ducts through existing openings or the registers, and they vacuum what is accessible. With a low-pressure atomizing gun they apply a germicide treatment and a sealer. In about ten percent of the cases they might cut an opening in the duct in the fogging process and they close it with duct tape. They do not cut sheet metal or disconnect the duct work from the air handler. They do not clean the coils on condensing units or fan blades in the air handler. They only cut fiber duct board, never flex duct. They do not disengage electrical connections. They do residential work only. In contrast, and for more money (base price of $595.00, as opposed to $250-300.00 charged by Steamatic), Dean Ellis' company, Climate Control Services, offers what he prefers to call "air duct sanitizing". (transcript p. 74) Dean Ellis has a Florida class A unlimited air conditioning license. He cleans the air handler coil, evaporator coil, drain pan and interior of cabinets. The components are removed and are chemically cleaned and sprayed. His workers take out the electric heat strips and fan motor. They inspect the ducts and replace duct work that is severely contaminated. They use an air source removal machine that is connected through a large hole cut in the box that fits above the air handler and suctions the entire duct system. They check and adjust freon levels and fan speeds. About five percent of Dean Ellis' business is related to the cleaning of air ducts. He considers his company is in a competitor's relationship with Steamatic. The association of which he is a board member, Florida Air Conditioning Contractors Association, brought its concerns to the CILB and wanted to know if the Board would enforce what the association already considered the law to be. Petitioner, Labadie's, Inc., d/b/a Atlantic Coast Steamatic, is substantially affected by the CILB's response to its regulated industry representatives. (See prehearing stipulation, filed 11/20/92)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein discussed, Respondent Wallace W. Stewart was licensed as a registered air conditioning contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under License No. RA 0022169. Since at least October 1979, Respondent has been qualifying agent for the contracting firm "Stewart's Solar Energy, Inc.," with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In September 1979, Fred Johnson was acting as real estate agent for his son, Don F. Johnson of Ponte Vedra, Florida, a licensed general contractor who at the time had several residences for sale in the area. During that period, Mr. Fred Johnson engaged in a discussion with the Respondent concerning the possibility of installing a solar cooling, heating and hot water system in the house that Mr. Johnson proposed to have his son, Don, build for him in St. Johns County, Florida. Pursuant to these discussions, on September 10, 1979, Respondent prepared a proposal for Mr. and Mrs. Fred Johnson for the installation of a complete cooling and heating system and solar collectors for the purpose of domestic hot water in the said residence. Before this proposal was accepted, Mr. Fred Johnson's son, Don, discussed the terms of the proposal with the Respondent. Specifically discussed was that portion of the proposal wherein Respondent proposed to include the following: Necessary piping for circulating chilled and hot water system, perimeter heat, storage tanks for hot and cold water, necessary heat exchangers, refrigeration equipment, circulating pumps, duct system, thermostats, heat exchanger (fireplace), also piping and controls for the hot water heater. Before allowing his father to sign this proposal and accept it, Don Johnson asked Respondent exactly what he proposed to provide regarding the fireplace and was told that Mr. Stewart would provide a firebox interior, which consisted of a steel box shaped like a fireplace, to protect the heat exchanger that was to go with it. At that time, Mr. Stewart took Don Johnson into his workshop and showed him an outfit which he indicated would be similar to, if not identical to, that which he intended to install in the senior Johnson's home. It was understood that Respondent would supply the firebox and heat exchanger, but the builder was to do the masonry work and the chimney. Thereafter, based upon that understanding, Don Johnson recommended to his father that he accept the proposal, which was accomplished on or about the September 10, 1979, date; and both Fred Johnson and his wife, Christine, did so, agreeing to pay, for the complete system, the sum of $5,483 in accordance with a schedule set forth in the proposal sheet. Construction was begun and progressed to the time it was appropriate to install the firebox. At that point, Respondent told Don Johnson, the builder, he was unable to provide the firebox at that time. Since the state of construction was such that a delay in providing the firebox would hold up the continuance of construction, Respondent asked Don Johnson if he, Don, could provide the standard firebox into which Respondent would put his heat exchanger and thereafter give a credit against the purchase price. In response to this suggestion, Don Johnson told Respondent the cost would be between $400 and $500, to which sum Respondent agreed. As a result, Don Johnson put in the firebox that he procured, and Respondent thereafter put in the heat exchanger unit. Construction on the house continued until such time as, in April 1980, the house was considered sufficiently complete for Mr. and Mrs. Fred Johnson to move in. In the interim, however, in order to get the duct work done for the air conditioning and heating system he installed, Respondent, who was not licensed to perform heating and air conditioning installation in St. Johns County, Florida, arranged with Mr. Everett Masters, owner of Masters Heating and Air Service of St. Augustine, Florida, to do the duct work for the Johnson home. A building mechanical permit is not required to do duct work, and Mr. Masters did the duct work without a permit, even though he was not satisfied that the installation called for in the drawings was sufficient to accomplish the purpose of heating and cooling for a house that size. According to Mr. Masters, he did the work according to the specifications given to him, but protested to a representative of Mr. Stewart, Respondent, that the ducts were too small. In response, he was told to put the ducts in as called for in the specifications, which he did, but was never paid for the work he provided. St. Johns County Ordinance No. 76-20, an ordinance regulating contractors and the business of contracting within that county, at Section 4 thereof requires that air conditioning contractors be certified in order to conduct that business within the county. The contract involved here for the construction of Mr. Johnson's house would have required the contractor, Respondent, to have a local license to complete the air conditioning work. Respondent does not have a license in St. Johns County and never has had one. As a matter of fact, before the work was done, Mr. Don Germain, an assistant building official for St. Johns County, told Respondent in 4Z. Germain's office that he, Respondent, would need a county license at the time Respondent had come to the office prior to installing the air conditioning unit in the Johnson house. At this point, Mr. Germain discussed the project, including the rough drawing Respondent had with him, and advised Respondent at that time what permits and what licensing provisions must be fulfilled. At that time, solar heating and hot water systems did not require the license. However, the other work called for in this contract, such as the installation of the air conditioning system, would require a type of license which Respondent did not have. Germain and the Respondent had an extensive discussion on this. As it appeared to Mr. Germain, Respondent could not seem to understand why a license would be needed. A mechanical permit was issued on April 23, 1950, to Masters Heating and Air for a part of the system. A part did not include the entire installation permit. This permit applied for by Mr. Masters was acquired at the request of Don Johnson, the contractor, who pleaded with him to do so because, according to Mr. Johnson, the only way he could get final approval of the construction in order to get the elec- tricity turned on in the house was if this permit was applied for and issued. The permit in question was issued for something other than the duct work accomplished by Mr. Masters. Mr. Masters did not install the air conditioning equipment, only the ducting. The permit, if legitimate, would allow final approval of the installation of the entire air conditioning system. The information contained on the permit was provided to Mr. Masters by Respondent. According to Mr. Germain, Respondent never did get final approval of the building inspector on the total installation. The equipment was not initially accepted by the building department, since it was not a unitary unit-- in which all segments are designed to work together as a unit. However, even though the unit was rejected by the building authorities, they let the work continue based on a letter from the engineer who approved the purchase of the system, which indicated the engineer would be responsible for the working of the unit. In addition, the building officials allowed the work on Mr. Johnson's home to continue even after the discussions regarding the lack of a proper licensee because Respondent assured Mr. Germain of the building office that Mr. Masters, who was in fact a registered and licensed air conditioning contractor in St. Johns County, was going to do the work. Though the unit was basically installed in April 1980, it was not working property even up to July 3, 1980 It did not cool properly. At that point, Respondent contends he was still owed some money by Mr. Johnson. In November 1980, when it became obvious that the initially installed compressor was insufficient in size to cool a house the size of Mr. Johnson's, Respondent replaced the compressor, installing one a half ton larger than that initially installed. At that point, Don Johnson paid Respondent the sum of $800, which, according to Mr. Johnson, was the entire sum owed on the complete installation after deduction of the credit of $483 for the firebox which Mr. Johnson fabricated in lieu of that initially proposed by Respondent and which Respondent could not provide. After Respondent was paid the $800, he stopped responding to calls to service the cooling system and the heating system, even though neither worked properly at that time. Respondent admits that at some point in time he refused to continue servicing Mr. Johnson's unit and did not honor the warranty. He contends, however, that he stopped servicing because Mr. Johnson still owed him $453. The weight of the evidence indicates otherwise. Mr. Johnson ultimately hired another craftsman to repair his system, and the system was repaired without any further assistance by Respondent.
Recommendation That Respondent pay a fine of $1,000, and that Respondent's license be placed on probation for a period of two years.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Sam Pollack, held certified air-conditioning contractor license number CA-C008663 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed by the Board for approximately sixteen years. Respondent used his license with and was qualifying agent for a firm known as Dr. Cool's Clinic, Inc. located at 10662 Southwest 186th Lane, Miami, Florida. Around April 1, 1986 Steven and Beverlee Swerdlen moved into a 1,400 square foot prefabricated modular home at 19800 Southwest 180th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The home is located in a large modular home subdivision known as Redland. Although a modular home resembles a mobile home in certain respects, it is considered to be a fixed, permanent residential dwelling under local building codes. The home had previously been a model unit in the subdivision and had never been lived in since being built at least three years earlier. On April 3, 1986 respondent entered into a contract with Steven Swerdlen to install a Rheem four-ton air conditioning unit at Swerdlen's home. The contract called for a total price of $2152.50. The Swerdlens paid for the job in full the same day by credit card. Because Swerdlen's home had the ductwork and twenty outlets already in place, Pollack was to adapt the unit to the existing ductwork. Respondent's firm was selected over other firms because Mrs. Swerdlen was impressed with Pollack's advertisement which represented that Pollack provided "air conditioning designed and serviced for people with allergies and other respiratory problems." This was important to her since she suffers a heart condition and requires air-conditioning during warm weather. She also accepted respondent's oral representations that he had the experience and expertise to satisfy her needs. The ductwork in the home was accessible through a small crawlspace located under the floor. There were also two vents under the floor to prevent a buildup of moisture. The flooring in the home was made of particle board and was sealed with a vapor barrier which was designed to protect it from moisture damage. When the Swerdlens purchased their home, the vapor barrier was already cracked in several places and, coupled with the fact that the area had only two vents, the floor was susceptible to moisture damage. Before a central air-conditioning unit is installed, a prudent and competent air-conditioning contractor should take measurements of the home, perform heat loss calculations and inspect the existing ductwork to insure that the proper size unit is being installed. The evidence is sharply conflicting as to what steps, if any, were undertaken by respondent when he visited the Swerdlen home on April 3 to discuss the job. It is found, however, that Pollack made a visual inspection of the home but did not take formal measurements or make heat loss calculations. He inspected the ductwork to the extent he looked under the house through the crawlspace opening. He noted a potential problem with the vapor barrier and a supply duct hookup location that was blocked by a pier (support). He mentioned to Mrs. Swerdlen that she needed additional ventilation windows underneath the home and that she had a potential moisture problem with the vapor barrier. However, he did not suggest that she wait and have those matters corrected before he installed the unit. The unit was installed on April 7, 1986, or four days after the contract was signed. Besides respondent and a helper, Mrs. Swerdlen was the only person present. No electricians were called in to assist on the job. According to Pollack, the only electrical work that he performed was the installation of the thermostat unit in the closet under the fuse box and the internal electrical connections to the unit. As to this latter work, Pollack stated he did not believe an electrical license was needed to connect the terminal wires to the air-conditioning unit. He did not obtain a building permit from the county nor did he request an inspection of his work. Both were required by county regulations. Because the supply duct hookup was blocked by a pier, Pollack was forced to place a three or four foot high supply duct in a bedroom closet. Without advising the Swerdlens as to the extent or nature of modifications needed to bypass the pier, Pollack cut a large, unsightly hole in the closet floor. It was also necessary to penetrate the vapor barrier when the hole was cut. The cut was never resealed. The new duct took up much of the closet space and was vulnerable to puncture damage. A photograph of the supply duct is found in petitioner's exhibit 14. After the work was completed, Pollack did not advise the Swerdlens that the vapor barrier had been broken or that it needed to be resealed to avoid moisture damage to their floor. The power source to the air-conditioning unit was a 10-gauge wire. Since the unit required a larger gauge, it was necessary that an 8-gauge wire be installed. Pollack and his helper left for one and one-half hours at lunch during the day of installation, and Pollack claims the wire was changed by someone during the time he was gone. The Swerdlens contended they knew nothing about electrical wiring and could not perform the task themselves. Their testimony is accepted as being more credible and it is found that Pollack, even though he was not licensed as an electrician, changed the electrical power source wiring. In addition, Pollack did all other electrical work required for the installation of the unit. In doing so, he made no provision for overload, left exposed wiring in the closet by the thermostat and failed to provide a service disconnection switch for the unit inside the home. Until these deficiencies were corrected several months later, the Swerdlens could smell a burning odor in their home. According to industry standards and local building code requirements, the unit should have been placed on a concrete slab. However, Pollack used two sets of concrete runners obtained from the unit manufacturer. He justified this on the ground that many other homes in the same subdivision did not have slabs under their units. Even so, this did not justify a deviation from code requirements. Because a slab was not used, the unit sank into the ground after the first rainfall. Pollack eventually installed a cement slab in November, 1986 after being ordered to do so by local building officials. The Swerdlens' floors began to buckle and ripple within a short time after the unit was installed. It began in the bathroom directly above the area where Pollack had penetrated the vapor barrier to install the supply duct and was exacerbated by the closure of one of the two vents under the floor when Pollack installed the unit. The damaged floor is memorialized in photographs received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 14. Mrs. Swerdlen contacted respondent after the above problems began to occur. Other than adjusting the thermostat to get better cooling, Pollack did nothing since he did not think he was responsible for the other problems. He offered to make the other changes for additional compensation and if the Swerdlens would agree to release him from all liability. After declining Pollack's offer, Mrs. Swerdlen had other persons or companies make the needed repairs. Most of the costs were paid by her insurance company. She also contacted the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Department) and the Board. The Department learned that no permit had been obtained by Pollack even though one was required and that no inspections had been made during and after the work. Pollack obtained an after-the-fact permit on November 24, 1986, after paying a double fee and a $100 violation fee for failing to timely obtain the permit. After being contacted by Mrs. Swerdlen, a Department mechanical inspector made an inspection of the Swerdlens' home on November 24, 1986. He found several violations of the local building code including (a) a failure to obtain a permit and have required inspections made, and (b) improper electrical work. A summons was issued against Pollack for these violations. The disposition of the summons is not of record. The inspector also noted that the vapor barrier around the closet supply duct had not been resealed, that the flooring was warped above the cut and that the unit was not on a concrete slab. Although the inspector suggested that Pollack correct these deficiencies, only the latter deficiency was corrected. The work never passed final inspection. The Board employed a Jacksonville residential contractor as its expert in this case. Although the expert did not personally inspect the property, he reviewed photographs of the site, respondent's deposition and the investigative file and spoke with the Swerdlens by telephone. According to the Board's expert, Pollack was guilty of gross negligence by performing work that exceeded the scope of his license, performing potentially hazardous electrical wiring, installing a non-efficient system in the Swerdlens' home, failing to follow accepted industry rules concerning static friction, velocities, noise levels and filtration, failing to properly inspect the home prior to installation, improperly installing the unit, damaging the vapor barrier, installing a large supply duct in the closet without obtaining the Swerdlens' approval and failing to use a cement slab to support a heavy unit. He further opined that respondent was deceitful by selling the system in the manner that he did, particularly since it was sold and installed within a four day period with no thought given to or preparation taken as to the problems that might be encountered. The expert agreed that the work was made more difficult by the position of the pier but stated that Pollack should have explained this problem to the Swerdlens and obtained their approval prior to cutting through their closet floor. Pollack has worked in the air-conditioning business for around 26 or 27 years, of which two were spent as a building inspector for Dade County in the late 1960s. He contended he warned Mrs. Swerdlen about the penetrated vapor barrier, the blocked air duct and the lack of a sufficient number of vents. Pollack also stated he advised Mrs. Swerdlen it was her responsibility to get an electrician to do all electrical work. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Moreover, if there were special problems with the Swerdlens' home, it was respondent's responsibility to design and install a system that was compatible with those special needs. Pollack asserted that the Swerdlens' home was actually a mobile home, and he was under the impression that permits were not required for work on this type of home. However, this contention is irrelevant since Dade County has required permits for air conditioning work on both fixed and mobile homes for at least the last ten years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), that he pay a $3,000 civil fine within thirty days from date of a Final Order in this cause, and that his license be suspended for thirty days, or until the fine is paid if after the expiration of said thirty day period. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of June, 1988.
The Issue Whether, as alleged by Petitioners in their Petition for Relief, Respondents have committed, and are continuing to commit, a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the provisions of Florida's Fair Housing Act by denying Petitioners approval "to install a 22,500 BTU air conditioner unit in the wall of their [Fairmont House] apartment." If so, what affirmative relief should Petitioners be provided.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made:1 Petitioner Larry Tresize and his 91 year-old wife, Edith Tresize, who suffers from osteoporosis and a heart condition and is unable to perform normal activities of daily living without assistance, have resided in Apartment 50 of Fairmont House, a residential cooperative located in North Miami, Florida, since 1982. In January of 1991, the Tresizes sold their interest in the apartment to Werner Bischoff, but continued to occupy the apartment inasmuch as they had "reserved[d] unto themselves a life estate in and to the aforementioned real property with the sole right of possession during the life of the grantor EDITH TRESIZE only, with the proviso that [they] w[ould] pay all maintenance, taxes and assessments and utilities for the subject apartment." Fairmont House, Inc. (Corporation) is a non-profit corporation responsible for the operation of the Fairmont House cooperative. The purpose of the Corporation is stated in Article II.A. of its Articles of Incorporation as follows: The general nature of the object of the Corporation is to provide for and promote the general welfare, comfort, safety, and mutual friendliness between its members, to provide the facilities necessary to promote such purposes and to maintain, manage and keep in good repair the roof, outer walls of the building, all common ways, and areas within and without the building, common rooms, parking areas, grounds (meaning all grass sod, shrubbery, and general landscaping), sea walls, swimming pool and pool area, fences, common electrical equipment and fixtures situated within the common areas of the building and on the grounds for the use and enjoyment of the members of the corporation. . . . In accordance with the provisions of Article III.A. of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation, "[a]ny person, or persons, individual or corporate, are qualified to become a member of this corporation upon securing by purchase, devise, gift, or assignment, any leasehold interest in the [Fairmont House apartments]," provided they are deemed "acceptable" for membership by the Corporation's membership committee. Pursuant to Article VI.A. of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation, the "affairs of the [C]orporation [are] managed by a nine (9) member board of governors." The Corporation has adopted Rules and Regulations governing member conduct and activities. Item 5.c. of the Corporation's Rules and Regulations provides that "[m]embers or non-members shall make no alterations to said exterior premises without the consent of the Board of Governors." The apartments in Fairmont House do not have central air conditioning. They are cooled by room air conditioners. There are both window and "through-the-wall" units. The "through-the-wall" units protrude through openings that were a part of the original design of the building. Subsequent to the building's construction, no additional openings for "through-the- wall" units have been made. When the Tresizes moved into their Fairmont House apartment, there was a "through-the-wall" air conditioning unit in one of the apartment's two bedrooms. The Tresizes subsequently removed the unit and closed the opening in the wall through which the unit had protruded. The Tresizes now have three window air conditioning units in their apartment (including one in the bedroom which previously had a "through-the-wall" unit). In or about April of 1996, the Tresizes contacted their local Sears store to inquire about replacing the window air conditioning unit in the living room of their apartment. Sears sent a "contractor" to the Tresizes' apartment to discuss the matter further with the Tresizes. The Sears "contractor" told the Tresizes that, to comfortably cool their living room, they would need a 22,500 BTU air conditioner. He further advised them that such an air conditioner was too large to install in the living room window and that it would have to be installed, instead, through the wall. The Tresizes authorized the "contractor" to install such a "through-the-wall" unit in their living room. After a building permit from the City of North Miami was obtained, the "contractor" returned to Fairmont House to perform the work necessary to install the unit (Project). The "contractor" was with Larry Tresize on the walkway outside the Tresizes' apartment about to drill a hole in the exterior wall outside the Tresizes' living room, when he was approached by three members of the Corporation's Board of Governors, who directed that he not proceed with the Project unless and until the necessary approval was formally obtained from the Corporation's Board of Governors. The "contractor" gathered his tools and left without performing any more work on the Project. By letter dated April 24, 1996, the Tresizes requested the Corporation's Board of Governors to "grant [them] permission to install a larger air condition[er] in the wall of [their] apartment." The Board of Governors responded by informing the Tresizes that it would not consider their request absent proof that Werner Bischoff approved of the Project. The Tresizes thereafter asked Mr. Bischoff if he would consent to the installation of a "through-the-wall" air conditioning unit in the living room of the Tresizes' apartment. Mr. Bischoff refused to give such consent. The Project never received the approval of the Board of Governors. One member of the Board of Governors, Sherwin Kresshauer, personally attempted to assist the Tresizes in finding an adequate replacement for the window air conditioning unit in the their living room. Mr. Kresshauer measured the space in the window occupied by the air conditioning unit that needed to be replaced (it measured 19 inches by 27 inches) and made arrangements for an air conditioning specialist to visit the Tresizes' apartment and to evaluate the apartment's air conditioning needs and how those needs could be met. Mr. Kresshauer was present when the air conditioning specialist visited the Tresizes' apartment. The air conditioning specialist told the Tresizes that either an 18,000 or 24,000 BTU Goodman air conditioning unit could be installed in the window of their living room (in the 19- inch by 27-inch space occupied by their present unit). When the air conditioning specialist told the Tresizes how much it would cost them, the Tresizes said that they did not want to pay that much.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Tresizes' discriminatory housing practice complaint and their Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of failing to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, in violation of Section 489.11 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of making misleading, deceitful or untrue representations, in violation of Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of exceeding the scope of his state registered mechanical contractor's license, in violation of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts were found: Respondent, Arwood Hollins, in 1986 held a mechanical contractor's license (RM0016479) with the State of Florida. Respondent owned a 50% interest in All Florida Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, Heating and Ventilation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "All Florida"), a Florida corporation. The Respondent has resided in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida for approximately 15 years. The main offices of All Florida are located in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida, with a branch office in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. In 1986 the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for All Florida. Pursuant to the Respondent's mechanical contractor's license with the State of Florida, he is required to comply with all local license requirements. Respondent has never held nor applied for a license in Seminole County to practice mechanical contracting. The Respondent holds a certificate of competency in Lake and Orange Counties, and inactive certificates for Dade and Sumter Counties, but does not hold a certificate in Seminole County. In 1986 All Florida advertised in the Donnelly Directory for United Telephone (Exhibit 2) in the Central Florida area. Said ad depicts All Florida as being a repair specialist. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, resides at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. All work performed by All Florida on the Complainant's air conditioning system was performed at the Rockingham Court address in Seminole County, Florida. Respondent testified that although he has lived in Central Florida for 15 years, he is unfamiliar with Seminole County and practices only in Lake and Orange Counties. Seminole County has enacted an ordinance (Number 83-15) which requires that before any person can be issued a license to practice mechanical contracting in Seminole County, they must meet certain requirements. Between January 28, 1986 and August 3, 1986, Robert Hollins, the son of Respondent and an employee of All Florida, traveled to the Complainant's house at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida on at least six (6) occasions to perform inspections and/or repairs on the Complainant's air conditioning and heating equipment. Five (5) of the visits, between March 17, 1986 and August 3, 1986, involved problems with the cooling of the air conditioning system. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, contacted All Florida after she found the company in a Yellow Page and in the Donnelly Directory phone book in late January, 1986 regarding problems with her heating system. Robert Hollins travel led to Mrs. Chamberlin's house at 105 Rockingham Court in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida and made repairs to a circuit breaker. Mrs. Chamberlin again contacted All Florida on or about March 17, 1986 due to a problem with her air conditioning unit. Mrs. Chamberlin spoke with Robert Hollins and gave him directions to her house. Mr. Hollins did not ask if she resided in Seminole County. Robert Hollins advised Mrs. Chamberlin that there was an extensive freon leak in her air conditioning unit and that her ECU unit on the air conditioner would need to be disconnected to insure that all the leaks would be stopped. Thereafter, Robert Hollins assured Mrs. Chamberlin that all of the leaks had been taken care of. She was charged $245.45 for the visit for labor and materials, which she paid. Approximately two months later, on or about May 19, 1986, Janis Chamberlin heard noises from the air conditioning unit. Robert Hollis was called and he traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house and charged her a total of $28.00 for the visit and the air conditioning unit stopped making noises. Approximately two months later, the same air conditioning unit was failing to cool properly and Mrs. Chamberlin again called All Florida. Robert Hollis traveled to the Chamberlin residence and advised that the condenser fan motor had quit working and needed to be replaced. Mrs. Chamberlin authorized the work and thereafter Robert Hollins assured her that he had replaced the condenser fan motor with a new one. Mrs. Chamberlin was charged a total of $248.50 for the new fan motor, other materials and labor. On August 3, 1986, Mrs. Chamberlin noticed a loud screeching noise coming from the air conditioning unit. She called Robert Hollins who arrived at Mrs. Chamberlin's house on the same day. He left the Chamberlin residence before telling Mrs. Chamberlin what was wrong with the unit. Mrs. Chamberlin noticed that the noise she had heard earlier had stopped temporarily. By approximately 9:00 p.m. on the same day, the noise returned and she noticed that there was a decrease in the cooling of the unit. By the following morning, the air conditioning unit was not working. Mrs. Janis Chamberlin contacted All Florida on August 4, 1989. Mrs. Chamberlin advised Robert Hollins that if he would not work on the unit that day, she would have to get someone else to do the job and to call her by 5:00 pm. that day to let her know. Robert Hollins did not call or come to her home by 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Chamberlin called Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. to repair her air conditioning unit. William Pierce, an employee of Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. in 1986, serviced the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence on August 5, 1986. Mr. Pierce inspected the unit and found that the crank shaft was wrung off inside the compressor. There was a refrigerant leak and oil was visible all over the front of the condenser coil. Also, the fan motor was running backwards. Mr. Pierce's inspection of the condenser fan motor indicated rust around the shaft and fan hub. According to Mr. Pierce, if a fan motor is put on backwards, or rotates in the wrong direction, this would cause the head and back pressure to go up and could eventually internally overload the compressor. It did not do so in this instance, since the crankshaft was wrung off and the compressor froze up. Janis Chamberlin took pictures of the air conditioning unit (Composite Exhibit 10). These photographs were taken after William Pierce had pulled apart the air conditioning unit in preparation for installation of a new unit. The fan motor appears to show rust. The entire air conditioning unit in question was replaced by Four Seasons. Janis Chamberlin requested in writing that All Florida refund her the money paid to All Florida for repairs made to the air conditioning unit in the total amount of $516.95. The letter was dated August 12, 1986 and requested the refund by August 18, 1986. All Florida did not refund the monies. The Respondent never traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house to inspect the air conditioner in question or discuss with Mrs. Chamberlin the problems with the air conditioning unit. Robert H. Adams was accepted as an expert witness in the area of service of residential units in air conditioning and the responsibilities of a qualifying agent. Robert H. Adams is a certified residential contractor and he held a City of Jacksonville Master Heating and Air Conditioning license since approximately 1968. A qualifying agent is responsible for the conduct and supervision of the business, the supervision of it and the actions of its employees. The test for a freon leak in a residential unit is relatively simple. This includes looking for oil around any of the fittings, tubes and condensers. It normally takes only one service call to repair leaks. However, it is not unusual for a service technician to make more than one service call in order to locate all of the leaks. If a leak cannot be repaired, the serviceman should tell the client that it is not repairable. Unless a fan motor was exposed to chemicals or salt water, there would be no reason in a three week time span as to why it would rust. If an employee of a qualifying agent told a customer he was installing a new motor which turned out to be untrue, this would be the equivalent of deceit and fraud. Answering complaints from a customer is a distinct responsibility of a qualifying agent. If the fan motor installed in an air conditioning unit similar to the one installed at the Chamberlin residence has an improper rotation, this would affect the air conditioning unit. This would include causing an increase in pressures, inadequate cooling and could damage the compressor. During the period between March and July, 1986 and following three service calls, it is incompetence to fail to find freon and oil leaks. The Respondent received a minimum of three phone calls from his son, Robert Hollins, on July 15, 1986 concerning repairs needed to Mrs. Chamberlin's air conditioning unit. The Respondent spoke with his son, Robert Hollins, on May 19, 1986 concerning the service call at the Chamberlin residence. Robert Hollins in 1986 did not have a license to practice mechanical engineering in Seminole County, Florida and did not hold any license with the State of Florida other than a driver's license. In 1986, Robert Hollins resided in Leesburg, Florida, but was the sole employee at All Florida's branch office in Orlando, Florida. Although Robert Hollins would drive through Seminole County to and from work each day, he stated he was not familiar with Seminole County. Respondent testified that he had instructed his son to use a map in order to avoid performing any work in Seminole County, Florida. Robert Hollins did not examine a map to verify if the Chamberlin residence was in Seminole County, nor did he ask Mrs. Chamberlin which county she resided in. Every time Robert Hollins went to the Chamberlin residence for a service call, he checked in with the Respondent. On July 15, 1986, Hollins inspected the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence and advised Mrs. Chamberlin she needed a new fan motor. Robert Hollins first obtains approval from Respondent before any purchase of equipment or machinery is made. On July 15, 1986, he obtained permission to purchase a new fan motor for the Chamberlin air conditioning unit. That same day Robert Hollins installed a new fan motor at the Chamberlin residence. The fan motor Hollis installed on July 15, 1986 had a 90 day warranty. All Florida warrants its work under the manufacturer's warranty. Subsequently, Chamberlin advised Hollins that the air conditioning unit was not working. He replied that if she had any problems with the unit he would rather not come out and work on it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, violating Sections 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes and that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent be found not guilty of making misleading, deceitful, or untrue representations. Respondent be found guilty of incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, which caused monetary harm to the licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Respondent be found guilty of contracting in a county without a local license, in violation of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent be reprimanded. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1989, at 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 21st day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1611 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The following Findings of Fact are Accepted: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4(in part) ,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15(in part), 16,17, (in part),18,19,20,21,24,25,26,(in part),27,28,29,30(in part),31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39(in substance),40 The following Findings of Fact are Rejected: Paragraphs 22 and 23 - uncorroborated hearsay Pargraph 15(in part) - not relevant Paragraph 17(in part) - witness cannot give expert opinion testimony, since he was not qualified to testify as an expert COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Sealy Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John E. Jordan, Esquire Wool folk, Estes and Keough, P.A. 131 Park Lake Street Post Office Drawer 3751 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard A. Howard, Esquire Brownlee and Jacobs, P.A. Post Office Box 1448 Tavares, Florida 32778
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 January 1992.
