Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Jesse Bruce, Respondent herein, is a registered roofing contractor and has been issued license No. RC0022948. On September 2, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract to repair a roof at 3684 NW 29th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, for Ms. Beryl Babb for the sum of $485.00. Respondent admits that he commenced construction under the above-referenced contract without first having obtained a building permit. Respondent was paid in full under the contract by Ms. Babb on September 4, 1981. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, Respondent provided for a two-year warranty on the roof repairs. Within an approximate two-month period following the repairs by Respondent, Ms. Babb made repeated phone calls to Respondent's construction company to report complaints that she was having in that the roof and garage appeared to "leak more than it had leaked prior to the repairs." Ms. Babb made at least six telephone calls to Respondent's construction company to no avail. During November, 1981, Ms. Babb filed a civil complaint in small claims court and during January, 1982, Ms. Babb received a judgment against the Respondent for $300.00. 1/ Respondent ahs been a licensed and registered roofing contractor since October, 1974. Respondent acknowledged that he received complaints from Ms. Babb as was testified herein; however, he states that he was busy during the times in which the complaints were made, an further that he did not want to make repairs inasmuch as Ms. Babb had elected to file a civil complaint against him in small claims court. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he was obliged to return tot he Babb residence to make the repairs inasmuch as the complaints from Ms. Babb came during the two-year period in which the warranty for the roof repairs was in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jesse Bruce 721 NW 20th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Harry Bradshaw, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0033812. On August 26, 1986, Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor was suspended by Petitioner. Respondent's license remained suspended at all times material to this case. On December 16, 1987, Respondent contracted with the Moose Lodge located in Hialeah, Florida, to reroof the Moose Lodge building. The proposal submitted by Respondent contained representations that Respondent was licensed as a registered roofing contractor and that he was insured. Respondent knew that his license as a registered roofing contractor was under suspension. Respondent had no insurance. The contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge provided that Respondent would perform the work and supply the materials for the sum of $6,200.00. The sum of $3,200.00 was paid to Respondent in advance of his beginning the job. Respondent used the sums advanced to purchase materials and supplies. The remaining $3,000.00 was to have been paid upon Respondent's completion of the job. During the negotiations that resulted in the contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge, Respondent represented that the job should be completed in time for the functions scheduled for New Year's Eve. While Respondent had purchased the materials needed for the job and had done a substantial amount of work on a portion of the roof, he was unable to complete the work by the New Year. Respondent was ordered to stop work on the job on January 26, 1988. Respondent did not abandon the job. Although he was slow in performing the work, a part of Respondent's delay in performance was caused by rain. There was no evidence as to what would have been a reasonable period of time for Respondent to have completed the job. On January 26, 1988, the administrator for the Moose Lodge complained to the Building Inspection Department for the City of Hialeah, Florida, because the administrator was not pleased with the progress that Respondent was making toward completion of the job. The administrator was told by a representative of the Building Inspection Department on January 26, 1988, that Respondent had no license and that the required permit had not been pulled. The administrator was told to prohibit Respondent from working on the roof. Immediately thereafter, the administrator instructed Respondent to do no further work on the roof. The members of the Noose Lodge completed the job started by Respondent for less than $3,000.00, the balance of the amount that would have been owed Respondent if he had finished the job. Respondent knew that a permit was required for this work. Respondent also knew that only a licensed roofing contractor could pull the required permit. Respondent proceeded with the job when he was unable to persuade a licensed roofing contractor to pull the permit for him. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent alleging that at the time he contracted with the Moose Lodge, Respondent's license was suspended, thus violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner and/or abandoned the job in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Respondent denied the allegations of the administrative complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed. Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and his license remained under suspension at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the final order revoke Harry Bradshaw's license in the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Bradshaw 5590 East Seventh Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel, P.A Suite 1600 NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harry Clinton Brackin, is a licensed registered roofing contractor holding license number RC0045880. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Respondent is the owner and licensee for Brackin Roofing Company. Sometime around February 20, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Arebelle S. Hughes, an elderly woman, to re-roof her house and remodel the front porch of her home located in Vernon, Florida. In addition to the work performed pursuant to the contract, there were verbal construction agreements between Mrs. Hughes and Respondent for the remodeling of the back porch, removing and closing out windows, replacing and framing doors, placing molding in the kitchen and various other carpentry repairs. Ms. Hughes asked Respondent to perform the additional work because she was well satisfied with the roofing job done by Respondent and she was unable to find a licensed contractor willing to come to Vernon and perform the work she wanted done. Respondent, in fact, informed Ms. Hughes he was not a contractor and in his opinion she needed a contractor. However, Ms. Hughes still wanted Respondent to do the additional work for the above reasons. Later, Mrs. Hughes became very dissatisfied with the quality of Respondent's remodeling work and advised the Respondent of her complaints. However, the evidence disclosed that her complaints were not well communicated and Respondent did generally try to meet Ms. Hughes' requests. None of Respondent's work constituted a hazardous condition and no evidence was offered which indicated an actual building code violation. The Respondent has not corrected the work. Mr. Harold Benjamin, an expert in the area of general contracting, reviewed the contract, the job site, the Respondent's license, and the pertinent Florida Statutes. Mr. Benjamin's expert opinion was that the Respondent's contracting job with Mrs. Hughes definitely exceeded the scope of Respondent's roofing license. Mr. Benjamin added that the carpentry work itself demonstrated an unfitness in the area of carpentry contracting and that Respondent's work did not in some respects meet the minimum carpentry standards for the industry. However, Respondent's work was not so bad as to constitute gross negligence in the area of contracting. This is particularly true since Respondent disclosed to Ms. Hughes that he was not a contractor and that the work she wanted done should be performed by one. Respondent's duty was thereby limited to a duty to perform reasonably given his abilities. Respondent did meet that duty. Respondent was disciplined for the same type of violation in 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board impose an administrative fine of $2,500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 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 5th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2721 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2 and of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except as to the finding pertaining to gross negligence which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry Clinton Brackin Route 1, Box 2470 Chipley, Florida 32428 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a written reprimand to respondent Elias Davis for failure to pull a permit on a roofing job. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, Brian D. Legate, should be disciplined on the charges in the Administrative Complaint, PCCLB Complaint No. C98-556. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint charged violations of Section 24(2)(d), (j), (m), and (n) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida (1975), as amended, by: Count I - failure to obtain a building permit before beginning roofing work, contrary to the requirements of Section 104 of the Standard Building Code; Count II - covering rotted roof framing and building a roof that leaked, contrary to the requirements of Section 1509.1.2.1 of the Standard Building Code; and Count III - committing gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Brian D. Legate, is a licensed roofing contractor. He holds license C-4676 (RC0061241). On approximately March 16, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Shutt requested an estimate from Legate for the repair of a leaking roof at their house at 7127 Third Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The leaking portion of the roof was a flat, built-up roof that was over the single-story living room of the house and adjacent to a second story bedroom; the other three sides of the perimeter of the leaking roof consisted of capped parapet walls. The roof and tile covered the flat portion of the roof and extended approximately ten inches up the inside of the parapet walls. The Shutts did not testify. Legate testified that the Shutts could not afford to completely rebuild and seal the parapets, re-roof, and re-tile. Instead, the Shutts wanted Legate to tear off the old roof down to the wood decking and re- roof to try to stop the roof leak; the Shutts planned to have someone else rebuild and seal the parapets and finish the roof with new tiles in about six months. Legate recognized that the Shutts' plan was not ideal; it would be difficult to maintain a watertight roof system until the parapets were rebuilt and sealed and the tiles replaced. Under the Shutts' plan, Legate would have to tack the new roof to the lower part of the parapet walls as best he could and tuck the upper edge of the new roof under the drip edge on the parapet wall to secure it temporarily until the parapet walls were rebuilt and sealed and the new tile installed. But Legate agreed to cooperate with the Shutts and give them an estimate for the work requested. Legate also recognized that it would have been best to install new flashing between the new roof and the parapet walls above the roof. The old metalwork serving as flashing on the existing roof system actually was a metal roof drip edge that was being misused as flashing. Legate recommended new flashing, but the Shutts declined because it would cost an additional $1,500 that they could not afford. On or about March 16, 1998, Legate gave the Shutts an estimate, without any new metalwork, for $4,000, plus $950 for new roof drains. Legate planned to install the roof drain bowls somewhat higher than the top of the new roof so that they would be flush with the ceramic tile when eventually installed over his roof. The Shutts accepted Legate's estimate for the roof work, a contract was signed, and the Shutts paid an inital $1,200 installment on March 19, 1998. Legate began work on the Shutts' roof approximately two weeks later. Legate also has a general contractor license, and he also made a proposal to repair wood and plaster inside the Shutts' house that had been damaged over the years by water leaking from the roof above. The Shutts could not afford this proposal and declined. Legate purposely delayed obtaining a building permit to give the Shutts more time to have the parapet walls rebuilt and the new tile installed under the six-month life of the building permit. As Legate's work proceeding, the Shutts paid an additional $1,200 on April 9, 1998, and another $2,000 on May 4, 1998. At approximately the time Legate invoiced the Shutts for the balance due under their contract, a dispute arose regarding the appearance of the roof drain bowls Legate installed. Legate agreed to remove the offending drain bowl, and order and install a type more to the Shutts' liking. On or about June 2, 1998, Legate applied for a building permit. He also requested that they file the notice of commencement so that he could call for a building inspection. At some point (the evidence is not clear when), Legate also wrote the Shutts by certified mail and enclosed a completed notice of commencement for them to sign and file. By letter dated June 5, 1998, an attorney representing the Shutts demanded that Legate not contact the Shutts again and not do any further work on their property because the work done was "inferior and was not of the type desired." Legate complied with the attorney's demand. He did not know exactly what the problem was but assumed it had something to do with the drain bowls. The Shutts did not file a notice of commencement until approximately June 24, 1998. On or about July 6, 1998, someone other than Legate (the evidence was not clear who, but probably the Shutts or their attorney) called for a building inspection of Legate's work. Legate did not know either that the notice of commencement had been filed or that someone had called for an inspection. For that reason, and also because he had been ordered off the job, Legate was not there on July 7, 1998, when a building inspector from the City of St. Petersburg inspected the roof. The Shutts invited the inspector inside the house where he inspected interior water damage and was able to inspect water- damaged wood laths (used to secure ceiling plaster), roof joists and framing beneath one of the roof drains from the underside. The inspector found the roof to be leaking and covering rotted roof framing. He was concerned that it might be dangerous to attempt to place the additional weight of ceramic tile over the roof, especially for the intended use as additional living space (an outdoor, second-story patio.) The inspector determined that it would be necessary to have an on-site inspection with the contractor and a copy of the roofing manufacturer's specifications for the type of roof system applied before final inspection. The building inspector did not contact Legate directly to inform him of the need for an on-site inspection; instead, he left a notice on the building permit at the premises. The inspector was unaware that Legate had been ordered off the premises and would not see the notice. Legate was not aware that an inspection had taken place and did not contact the building inspector. Not having heard from Legate, the building inspector returned to the premises on July 13, 1998, for final inspection without Legate. He saw essentially the same conditions as before and disapproved the work. Legate also was unaware of this second inspection. He never inquired with the City building department as to whether a notice of commencement had been filed or whether the roof had been inspected. On September 15, 1998, the Shutts had the roof inspected by an independent roofing consultant. The independent inspection confirmed the building inspector's findings and added that damage caused by the roof leaks in the meantime had caused additional damage to the roof itself, as well as to the roof substrate (decking) and framing, to the point that it could have been dangerous to attempt to place the additional weight of ceramic tile over the roof, especially for the intended use as an outdoor, second-story patio. The independent roof consultant testified that water was leaking where the metal drip edge had pulled away from the parapets, and there was a gap between the top of the roof material and parapets. He also testified that the drip edges were old and an improper choice for use as flashing where the roof material met the parapets. However, he could not testify as to when the drip edge pulled away from the parapets and apparently was not aware that, for financial reasons, the Shutts had rejected Legate's recommendation to install new metal flashing. The independent roof consultant testified that water also was leaking at the roof drain bowls because they were set too high, causing improper ponding on the roof in the vicinity of the drain bowls. He also testified that, even if the ceramic tile had been installed promptly after Legate's work, the roof drain bowls still should have been flush to the waterproof roofing material, not to the ceramic tile going in over it. However, Legate and his foreman testified that Legate's plan was acceptable and would have made the finished roof watertight. The evidence was not sufficient to prove Legate incorrect. Legate and his workers replaced some rotted roof decking before replacing the roof. They testified that they did not see any more rotted roof framing or joists. While some additional water damage inside the house was evident on September 15, 1998, including rotted ceiling wood lath and joists, it was not clear from the evidence how much was visible or evident to Legate and his workers from their vantage point working on the roof. It is clear, however, that Legate gave the Shutts an estimate for the repair of interior damage, to the extent visible, and that the Shutts declined the repairs for financial reasons. There was no evidence that the Shutts ever complained to Legate that the new roof was leaking. The last Legate heard from the Shutts was their attorney's letter demanding that he not contact the Shutts and not do any more work on the roof. Legate also was unaware of the building inspections and the independent inspection. Legate testified without contradiction that, if he had been aware of the leaks or had been asked, he certainly would have returned to stop the leaks, at least by temporary means, until the additional work contemplated by the Shutts could be done. Section 104.1.1 of the Standard Building Code (1997) requires a contractor to obtain the required building permit before beginning work. There was testimony that the City of St. Petersburg allows builders to "call in" an application for a building permit (by telephone), begin work, and actually obtain the permit within a day or two. But such a procedure would not allow for a delay of months. Section 1503.1.2.1 of the Standard Building Code (1997) requires that roof coverings "provide weather protection for the building at the roof." (The reference to Section 1509 in the Administrative Complaint apparently was a typographical error.) PCCLB has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action," which state that $750 is the "typical" penalty for the first "major" infraction and that $300 is the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction. "Major" and "minor" infractions are not defined. The Guidelines also provide that the PCCLB shall consider aggravating and mitigating factors and may take any of the following actions: (1) suspension for a time certain (with possible permission to complete any uncompleted contracts); (2) revocation; or (3) an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 per count.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Brian D. Legate, guilty under Count I, fining him $300 under Count I, and dismissing Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Williams Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Brian Legate 5901 40th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33709
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Usher is not licensed to engage in contracting as a state-registered or state-certified contractor in the State of Florida, and he is not licensed, registered, or certified, pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes, as an electrical contractor. Mr. Usher works under the name of "J" Squared Construction ("J" Squared). Rose Linthicome is the owner of Divine Connections Realty, whose business address was 2108 Third Avenue, Crestview, Florida. As a result of Hurricane Ivan, Ms. Linthicome's building located on Third Avenue sustained damage to the roof. Ms. Linthicome contacted Norcross Construction Company (Norcross) to get a bid for the roof repair. Norcross asked Mr. Usher to prepare a proposal for the work as a subcontractor, which Mr. Usher did. After receiving the proposal from Mr. Usher, Norcross submitted a bid to Ms. Linthicome, but the cost was well beyond the amount which Ms. Linthicome's insurance paid for the damage. Ms. Linthicome could not afford to use Norcross to repair the roof. Mr. Usher approached Ms. Linthicome and told her that he could do the work as "J" Squared for less than the amount bid by Norcross, if Ms. Linthicome would pull the permits as the building owner. Ms. Linthicome agreed for "J" Squared to do the work for labor costs of $26,400.00. Ms. Linthicome was to pay for materials and supplies. The total cost for the new roof system and materials was not to exceed $52,400.00 Mr. Usher prepared the contract for the new roof system. The contract was titled "'J' Squared Subcontract Agreement." In the contract Ms. Linthicome was referred to as the contractor. The contract set forth the work to be performed as follows: "J" Squared is subcontracted to do a complete roof rip out and new roof system installation on the existing structure. This includes the rip out and the new installation of a new roof system: THE RIP OUT INCLUDES: The removal of ceilings, lights, fans, vents, smoke alarms and any other item attached to the ceilings. The removal of the existing plywood, trusses, and debris of the old roof, and Any and all other aspects that are considered reasonable and necessary to be performed in order to remove the roof and prepare the structure for the new roofing system. THE NEW INSTALLATION INCLUDES: The Installation of New Trusses manufactured by Freeport Truss Company, The Installation of New Plywood and felt paper to dry in the new roof system, The Installation of Rat Runs, Blocking, Hardware, Strapping to meet code, The Installation of New 20 Year Architectural shingles, The Installation of New Rain Gutter System, The Building of the Front Porch Cricket and New Ceiling with arched entry, the Installation, building or attachment of any and all aspects of a typical roofing system redo, The Re attachment of all existing ceilings. (Moving the garage ceiling to the inside front room and replacing Garage ceiling with Sheet Rock, The Reinstallation of all fixtures, lights, fans, smoke alarms, etc on the existing new ceilings, The Installation of new communications, network and other plugs and outlets as agreed to on 10/04/05, and Any and all other aspects that are considered reasonable and necessary to be performed in order to pass inspections and for the new roofing system to be considered as complete. Ms. Linthicome did not tell Mr. Usher that she was a licensed contractor, and Mr. Usher's testimony that he thought that Ms. Linthicome was a licensed contractor is not credible. It was never intended that Ms. Linthicome would supervise the installation of the new roof system. It was always the intent of Mr. Usher and Ms. Linthicome that Mr. Usher would directly supervise the work. As the building owner, Ms. Linthicome could pull the building permit, but Mr. Usher could not pull the building permit because he was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Usher ordered the trusses from Freeport Truss Company and requested that Ms. Linthicome write two checks to the Truss Company, one check for $9,000.00 and one check for $6,000.00. Ms. Linthicome also gave Mr. Usher a check made out to "J" Squared for $8,4000.00 for the initial payment for labor. Mr. Usher hired the laborers to work on the project. He intended to subcontract with an electrician to perform the electrical work on the project. Mr. Usher and his crew removed the roof and failed to complete the project. In the investigation and prosecution of this case, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $369.09, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Usher violated Subsections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and assessing investigative costs of $369.09. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent, Ruth Ogen, was a licensed roofing contractor, license no. CC CO27471. A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. Respondent is the sole qualifier and licensee associated with the company, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. Respondent is married to Avraham Ogen who presents himself as the president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. On or about November 9, 1986, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. doing business as Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing entered into a contract with Ardee Yuran to replace the entire roof of a commercial structure located at 14951 N.E. 6th Avenue, North Miami Beach (6th Avenue). The contract provided, among other things, that the top row of tiles around the parapet wall would be removed and reinstalled upon completion of the roof. In negotiating the contract described in paragraph 4, Mrs. Yuran was mindful of the work Avraham Ogen had performed at her residence. Mr. Ogen had supervised the reroofing of Mrs. Yuran's residence which had been satisfactorily performed. The residential job had required the removal of the tiles along the parapet wall and Mrs. Yuran expected the same process would be utilized in completing the commercial roof. The purpose intended to be accomplished by removing the tiles was to allow the roofers to extend the roofing materials up the sides of the parapet and over the crest. The roofing material is then sealed to the wall and the tiles replaced. This procedure results in a waterproof barrier so that when rain accumulates on the flat roof (and the water level rises) it cannot seep through the sealed perimeter. During the time Mr. Ogen was negotiating and performing the roof work for the 6th Avenue building, he was also retained to paint the structure (which was to be completed after the roof was finished). There came a time when Mrs. Yuran and Mr. Ogen disagreed regarding aspects of the roof work and the painting that was to be done. Eventually, the parties reached an impasse where neither was willing to concede: Mr. Ogen was not willing to perform the work as specified by Mrs. Yuran, Mrs. Yuran was not willing to pay Mr. Ogen any more on the contracts. At this point, Ruth Ogen, Respondent, had not been involved in the daily work progress made at the site. To make matters worse, a leak developed at the 6th Avenue property which resulted in a waterfall pouring down through the overhang of the building. As a result of the disagreement, both parties retained lawyers and, understandably, the issues escalated. Mrs. Yuran retained three individuals to review the work performed by Mr. Ogen. On March 4, 1987, Walter H. Scott, Scott Roofing & Repair, Inc., determined that water accumulating on the 6th Avenue roof was draining behind flashing which had not been properly sealed to the perimeter walls instead of running through the outlets. Mr. Scott recommended that the flashing be resealed along the wall. Had the tiles been removed and the work been performed as stated in the contract, the leak would have been avoided. A second licensed roofing contractor, Gary Carruth, Falcon Roofing Co., inspected the property on June 23, 1987, and recommended reflashing the walls along the perimeter of the 6th Avenue building. Mr. Carruth observed that the tiles had not been removed along the wall and that the roofing materials had not been properly sealed along the perimeter. James Rodgers, a consulting engineer performed a third inspection of the roof at 6th Avenue on June 25, 1987. According to Mr. Rodgers, several items of the contract work completed by Mr. Ogen were inadequately performed. Mr. Rodgers found that the pitch pans were not installed properly around the air conditioning units and that the flashing along the parapet wall was not properly completed nor performed as described in the contract. Respondent also retained a licensed roofer to review the work at 6th Avenue. Bill Mathews, Bill Mathews Roofing, completed a roof inspection report on November 21, 1988. According to Mr. Mathews, the flashing along the parapet wall required repair because it had been improperly sealed. Mr. Mathews noted that the top row of tile should have been removed so that flashing could have been taken up and over the parapet wall. Mr. Mathews also noted that the flat roof had buckles or "fish mouths" which should have been corrected as the roof was being installed. Mr. Mathews recommended that the flashing be resealed and that the buckles be cut and sealed with membrane and roofing cement. Finally, Mr. Mathews determined that the pitch pans under the air conditioning units should be filled with an asphalt cold process to prevent further cracking and potential leaks. A final inspection report was completed by Robert B. Hilson, Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., on August 18, 1988. Mr. Hilson is a consultant for the Department and made the inspection at the request of its attorney. Mr. Hilson's findings and recommendations mirrored those suggested by Mr. Mathews. The work performed by Mr. Ogen on the 6th Avenue property did not meet the terms of the contract and did not meet performance standards acceptable in the roofing industry. Mr. Ogen failed to properly seal all flashing materials along the parapet wall, failed to correct the buckles or "fish mouths," and failed to meet the contractual obligations (removing the tiles and extending the flashing over the crest). Because of the substandard work, Mrs. Yuran incurred additional expenses and inconvenience. Respondent did not view the 6th Avenue structure either before or during the time that her husband supervised the work performed. Respondent's role with the company was as secretary, bookkeeper, and office manager. Mr. Ogen supervised or performed all work at the 6th Avenue job. Respondent did not supervise Mr. Ogen or the workers under his supervision. "Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing" has not been qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. On or about April 28, 1987, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was requested to perform a roofing inspection at 1180 N.E. 204 Terrace. The subject property was under contract for sale and was ultimately purchased by Rose Zenar. According to the inspection report filed by Mr. Ogen, the roof and roof covering were in satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks. Mr. Ogen signed the inspection report as president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc., state license no. CC CO27471. During the first rain after she had moved into the house, Mrs. Zenar observed water leaking through the ceiling into the kitchen. She immediately called Mr. Ogen who came out, observed the problem, but did not repair the leak. Mr. Ogen did not return Mrs. Zenar's subsequent calls. Ultimately, she contacted James Rodgers to perform a second roof inspection. As a result of Mr. Rodgers' inspection, Mrs. Zenar discovered that the leak was of long duration as it had completely rotted and decayed the roof rafters and sheathing in the area of the leak. Mr. Rodgers took pictures of the area which clearly showed the discolored wood. Evidence of the discoloration was visible from the attic entrance located in the garage adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Ogen's failure to discover the rotted roof was due to an inadequate inspection of the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof rafters. It is the normal practice of qualified roof inspectors to examine the crawl space between the ceiling and roof supports. Respondent did not perform the roof inspection at Mrs. Zenar's home, did not supervise the inspection performed by Mr. Ogen, and did not have a checklist of items to be reviewed by him in making the inspection. The erroneous inspection performed by Mr. Ogen resulted in expenses and inconvenience to Mrs. Zenar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth above and, based upon the penalties recommended by rule, impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $3000.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 20th day of April , 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction to reflect Mrs. Yuran not Mr. Yuran, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted with the correction that the witness' name was Gary Carruth. With the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph 15 which is rejected as argument or comment, the first five paragraphs of paragraph 15 are accepted. Petitioner is warned not to subparagraph statements of fact or to restate testimony, but to simply set forth the fact deduced from such testimony. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 17 is accepted to the extent that it finds the reroofing work performed on the 6th Avenue building was a poor quality which was not done under the supervision of a qualified, licensed roofing contractor. Further, it was gross negligence not to properly supervise the job. No conclusion is reached as to whether Respondent is able to supervise a job. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as a recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33--none submitted. With regard to paragraph 34, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as conclusion of law, argument, or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 36-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or recitation. The first two sentences of paragraph 40 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as comment, conclusion of law, or argument. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, conclusion of law, or argument. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, speculation, or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by this record. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The following are rulings on case no. 88-1776 as submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted but is irrelevant, immaterial. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact James Wells is a registered building contractor having been issued license number RB 0008753. In June, 1985, Christiane J. Guignard hired James Wells to do repairing and rebuilding on parts of her home, including roofing work. The roofing work consisted of building a roof extension with hot tar and gravel roofing and a shingle roof. Guignard maintains that Wells agreed to guarantee his roof work against leaks for five years. Wells maintains that there was no explicit warranty, but he understood that he was responsible for "about a year" for leaks in his work. Wells did the work agreed on and completed it at the end of July, 1985. Guignard paid Wells a total of $4,575 for all of the work he had done. Prior to Wells' roofing work, Guignard had three leaks in her roof. Wells' work eliminated those leaks. According to Guignard, she had five leaks after Wells completed his work: 3 leaks around chimneys, 1 leak in a valley, and 1 leak in the overhang roof. Guignard called Wells and he came to perform repairs at the end of August, 1985. He applied silicon in the valley, around the chimneys and around a picture window, and he inserted extra shingles in the valley. According to Guignard, none of the leaks stopped. According to Guignard, she called Wells incessantly from the end of August, 1985, to March, 1987, regarding the leaks. Wells came back several times to inspect the roof for leaks. Wells determined that one leak was the result of an electrician who put a hole and two nails in the roof. Wells repaired this leak even though it was not the result of his work. Wells flashed two chimneys. In June or July, 1985, Wells replaced the shingles in the valley. Wells repaired all the leaks except the one in the overhang. Wells never found any evidence of a leak in that area. Guignard believes that area is leaking because the siding has become discolored and because she saw rain water running around the siding when she stood under the overhang in a heavy rain. Wells says that he told Guignard that the possibility existed that excess rain water from a heavy rain could run down the siding because of the slant of the roof. He saw the discoloration of the siding and says it results from the tree buds of a nearby tree falling on the roof, mixing with rain water, and running over the siding. Wells told Guignard that she needed to treat the siding with a water sealer to seal the wood. Sealing the wood was not part of his job and Guignard said she would do it, but never has. No independent or expert testimony was offered to show that a leak exists in the overhang or that any leak which is alleged to exist is the result of Wells' work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against James Wells. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5603 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Wells Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted as a Conclusion of Law. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9-11 are rejected as being unnecessary for the resolution of this matter. Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 695 Quincy, Florida 32351 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
