The Issue Whether Respondent violated Pinellas Count Water and Navigation Control Authority Regulations (PCWNCAR) as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 12, 1990.
Findings Of Fact John C. Lombardi, Respondent, is a certified marine specialty contractor and was so licensed at all times here relevant. He holds license C- 4097. Respondent at all times relevant hereto was the qualifying contractor for Myron Gibson Marine Construction Corporation. He also is the owner of Myron Gibson Marine Construction Corporation. Respondent entered into an oral contract with Larry Mickelson to install two tie poles off the dock at 809 Bay Point Drive and into a written contract with the property owner of this property to install two tie poles. Under the terms of the written contract, Respondent contracted to install these tie poles 25 feet off the dock with a minimum penetration of 10 feet. Due to an error on the part of the contractor, the initial tie poles were installed too close to the dock and had to be relocated. Respondent contracted with Mickelson to jet the poles to the required penetration. However, at the location 25 feet off the dock, the construction crew encountered a hard clay and shell mixture some four feet below the water bottom sand and silt and could get less than 8 feet penetration. When Mickelson attempted to tie up his boat to these tie poles, he noted they moved and called Gibbon Marine to correct the situation. In resetting the piles, Gibson Marine cut one of the piles in a point to facilitate driving the pile to a greater penetration. A drop hammer was used to drive the piles further into the clay and shell mixture. Respondent's crews made four visits to the site to correct the problem, and final payment was made on March 13, 1990 (Exhibit 8). Mickelson still was not satisfied, and Respondent advised him of the difficulty encountered in attempting to get 10 feet penetration and offered Mickelson three options, all at extra costs. These were (1) install sister piles, (2) relocate piles in hopes of finding less dense material in which to drive the piles, and (3) call in another contractor with equipment to drill the holes for the piles. Mickelson had another marine contractor come out to reset the piles to a greater depth, but this contractor was also unsuccessful. Mickelson then employed Ress Marine Construction who had drilling equipment with which to drill holes in which to set the tie poles. Ress Marine removed the piles installed by Respondent and drilled holes into which two tie poles were installed to a minimum depth of 10 feet. The removed piles which had been installed by Gibson Marine showed discoloration on the bottom three feet of these piles. One of Petitioner's witnesses (Ress) testified that he told Mickelson the piles appeared to have obtained only 3 to 3 1/2 feet penetration. Two of Respondent's witnesses who were on the scene doing the work when the piles were initially installed both testified the piles were driven to a penetration depth of not less than 7 to 8 feet. Respondent has owned Gibson Marine for the past 5 years, and this is the first customer complaint he had received, and these are the only charges ever filed against his certificate by Petitioner or any other regulatory authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered specialty contractor having been issued license number RX0032228, which he holds in the name of Larry T. Huston, Huston Awning Co. On May 29, 1980, Frank Cornelius, on behalf of Hurst Awning Aluminum Company, Inc., went to the mobile home of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Olzak located in Broward County, Florida, where he met with Mrs. Olzak. By the conclusion of that meeting, Cornelius and Mrs. Olzak had entered into two separate contracts whereby Hurst was to construct a screened enclosure at her mobile home. Both contracts were fully executed and were for the same work, although they varied in price by almost $2,000. No credible explanation was offered as to why Mrs. Olzak entered into two separate contracts. Approximately a month later, three men arrived at the Olzaks' mobile home with materials bearing the Hurst logo in a truck bearing the Hurst name. They returned a day or two later and started the construction work contracted for by Mrs. Olzak. At the beginning of July 1980, when the work was almost completed, an inspector for the Broward County Building Department came to the job site and stopped the work for the reason that no permit had been obtained from Broward County. Shortly thereafter, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Olzak and explained that he had been requested by Frank Cornelius at Hurst to do the necessary engineering work for them. He requested permission to come to the Olzaks' mobile home to take the measurements necessary to prepare engineered sealed plans for the job. That evening, Respondent visited the Olzak job site and took the measurements necessary to prepare the plans in order to comply with Broward County requirements. While there, he only spoke with Mr. Olzak. He told Olzak that he had his own company, Huston Awning Company, and that he was working with Hurst so that a building permit could be obtained. He advised Olzak where he could be reached at Huston Awning Company in Broward County. Respondent filed a building permit application with the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division for the Olzak job. He made application in the name of his company, Huston Awning Company, and signed the application as the contractor. A building permit was issued. After issuance of the permit, two men came to the Olzaks' mobile home in a truck bearing no company name. They came to continue or complete the Olzak construction. Mrs. Olzak decided she did not like them and issued instructions that they would not be permitted to work on the project. No evidence was presented as to whether those men were employed by Hurst or by Huston. Thereafter, Mrs. Olzak refused to allow any further work to be done in completion of the contract. No final inspection has ever been made, since Mrs. Olzak has also denied access to the project to the inspector from Broward County. At no time has Respondent qualified Hurst Awning Aluminum Company, Inc., although no competent evidence was introduced to show that Respondent was employed by Hurst or had an interest in Hurst which might enable him to qualify that company. At the formal hearing, Mr. Olzak admitted Respondent told him he was with Huston Awning Company in Broward County, and Mrs. Olzak admitted Respondent told her he purchases all of the awnings he uses in his business from Hurst Awning Company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Kristin Building, Suite 101 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Justin E. Beals, Esquire Forte Plaza, Suite 808 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the certification examination for general contractors administered on May 18, 1994. The contract administration portion of the examination consisted of 40 questions. The first twenty questions were worth four points each. The remaining twenty questions were worth one point apiece. To pass this portion of the examination, a total of 70 points was needed. Question 21 of this portion of the examination was a multiple choice question which required the candidate to identify factors which, according to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," should be taken into consideration in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. According to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding "depend[s] on many conditions: the type of job to be done, whether interior or exterior; ground conditions; height and width, as well as load to be carried; and length of time it will be in use." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 21 was clearly "B." Petitioner selected answer "A," which included "wire rope block size" as one of the factors needed to be considered in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. Wire rope block, however, is used in suspended scaffolding, not in tubular steel scaffolding. Petitioner's answer to question 21 therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 31 of the contract administration portion of the May 18, 1994, certification examination was also a multiple choice question. It required the candidate to select the number of days within which, according to the "American Institute of Architects' Document A401" (AIA-A401), a contractor must make a progress payment to a subcontractor following the contractor's receipt of payment from the owner. Section 11.3 of AIA-A401 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Contractor shall pay the Subcontractor each progress payment within three working days after the Contractor receives payment from the Owner." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 31 was clearly "B." Petitioner's answer to the question was "C," which was clearly incorrect. Petitioner erroneously based this answer upon Section 4.7 of AIA-A401, 1/ which addresses the subject of "remedies for nonpayment" and does not, unlike Section 11.3 of that document, specify the time frame within which the contractor must pay the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the certification examination for general contractors for which he sat on May 18, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of October, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 455.227(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2004), and what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed to engage in construction in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s business did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor-qualified business. On or about October 5, 2004, Respondent contracted with Dyba to repair the roof at Dyba’s residence in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The contracted cost of these repairs was $3600, of which Respondent collected $600 from Dyba by check. On or about October 9, 2004, Respondent placed an advertisement in the Pensacola News Journal asserting that he would make repairs to kitchens, baths, decks, siding, docks, and most any hurricane damage. On June 8, 1994, Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to Respondent for engaging in the unlicensed practice of construction contracting. The total investigative cost to the Petitioner was $166.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $166.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 11th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Douglas Claiborne DOC No. 203745 Berrydale Forestry Camp 6920 Highway 4 Jay, Florida 32565 John Thomas, Classification Officer Berrydale Forestry Camp 6920 Highway 4 Jay, Florida 32565 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Antonio V. Mallo, is a certified general contractor in Florida and has been issued license number CGC004868, issued as an individual. (Exhibit 1, TR 21.) During times material hereto, Respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida practicing under the subject reference license as an individual. On October 26, 1984, Robert Golden contracted with Magic Eye Remodeling for the construction of an addition to his home situated at 19701 Northeast 12th Court, North Miami, Florida for the sum of $36,000. The contract price included the cost for labor and materials for a "turn key" job. (Testimony of Robert Golden and Jose Garcia, TR 25, 110, Exhibit 3 and TR 24.) As stated, the contract called for the construction of the entire project including air conditioning, electrical work, tile and bathroom fixtures. (Testimony of Jose Garcia, Exhibit 3, TR 112.) Magic Eye Remodelers was not licensed to perform contracting in Florida. Luis Valido, president of Magic Eye, and Jose Garcia, an employee of Magic Eye, negotiated and signed the contract with Magic Eye and Golden. (Testimony of Garcia and Golden, TR 21, 22 and 112, Exhibits 1 and 2.) Although Valido and Garcia had discussions with Respondent at the time Magic Eye was negotiating a contract with Golden, Respondent was not signatory to the Golden-Magic Eye Contract. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 34.) On November 6, 1984, Respondent obtained building permit number 84-01- 123-3 from Metropolitan-Dade County for the subject work at the Golden residence. (Exhibit 4, TR 28.) Construction commenced at the Golden residence and progressed slowly until approximately April 4, 1985 when owner Golden observed Magic Eye (its employees) preparing to leave the job. During that time, Garcia informed Golden that they had misused the construction funds advanced and could not finish the project. During that discussion, Magic Eye offered to complete the job if Golden would pay for the necessary supplies. Golden agreed to pay for the supplies. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 32.) During mid April, 1985, Golden contacted Michael O'Connor, Dade County code enforcement officer about his problems with Magic Eye and Respondent. O'Connor informed Golden to contact the contractor who obtained the permit, i.e., Respondent. Subsequent to that conversation and prior to June 4, 1985, Respondent was contacted by Golden. He visited Golden's home and worked on the construction project with Luis Valido. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 38.) This was the first contact between Golden and Respondent and the first time Respondent visited the construction site. In this regard, Golden was employed in a capacity whereby he did work early morning and late evening hours and spent all of his daytime hours on the construction site. (Testimony of Robert Golden and Jose Garcia, TR 34 and 125.) On or about June 3, 1985, all work at the project ceased and the Respondent informed Golden that Valido did not want to work there anymore since he wasn't making any money. (Testimony of Golden) Golden thereafter reported the problem to Michael O'Connor and Bob Wolfe, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation. O'Connor thereafter informed Respondent that unless he could produce a contract between himself and Golden, criminal charges would be filed by the State's attorney's office. (Testimony of Mike O'Connor, TR 166.) While at Michael O'Connor's office to sign the complaint with Petitioner, Golden was contacted by Respondent who advised that he would contract to complete the project. (Testimony of Golden, TR 40.) On or about June 12, 1985, Golden and Respondent negotiated a contract to complete the work for the sum of $39,882 of which a credit for $38,383 was given for work already performed by Magic Eye. As contracted, Respondent would receive $1500, fifty percent of which would be paid at the beginning of the tiling work and the remainder at completion of the project. Respondent performed plumbing and metal overhang work at the site after the contract was signed. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 41, 48 and Exhibit 6.) On July 10, 1985, Respondent notified Golden he was leaving the job because Golden failed to sign a change order to the contract and make payment as per the contract of June 12, 1985. At that time, or subsequent thereto, Respondent had not submitted a change order to the contract to Golden. Additionally, no payment was due Respondent under the June 12, 1985 contract for the tile was not ordered until September, 1985. (Testimony of Robert Golden, TR 54 and Bob Wolfe, TR 99, Exhibit 8.) When Respondent left the Golden project, the construction was sixty percent completed. Golden completed the project under an owner-builder permit. The total cost for the project was $62,804. (TR 65, 66 and Exhibit 11.) During the hearing, Respondent raised a question as to the validity of Petitioner's Exhibit number 6, claiming in essence that it had been tampered with by Golden. An examination of all the evidence introduced herein reveals that the agreement (contract) between Respondent and Golden (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) was valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000. It is further recommended that Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CGC004868 be suspended for a period of two years. Provided however that Respondent make restitution to Robert Golden in the amount of $5,000, it is then recommended that the suspension be abated with Respondent's suspension reverting to a like term of probation. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1986, 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 19th day of August, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 86-1458 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order Paragraph 22. Incorporated as modified. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Department of Professional Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Antonio Mallo 1256 San Miguel Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this complaint, the Respondent, Joseph Marcelin, was a certified residential contractor, license number CR C028352. Respondent’s place of business and residence are in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating and disciplining licensed contractors. On May 14, 1988, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered a final order approving a settlement stipulation regarding Case no. 74860 against this Respondent. This final order directed Respondent to adhere to and abide by all of the terms and conditions of the stipulation. The stipulation required the Respondent to not violate the provisions in Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, in the future; required Respondent to honor a settlement in a civil matter; required Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00; suspended Respondent’s license for thirty days; and required Respondent to affirmatively demonstrate compliance with the stipulation in order to have his license reinstated. A second final order entered by the Board on May 14, 1988, approved a settlement stipulation regarding Case no. 77499. This final order also directed Respondent to comply with the stipulation applicable to that case. In Case no. 77499, the stipulation required Respondent to abide by a civil settlement; imposed a fine in the amount of $500.00; suspended Respondent’s license for thirty days; and placed the burden on Respondent to demonstrate he had met the terms of the stipulation. As to both cases referenced above, Respondent admitted the allegations of the administrative complaints which, in pertinent part, claimed Respondent had assisted an unlicensed person or entity to perform contracting services thereby aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On April 2, 1993, Respondent executed a certification change of status form which was submitted to the Department. Such form was completed for the purpose of qualifying as an individual for licensure and sought to reinstate a delinquent license or change from inactive to active. In the course of completing the change of status form Respondent was required to answer a series of questions by checking either the “yes” or “no” column. In response to the question as to whether Respondent had “been charged with or convicted of acting as a contractor without a license, or if licensed as a contractor in this state or any other state, had a disciplinary action (including probation, fine or reprimand) against such license by a state, county or municipality?,” he answered “no.” Such answer was false. Further such answer was made under with the following affirmation: I affirm that these statements are true and correct and I recognize that providing false information may result in a FINE, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION of my contractor’s license. [Emphasis in original.] Thereafter, the Department notified the Respondent that his license would not be issued as he had failed to demonstrate satisfaction of a civil judgment and had not submitted an explanation of the disciplinary action from 1988. Respondent eventually resolved issues of licensure with the Department and, on September 15, 1993, was authorized to practice contracting. Prior to his license being reinstated, Respondent performed the following: on April 7, 1993, Respondent obtained a building permit for construction work at the home of Eduardo Bovea. This permit, no. 93181501, indicated Respondent as the contractor of record for the project. On the permit application Respondent represented himself as the licensed building contractor for the Bovea project to the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department. Respondent did not have a contract with Bovea for the construction work to be performed on the Bovea home. In fact, the contract was between Bovea and Lou Greene Construction. The Boveas paid monies to Rodney Salnave, who claimed to be a representative for Lou Greene Construction. Rodney Salnave was not Respondent’s employee, and was not licensed as a contractor. The Respondent did not talk to the Boveas regarding the contract, the scope of the work to be done, or the contract price for the work. All discussions regarding the work at their home (and payments for same) were between Rodney Salnave and the Boveas. The permit for the Bovea project represented the amount of the work to be $2,000.00. In fact, the contract price for the work was $4,500.00. Respondent misrepresented the value of the work for the Bovea project. As of September 26, 1993, Respondent admitted he was involved with seventeen contracting jobs. Just eleven days after having his license reinstated, and while being employed in a full-time (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) job with Dade County, Respondent had contracting responsibility for seventeen jobs. In reality, Respondent had made a deal with an unlicensed person, Denis Joseph, to pull permits for him. The jobs were for persons who, in some instances, Respondent had never met. For example, Mr. Joseph pulled a permit for work to be performed on a home owned by Ed Davis. The contract for the work was between Mr. Davis and a Mr. Sutton, an unlicensed contractor, but with the approval of Respondent, Mr. Joseph obtained a permit for the Davis job. A second job was for Bertha Joseph. In this instance, Mr. Joseph completed the permit application which Respondent signed thereby allowing Mr. Joseph to obtain the permit for the project. By signing the permit, Respondent represented himself to be the contractor for the job. In truth, the homeowner had contracted with Denis Joseph for the work to be done, but the project was completed by Emanuel Gideon, an unlicensed contractor. Respondent admitted receiving payments from Denis Joseph. Respondent admitted he was not actively involved with the Bertha Joseph project. In September, 1993, Eric Wardle, an investigator with the Dade County building and zoning department, interviewed Respondent regarding claims that he was obtaining permits for unlicensed contractors. According to Mr. Wardle, Respondent admitted he pulled permits for unlicensed contractors after Hurricane Andrew because they were trying to make a living. At hearing Respondent disputed the accuracy of Mr. Wardle’s investigation but admitted he would have told him “anything just for him to get away from me.” Respondent’s explanation at hearing was not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order revoking Respondent’s contractor license and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $8,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Pasternack, Esquire Raymond L. Robinson, P.A. 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Joseph Marcelin 16561 Southwest 144th Court Miami, Florida 33177 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1997. Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation/CILB 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent (“Ricky Lee Diemer”) offered to engage in unlicensed contracting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 489, part I, Florida Statutes. The Department initiated an undercover operation by gaining access to a house needing numerous repairs. The Department employees then utilized websites, such as Craigslist and HomeAdvisor, to identify people offering unlicensed contracting services. The Department employees found an advertisement posted by “RLD Handyman Services” on December 26, 2017, offering to perform multiple types of contracting work. This advertisement caught the Department’s attention because it did not list a contracting license number. Section 489.119(5)(b), requires every advertisement for contracting services to list such a number.2/ The advertisement listed a phone number, and the Department utilized the Accurint phone system to ascertain that the aforementioned phone number belonged to Mr. Diemer. The Department examined its records and ascertained that Mr. Diemer was not licensed to perform construction or electrical contracting in Florida. The Department contacted Mr. Diemer and approximately 12 other people offering contracting services and scheduled appointments for those people to discuss contracting work with an undercover Department employee at the house mentioned above. An undercover Department employee told Mr. Diemer and the other prospective contractors that he had recently bought the house and was hoping to sell it for a profit after making some quick repairs. An undercover Department employee met Mr. Diemer at the house and described their resulting conversation as follows: A: We looked at remodeling a deck on the back, the southern portion of the home. We looked at cabinets, flooring and painting that are nonregulated in nature, but also plumbing and general contracting services such as exterior doors that needed to be replaced, and the electrical, some appliances and light fixtures. Q: All right. So was there any follow-up communication from Mr. Diemer after your discussion at the house? A: Yes. We walked around the house. He looked at the renovations that we were asking. He took some mental notes as I recall. He didn’t make any written notes as some of the others had done. He did it all in his head, said that he was working on another project in the Southwood area at the time and just left his work crew there to come and visit with me and was rushed for time. So he was in and out of there in 10 to 15 minutes. It was pretty quick. Q: Okay. A: But he took the mental notes and said that he would go back and write something up and send me a proposal through our Gmail. . . . On February 7, 2018, Mr. Diemer transmitted an e-mail to the Department’s fictitious Gmail account offering to perform multiple types of work that require a contracting license: kitchen sink installation, bathroom remodeling, construction of an elevated deck and walkway, installation of light fixtures, and installation of front and back doors.3/ Mr. Diemer proposed to perform the aforementioned tasks for $13,200.00.4/ The work described in Mr. Diemer’s e-mail poses a danger to the public if done incorrectly or by unlicensed personnel.5/ The Department incurred costs of $118.55 for DOAH Case No. 18-6578 and $91.45 for DOAH Case No. 18-6579. The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer advertised or offered to practice construction contracting without holding the requisite license. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer practiced construction and electrical contracting when he transmitted the February 7, 2018, e-mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order requiring Ricky Lee Diemer to pay a $9,000.00 administrative fine and costs of $210.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2019.
