Findings Of Fact On February 4, 2008, the Department filed a two-count Administrative Complaint against Boetzel, alleging that Boetzel violated sections 481.323(1) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006), in that Boetzel engaged in the unlicensed practice of landscape architecture and electrical contracting. The following pertinent facts were alleged in the Administrative Complaint: At no time material hereto were Respondents the holders of valid licenses to engage in the practice of landscape architecture pursuant to Chapter 481, Part II, Florida Statutes. At no material time hereto were Respondents the holders of valid licenses to engage in the practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent TODD P. BOETZEL was the Registered Agent and Officer/Director/President of Respondent BOETZEL LANDSCAPING, INC. Respondents' last known address is 2534 22nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33713. On or about June 5, 2007 Respondents submitted an invoice to Southern Cross Construction for site preparation, including grading, placement of plantings, and installation of an irrigation system at a construction site in Reddington [sic] Beach, Florida. The aforementioned invoice also included electrical contracting work. On or about June 19, 2007 Respondent Todd P. Boetzel signed a sworn Claim of Lien indicating that he provided "Landscaping, Sod, and Irrigation" for the aforementioned project. Respondent was paid a deposit of $8,000.00 by check number 1274 on May 25, 2007. Boetzel requested an administrative hearing, and the case was referred to DOAH. A final hearing was held, and the Administrative Law Judge entered a Recommended Order, recommending that a final order be entered finding that Boetzel did not engage in the unlicensed practice of landscape architecture and electrical contracting. On October 28, 2008, the Department filed a Final Order, which adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order and found that Boetzel was not guilty of engaging in the unlicensed practice of landscape architecture and electrical contracting. On November 17, 2008, Boetzel filed a Verified Petition and Affidavit for Attorney's Fees and Costs under Florida Statutes § 57.111 (2006). The petition included an Affidavit for Attorney's Fees executed by the attorney for Boetzel, stating that 102.2 hours of attorney time had been rendered in the case and that the usual rate was $300.00 per hour. The total amount claimed for attorney's fees is $30,660.00. The petition also included a Bill of Costs executed by Todd P. Boetzel, which included costs for services of process and transcripts. The total amount claimed for costs is $1,327.30. On December 8, 2008, the Department filed Respondent's Answer to Initial Order. The answer stated: The Department does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees and costs submitted by Petitioner. The Department does not dispute that Petitioner [sic] were a prevailing party in the underlying proceeding. The Department does not dispute that Petitioner [sic] are a small business party. The Department does not dispute that it was non-nominal party at the underlying proceeding. The Department knows of no circumstances or facts that would make an award of attorney's fees to Petitioner unjust in the present case. * * * The Department alleges that its actions in prosecuting this matter were substantially justified, thereby negating Petitioners' entitlement to attorneys' fees. The only disputed issue in the instant case is whether the Department was substantially justified in issuing the Administrative Complaint. In February 2008, Laura P. Gaffney (Ms. Gaffney) was the chief attorney in the unlicensed activity section of the Department. Her primary responsibility was to review incoming cases and determine whether the cases should be closed out, whether additional investigation was needed, or whether charges should be filed in the form of an administrative complaint. Ms. Gaffney had been delegated the authority by the Secretary of the Department to make probable cause findings on cases dealing with unlicensed activity.2/ In making her determination of whether there was probable cause to file an administrative complaint, Ms. Gaffney considered the investigative report dated December 29, 2007, and a supplemental report dated January 19, 2008. The investigative file included a complaint filed by Steve Petrozak (Mr. Petrozak), a licensed general contractor and manager of Southern Cross Construction, alleging that Boetzel had engaged in the unlicensed practice of landscape architecture. The complaint described the work performed by Boetzel as "landscaping, lawn irrigation, sod." The complaint filed by Mr. Petrozak included an invoice from Boetzel for the work performed. The invoice was for the planting of various plants, site preparation, irrigation, installation of pine bark, and lighting. The site preparation was described in the invoice as follows: "Sodcut areas to be planted, remove unwanted vegetation and haul away, prepare areas for planting, stump grind. Grade entire property and create swale down left side." The lighting work was described in the invoice as follows: "Install Low Voltage Halogen Lights, uplight 3 foxtail palms, 1 adonidia palm and 2 lights on mailbox, with one automatic transformer. Additional transformer." The investigative file also included a letter dated November 7, 2007, from Gregory Elliott, an attorney representing Boetzel. Mr. Elliott stated that Boetzel was not in the business of landscape architecture, but was in the business of selling and installing landscape materials for residential or commercial use. Mr. Elliott described Boetzel as a laborer or materialman working under the general contractor. Ms. Gaffney felt that the "single most important part of this investigative report" was the sworn claim of lien filed by Boetzel, which stated that Boetzel had furnished "labor, services and material consisting of Landscaping, Sod, and Irrigation" at the property situated at 511 161st Avenue, Redington Beach, Florida. Ms. Gaffney assumed that because the work performed by Boetzel included grading the property and creating a swale that Boetzel had set the grades for the grading and had designed the swale. The investigative report does not contain sufficient information to make that determination. Such information could easily have been obtained from Mr. Petrozak, but the investigator did not get the information nor did Ms. Gaffney request the information. Ms. Gaffney assumed that because transformers were being provided and that halogen lights were being installed that Boetzel hardwired the installation of the lights and transformers. She assumed that because lights were being placed near a mailbox that the work would entail more than plugging in the lights. The information contained in the investigation file is insufficient to supports such assumptions. The investigator could have obtained the necessary information from Mr. Petrozak, but did not do so nor did Ms. Gaffney request the information.
The Issue The issue is whether J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. qualifies as a socially and economically disadvantaged business enterprise under Rule 14- 78.005(c), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact J. P. Electrical Contractors is a Florida corporation which has been in business for approximately 17 years. It was founded and owned by Jacques Paul- Hus. The firm currently employees approximately 58 people. Its strengths are in contracting for highway lightning systems, traffic signals, and navigation lighting systems for airport runways. The firm has done a substantial amount of business. Its gross receipts for recent years are as follows: 1984 - $8,961,845 1985 - $7,881,440 1986 - $7,900,000 Mr. Mario Avin has been employed at J. P. Electrical since 1975, and has been a project manager for cost control. He has functioned as the controller or chief financial officer for the company. He is well experienced in the management of electrical contracting firms. Mr. Avin is black. About 1985, J. P. Electrical Contractors found itself in financial difficulty because of a contract it had with the Dade County Airport Authority. It had installed a shipment of runway lighting from Westinghouse Corporation which turned out to be defective. Due to the problems with those lights, a substantial portion of the contract price was retained by Dade County pending resolution of the lighting problem. This adversely affected the business' cash flow and required it to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The company filed suit against Westinghouse Corporation and has received a favorable judgment at trial, which is on appeal. The business received an infusion of 200,000 invested by David E. Graham, a lawyer not experienced in contracting. To secure the loan, a transaction was structured by which Graham obtained indirect ownership of 1/2 of the stock of J. P. Electrical Contractors, a lien on the remaining stock of the company and became the lessor of the building occupied by J. P. Electrical Contractors. At about this time, Mario Avin began thinking of opening his own contracting company, based on his substantial experience in the contracting business, and on the assistance he could receive from the disadvantaged business enterprise programs of various governments due to his minority status. Jacques Paul-Hus suggested to Mr. Avin that he become an owner as well as manager of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. Mr. Paul-Hus understood that if J. P. Electrical Contractors obtained minority status, it could enhance sales. As the result, the stock in J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. was divided as follows: Mario Avin 25,500 shares Jacques Paul-Hus 24,400 shares Louise Paul-Hus 100 shares David E. Graham ceased to own any stock in the company. Graham was most interested in recovering his investment and a profit, but was not interested in running a contracting company, which was outside his expertise. He also wished to be released from the guarantees which he, as a shareholder, had to provided to the surety company which underwrote the various construction bonds which J. P. Electrical Contractors had. Graham maintained, however, a lien in the form of a pledge and hypothecation agreement on the shares of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. The first application of J. P. Electrical Contractors to the Florida Department of Transportation for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise was disapproved on January 5, 1988, due to the pledge and hypothecation agreement. In view of the Department certification review committee, Mr. Avin, who was chairman of the board of the company and held the majority of the stock, still did not have functional control over the company due to the pledge encumbering his stock. A new application was submitted on February 4, 1988, by J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. After the first disapproval, the affairs of the corporation were restructured. The pledge held by David E. Graham was cancelled and Mr. Avin owned outright the 25,500 shares of stock which represented 51 percent ownership without any encumbrance. Mr. Avin did not pay cash for his shares. The contribution to the enterprise which justified the transfer of the stock to him was the value of his experience in the financial management of electrical contracting business. As a chief financial officer, Mr. Avin is well experienced in estimating, in accounting systems, and in keeping track of the business' cash flow. This is essential in determining whether the company's position will permit it to bid and handle new work profitably. There is no doubt that, in part, the majority ownership was transferred to Mr. Avin by the former owners because of his minority status. With his majority ownership of the corporation, Mr. Avin also took on substantial personal liabilities. He became personally liable to Southeastern Causality and Indemnity Insurance Company on the performance bonds which J. P. Electrical Contractors has. He is now also personally liable to the Internal Revenue Service for payroll taxes due on the salary of all the company employees, because he is the corporate officer in charge of payroll. While Mr. Avin handles the day-to-day financial affairs and planning for the company, Mr. Jacques Paul-Hus still handles supervision of the field work of the company on a day-to-day basis. Given Mr. Avin's experience in financial matters, and Mr. Paul-Hus' experience in field supervision, this division of responsibility is appropriate. In return for taking on the additional responsibilities of becoming both the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the company, and assuming the personal liabilities explained above, Mr. Avin now receives a 51 percent portion of the profits of the company. The remaining 49 percent of any profits goes to Jacques Paul-Hus and his wife Louise. Mr. Graham's interest is limited to the ownership of indebtedness of the company. The second (current) application of J. P. Electrical Contractors for certification as a minority business enterprise was disapproved by the Department of Transportation on March 7, 1988. The certification review committee had been troubled by the restructuring of the affairs of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. to meet the departmental objections which had resulted in the first disapproval of minority certification. The Department is wary of changes in corporate control as indications of improper manipulation of disadvantage business enterprise requirements. Here, Mr. Avin actually owns the majority of the stock of the contracting company and he shares both the risks of ownership as well as profits in proportion to his ownership. He has managerial authority commensurate with his majority ownership and has substantial experience in electrical contracting. He has the power to set the policies of the business, and his authority is not subject to any restriction, whether by a pledge of his stock or otherwise. While Mr. Paul-Hus is responsible for field supervision, Mr. Avin's experience and authority in planning and financial matters, as well as his ability to set overall policy, places Mr. Avin in charge of the business. Mr. Avin's testimony that he is responsible and empowered to make business decisions without the concurrence of Mr. Paul-Hus is accepted. While it is appropriate for the Department to be concerned about the restructuring of the corporation to meet the requirements of its program for disadvantaged business enterprises, the structure of J. P. Electrical Contractors is such that Mr. Avin does have ownership and control of the firm.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application of J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Mario Avin J. P. Electrical Contractors Corp. 877 Northwest 61st Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 James W. Anderson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption, and proof of having completed 14 hours of approved continuing education in response to an audit conducted by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating on August 31, 1998, in violation of Subsection 489.533(1)(o), Florida Statutes, by violating Subsections 489.515(3) and 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6- 9.011, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), the state agency charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting in Florida and those licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, an electrical contractor licensed by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board. From 1987 until 2000, the Respondent was a registered electrical contractor, holding license number ER 0010816. Since August of 2000 the Respondent has been a certified electrical contractor holding license number EC 0002356. The Respondent's practice pursuant to his registered license was a prerequisite to issuance of his certified license. All insurance and continuing education requirements for renewal of a license issued by the ECLB are set forth in Sections 489.515 and 489.517, Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, and are identical for certified and registered electrical contractors. In March of 1999 the ECLB conducted a random audit of the insurance and continuing education requirements established in Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating August 31, 1998. The Respondent was one of the licensees randomly chosen for this audit. In response to the initial audit letter sent to the Respondent on March 17, 1999, the Respondent submitted insurance and continuing education documentation. This documentation reflects: no evidence of workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the audit period; no evidence of approved continuing education for the audit period; and no evidence of required liability insurance for the audit period. The continuing education documentation submitted by the Respondent was for the prior biennium, in February 1996. On July 19, 1999, the ECLB forwarded the Respondent a follow-up letter, indicating that he was still lacking the documents enumerated in Finding of Fact Number 5. In response to this letter, the Respondent submitted documentation of the required liability insurance and of workers' compensation for May 1, 1997 through June 22, 1999. At hearing, the Respondent produced a document similar to those previously provided to the DBPR documenting his workmen's compensation insurance from March 1, 1995 to May 1, 1997. The date of this document was the same as the date on the materials previously furnished to DBPR. The Respondent testified that his insurance agent had faxed the requested documents to DBPR and sent copies to him. He received all of the documents substantiating his insurance from May 1, 1997 until June 22, 1999. His agent presumably forwarded or faxed the same documents to DBPR. DBPR produced all the documents except the one for the period of March 1, 1995 until May 1, 1997. The Respondent provided enough information to raise a genuine question whether this document was lost by DBPR. It is concluded that it is as likely DBPR lost the record as it is the record was not sent. There was no additional documentation of the required continuing education submitted at hearing. Subsequent to the completion of the audit, the ECLB initiated a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Services at DBPR. This complaint alleges that the Respondent failed to document required workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the entire audit period and failed to document required continuing education within the audit period. The Respondent was initially issued citations for resolution of the alleged violations herein. Each of these citations provided for a $500 administrative fine. The continuing education violation was documented as DBPR case number 2000-08338 and the workers' compensation violation was documented as 2000-05654. The Respondent chose to dispute these citations, and as a result, this matter was handled pursuant to the provisions of Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Respondent has failed to document completion of hours of board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. The Respondent failed to obtain any board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. In DBPR case number 2000-08338, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $31.70. In DBPR case number 2000-05654, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $42.47. However, this cost may not be recovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $500 against the Respondent for Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Respondent be required to pay the non-legal costs incurred by the Petitioner in both agency cases totaling $31.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 14th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David Karably Post Office Box 12 Earleton, Florida 32631 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The parties stipulated that the Petitioner's financial responsibility and morals were not an issue. The only basis for the Board's denial was the Petitioner's alleged lack of experience. Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. These proposals are discussed in detail in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently employed as an electrical inspector for Hillsborough County, Florida. He has held this position for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. He holds a master's electrician's license issued by Hillsborough County but is prohibited by terms of his employment as an electrical inspector from engaging in any electrical contracting activity. Petitioner is technically experienced as an electrician. Prior to his employment as an electrical inspector, Petitioner was employed by Mobil Chemical Company which operates several phosphate mines in central Florida. The Petitioner was employed at its Fort Meade mine. The Fort Meade mine, or plant, is a substantial operation producing approximately four (4) million tons of phosphate per year at the time when Petitioner was employed. The mining area occupies several hundred acres and the working or processing area occupies approximately ten (10) of those acres. The working area comprises of a flotation plant, a washer plant, a sizing section, a shipping area where the rock is loaded on railroad cars, a maintenance area, and an office complex. The plant ran three (3) shifts around the clock and employed approximately one hundred (100) persons. All of the major equipment to include the 30 and 40 yard draglines at the Fort Meade plant alone contained in excess of one hundred (100) electric motors each with its own fuse box and disconnect. The Petitioner was employed by Nobil Chemical Company for twenty (20) years (1962-1982); 16 years as an electrician and four years as supervisor of the electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade plant. He was responsible for all electrical repairs, maintenance, and new construction at the plant for all three shifts. His direct superior was the department chief who was in charge of all the electrical departments at all of Mobil's phosphate mining locations. Approximately twenty (20 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on new construction projects. Approximately forty (40 percent) percent of petitioner's time was spent on regular maintenance and repairs. Fifteen (15 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on emergency repairs. The remainder of petitioner's time was spent on miscellaneous projects. Petitioner supervised a staff of ten (10) men: two (2) crewmen, four linemen, and four (4) electricians. The Petitioner was responsible for estimating the cost of jobs for his immediate superior to include the cost of materials and the number of man hours. The Petitioner was responsible for counting and reporting the number of hours his employees worked in turning this information into the company's payroll section. Petitioner had the power to request overtime work for his employees and made recommendations concerning hiring and firing personnel. On new construction the Petitioner's responsibilities began with doing takeoffs from blueprints provided for the job and supervising the work through to its completion. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Fort Meade facility to include small electrical motors, large electrical motors, office lighting, transformers, and the large draglines. Petitioner's experience included experience with three (3) phase electrical power, high voltage electrical service, and lower voltages used in small motors, lights and appliances. The electrical department which the Petitioner headed provided service only to Mobil's Fort Meade plant. Mobil is not an electrical contractor; however, its electrical department provided extensive services which are comparable to those an outside electrical contracting service would have provided. Although the petitioner did not prepare a payroll for those persons who he supervised, he did serve as the clerk for his church for five (5) years during which time he was responsible for preparing the payroll for the church's employees. The petitioner applied in 1982 to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination. His application was approved by the Respondent and the Petitioner sat for the examination on two occasions, failing both examinations. Petitioner reapplied to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination in 1984 and was denied by the Respondent based upon lack of satisfactory experience. The Petitioner held a responsible management position with Mobil at the Fort Meade plant as supervisor of electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade facility for four (4) years. The Petitioner never negotiated a construction contract, was never bonded as a contractor, never obtained insurance to cover his operation as a contractor, and never sought a building permit for any of the electrical work done at the Fort Meade facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board disapprove the application of Cecil U. Lane to sit for the statewide electrical contractor's license. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jerry W. Hendry Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Electrical Contractors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric S. Ruff, Esquire Post Office Box TT Plant City, Florida 33566 Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, 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 Petitioner, Edward W. Horsman, filed an application August 14, 1984, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, for certification by examination as an electrical contractor. On October 12, 1984 Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the basis that he lacked sufficient experience in the trade to qualify for the licensure examination. Section 489.521, Fla. Stat., and Rule 21GG-5.02(1), F.A.C. Petitioner filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has 20 years experience in the electrical construction industry. From 1965-1980 Petitioner was employed by Spaulding Electric Company, an electrical contractor in Detroit, Michigan. While employed by Spaulding, Petitioner worked as a wireman for one and one-half years, a foreman for one and one- half years, a field superintendent for four years, an estimator for one and one-half years, chief estimator for one and one-half years, and as manager of electrical construction for five years. Petitioner's managerial and supervisory experience included supervision of draftsmen in plan preparation, bid estimates, negotiation of contracts, overall supervision of construction, scheduling and purchasing. From 1980-1982 Petitioner was employed by Lastar Electric Company, an electrical contractor in Madison Heights, Michigan. Petitioner's managerial and supervisory experience at Lastar comported with his duties at Spaulding. In December 1982 Petitioner was laid off by Lastar, due to an economic recession which plagued Detroit, Michigan. From December 1982 until February 1984, Petitioner operated his own consulting firm in Rochester, Michigan, providing estimating and project management services for electrical contractors. Business was poor, and few contracts were acquired. In February 1984 Respondent relocated to Englewood, Florida, and undertook his current employment with Baldwin Electric, Inc. Respondent seeks to be licensed as the qualifying agent for Larry's Electric, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Baldwin Electric, Inc.
