Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered building contractor, having been issued license number RB 0010555. On December 12, 1980, Benjamin Kyler entered into a contract with Sweet E. Glover to construct a house for her at 2020 Southwest First Street, Ocala, Florida. At no time material hereto was Benjamin Kyler properly licensed to perform contracting in the State of Florida. The Respondent obtained the building permit to enable Benjamin Kyler to perform the construction contract with Sweet Glover. Benjamin Kyler received approximately $1,650, but he performed only a minimal amount of construction on the Glover residence. The Respondent knew that Benjamin Kyler was engaged in the construction of a residence for Sweet Glover, and the Respondent also knew that Benjamin Kyler was not licensed to contract in the State of Florida. The Respondent was paid a fee for pulling the building permit for Benjamin Kyler.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Isaac Butler, be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e) and 489.129 (1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that his license be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 1st day of February, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 1st day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Isaac Butler RFD 1, Box 752 Anthony, Florida 32617 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard M. Woodley has two inactive contracting licenses numbered CB CA 17970 and CB CO 17970, and was so licensed in 1986. The Respondent's license CB CA 17970 qualified "Woodley Builders, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was no longer in the construction contracting business as a licensed contractor. With respect to case number 87-2809, on December 15, 1985, the Respondent, on behalf of Woodley Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Catherine M. Richardson and Jonathan P. Richardson to build a residence in or near Orlando, Florida. The contract price was $90,000, with $20,000 attributable to the land. The contract specified that payments would be made to Woodley Builders, Inc. "in accordance with the disbursement schedule set forth by the construction lender." P. Ex. 1, paragraph 7. Woodley Builders, Inc. also agreed in the contract to furnish to the Richardsons lien waivers as required by the construction lender for disbursements. The construction lender disbursed the following amounts on the indicated dates: $10,200 March 17, 1986 $10,200 March 19, 1986 $17,000 March 27, 1986 $17,000 April 24, 1986 To induce these disbursements, a total of $54,400, the Respondent signed lien waivers stating that all bills for labor and materials used had been paid in full. P. Ex. 5. At the time of signing, the Respondent told the construction lender that he had paid all bills due to that time, but had not paid bills not yet presented. T. 89. Thus, the lien waivers were intended to be a certification of the partial completion and payment for the work billed to the date of the waiver, and a promise to pay other bills for work already completed as such bills were presented. Six claims of liens were filed by subcontractors. The Richardsons hired a lawyer, and the lawyer was able to defend against two of the liens for failure to properly comply with procedures for mechanic's liens. Four liens for the following amounts and for work beginning on the dates indicated ultimately had to be satisfied by the Richardsons: $ 2,851.45 March 19, 1986 $13,462.34 March 7, 1986 $ 1,944.57 April 8, 1986 $ 785.01 April 9, 1986 These liens were for work commenced before the last lien waiver was signed on April 24, 1986. Thus, the Respondent failed to comply with the oral representations he made at the time of signing the lien waivers. The Richardsons were forced to execute a second mortgage in excess of $17,000 to pay off the unpaid liens. The Richardsons terminated the contract with Woodley Builders, Inc. when subcontractors quit working for lack of payment by Woodley Builders, Inc. Some money was obtained from family loans. It cost the Richardsons about $30,000 to have the house finished, which has added about $325 per month to their mortgage obligations. The Respondent and Woodley Builders, Inc. have not paid anything on these liens. Woodley Builders, Inc. filed bankruptcy. The Richardsons sued the Respondent as trustee for Woodley Builders, Inc. and obtained a default judgment for $149,839, which was a judgment of $32,380 in compensatory damages, trebled, plus costs, interest, and attorney's fees. With respect to case number 87-2810, on June 11, 1986, Woodley Builders, Inc. entered into a contract with Tom Jamieson to construct an addition to his residence in Orlando, Florida. The price of the work was $18,500. The contract specified that the price was a cash price, and that draws were to be made according to a schedule stated in the contract. Mr. Jamieson paid to Woodley Builders, Inc. about $11,700 of the contract price. At some time before completion of the addition, the owner, Mr. Jamieson, evidently became dissatisfied with the Respondent's work. Mr. Jamieson was given the Respondent's copy of the contract and refused to return it to the Respondent. Mr. Jamieson then owed the Respondent a draw of $3500, but refused to give it to him, and refused to have it put in escrow for the payment of subcontractors. The date that this occurred is not in evidence. T. 35-36, 39. Since Mr. Jamieson had taken back the contract, the Respondent thought that he (the Respondent) no longer had any legal proof of the contract (either scope of work or amount due), and thus had no contract to complete the work. He also did not receive the draw that was due. The Respondent thus ceased work on the addition for fear that he would not be paid without a copy of his contract. T. 36-37. The Respondent offered to complete the work. T. 51. The drywall contractor, Rick's Drywall, Inc., filed a lien for $465 for work done from August 12, 1986 and August 20, 1986. The Respondent would have paid this lien had Mr. Jamieson not terminated the contract and refused to give the Respondent a draw still due of $3500. T. 49-50. There may be a claim for unpaid electrical work in July, 1986, see P. Ex. 15, but it is impossible to tell if this occurred before or after Mr. Jamieson terminated the contract, or whether the Respondent had received draw money that should have paid this claim. The only evidence is that the Respondent had an agreement with the electrical subcontractor to pay that subcontractor at the time of the final draw, a draw never received as discussed above. T. 53. P. Ex. 11 is insufficient evidence that there were unpaid claims for roof trusses. Moreover, it cannot be determined whether the Respondent received a draw before contract termination which should have been used to pay for roof trusses. The Respondent had been a contractor for eight years before he began to have financial difficulties resulting in the problems with the Richardson's residence. There is no evidence of any prior discipline.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter its final order finding in case number 87-2809 that the Respondent, Richard M. Woodley, violated sections 489.129(1)(m), 489.129(1)(j), and 489.119, Fla. Stat. (1986), misconduct in contracting by diversion of funds, and failure to supervise as a qualifying agent, and in case number 87-2810, dismissing the administrative complaint for failure of proof by clear and convincing evidence. It is further recommended for the violation set forth above that the license of the Respondent be suspended for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, 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 22nd day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Woodley 2521 Tuscaloosa Trail Maitland, Florida 32751 David Bryant, Esquire 1107 East Jackson, Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, David H. Tinius, unlawfully abandoned a construction project; diverted funds received for completion of a construction project and thereby failed to fulfill his contractual obligations.
Findings Of Fact Based on 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. By its administrative complaint filed herein signed October 6, 1982, the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's registered building contractor's license. During times material herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor and has been issued license No. RB0024083. On approximately April 20, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Jess Marks to build a residence in Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $46,551. Respondent commenced construction of the Mark's residence but left the site when it was approximately forty percent complete. At that time, Respondent had received approximately $44,000 of the contract sum. Jess Marks completed the construction of his residence by hiring another contractor to complete the project and expended approximately $50,000 over and above the contract price as agreed upon by the Respondent to complete his residence. Respondent never returned any of the monies received from the Marks for completion of the residence. On approximately April 24, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Abe Abrahams to construct a residence in Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $30,473. Respondent left the Abrahams' project after he had received $6,000 and had completed approximately ten percent of the work on the Abrahams' residence. Respondent did not return to the site nor did he return any of the monies received from the Abrahams for the construction of their residence (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 5). The Abrahams had to pay for supplies and material bought for the project by the Respondent and which reportedly had been paid, according to Respondent. THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION As noted hereinabove, the Respondent did not appear to contest or otherwise refute the allegations contained in the administrative complaint filed herein. However, Respondent, through counsel, filed an answer which admitted the complaint allegations filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's registered building contractor's license No. RB0024083 be REVOKED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 David H. Tinius 4420 Northwest 36th Court Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33309 David H. Tinius Post Office Box 6338 Charlotte Amalil St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00801 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fred H. White, was licensed as a registered general contractor in Florida under License Number RG 0005082 in February, 1968. Thereafter, in April, 1970, Respondent was issued his license to qualify BUILDINGS BY WINCHESTER, INC. His license went delinquent on July 1, 1973, however, it was reinstated and placed on active status in July, 1977 when Respondent qualified CAPITAL STONE COMPANY under that license. The license was to expire on June 30, 1981. In July 1982, it was again issued to Respondent qualifying as an individual and was, at all times pertinent to the issues alleged herein, active. On December 2, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. E.M. Powell, of Lot 10, Shell Harbour, St. George Island, Florida, to build a 1736 square foot home for them for the contract price of $74,120.00. The plans and specifications for this construction were listed by number on the hand written contract signed by Respondent and the Powells and witnessed by Ronald Jones. This contract was signed after Mr. Powell procured the issuance of a building permit to build a 1668 square foot residence, estimated to cost $52,500.00 on his Shell Harbour property. Mr. Powell-indicates that the application for the building permit was made by his architect, Mr. Clayton Anderson, however, the application and permit itself reveals no place thereon where Mr. Anderson's signature appears. In fact, the signature of the applicant, undated, is that of Mr. Powell, but the permit, number 4512, was issued on November 11, 1982. Both Mr. Powell and the Respondent attribute the difference in size of the building and the price to changes made and agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the issuance of the permit and prior to the signing of the contract. The contract in question is what could be best described as a "bare bones" contract. The basic legal requirements of a contract are present in that the parties are identified, consideration is reflected, there is a specific legal purpose, and obviously an offer and acceptance with, at the time of signing, an apparent meeting of the minds. This document is, however, an invitation to dispute, as there is no estimated time of completion or any other detail which might serve to more clearly identify the rights and obligations of the parties. Mr. Powell indicates that the Respondent estimated three months would be necessary to complete the project and that Mr. White indicated he would be on the site just about every day. Mr. White tells a substantially different story, however, in that he contends he had other projects under construction at the time, projects with which Mr. Powell was totally familiar, and that he, Respondent, was present when necessary, to supervise as necessary. Mr. White denies that he was the general contractor for Mr. Powell on this job. He contends that he was the framing contractor and that Mr. Powell served as his own general contractor. He contends, and Mr. Powell admits, that much of the building material purchased was picked out by Mr. Powell. On the other hand, much was also ordered by Respondent. Neither side could give a detailed accounting of who bought what and no evidence was presented to show who did what in any detail. Certain of the subcontractors were arranged for by Respondent. Others were arranged for by Mr. Powell. All bills were paid by Mr. Powell. According to Respondent, he signed the contract as general contractor only so that Powell could get a Veterans' Administration loan and issued the completion certificate as general contractor because "that's the way it was done." Be that as it may, the house was subsequently completed, and at the closing on or about October 31, 1983, Mr. White, as general contractor, presented Mr. Powell with a contractor's affidavit in which he indicated that all subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers had been paid in full; that all building codes had been complied with; that all installed equipment including roofing, ventilators, windows, skylights, fireplaces, insulation, etc., were installed according to building code and manufacturers' instructions and that all manufacturers' guarantees and warranties were thereby validated by the proper installation of the product. Respondent orally warranted he would stand behind his work for one year. Mr. White, as was indicated above, denies he was the general contractor but insists that he was properly supervising those portions of the project which it was his responsibility to supervise. Mr. Powell, on the other hand, insists that Respondent was frequently absent and there were several periods when he did not appear on the site to supervise construction of the property for extended periods of days. There was no detailed evidence, however, as to which days were involved, but it is clear from all the evidence, including the contract and the certificate as well as Mr. White's testimony, that he was the general contractor and had a responsibility to adequately supervise the construction regardless of whether the subs in question were directly hired by him or were hired by Mr. Powell. It is inconceivable that Respondent would have continued to perform under the contract if he did not feel that he had a responsibility to do so and that, for the most part, matters were going as they were envisioned to go under the terms of the agreements between the parties. After installation and from the very beginning, Mr. Powell noticed a problem with the upper outside fixed windows on the land side of the house which had been picked out by Respondent. It appears that water was leaking in the vicinity of these triangular windows and ran down the interior walls under the two outermost windows into the light fixture over the sink and down onto the counter tops. Water also ran down the wall over the entrance door and damaged a closet ceiling near that area. As a result, part of the ceiling fell in the closet the counter top in the kitchen began to swell and pull away from the wall and the drawers in the closets began to bind. When these leaks first occurred, even before the house was completed, Mr. Powell notified the Respondent both orally and in writing. Respondent promised to repair the windows and did, on several occasions, come out and attempt repairs by caulking around the windows. However, these repairs were ineffective and each time it would rain, water would again come in. Respondent never inspected right after a rain, however. Consequently, on December 19, 1983, Mr. Powell wrote a letter of complaint to Respondent which he sent by Registered Mail to that address utilized by Respondent--Route 8, Box 85B, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Respondent was left several notices by postal authorities but failed to claim the letter from the post office and it was returned to the sender undelivered. Mr. Powell, on February 15, 1984, hand-delivered a similar letter outlining the discrepancies in the house to Respondent on the steps of the county courthouse in Apalachicola, Florida, but Respondent denies ever having received the letter. Respondent attempted to explain why he did not receive notice of the letter sent to him by Registered Mail. His explanation was so convoluted and involved as to be incomprehensible and not capable of belief. By the same token, Mr. Powell has a faulty memory of many of the things recited by Respondent. This is obviously a situation where both parties see the matter in the light most favorable to them and, unfortunately for the resolution of this dispute, there is little independent evidence of what happened. However, in resolution of the matter, it is found that though the first letter was not received, the second letter was, and Mr. White was given ample notice, aliande the letters, of the defects in the installation of these windows as well as the chimney cap through which, reportedly, water was entering the chimney and rusting the firebox of the fireplace. With regard to this chimney, Respondent agreed to install a new chimney cap, just to keep the peace, even though he did not feel there was anything wrong with the installation of the original one. Mr. Powell was to get it, but did not do so, however, claiming that he was never instructed by Respondent as to what kind to get or when to get it. As to the allegedly deficient cap, Respondent describes it as a tubular piece of metal perforated all around so that the smoke can get out but hot ash is retained. Since there are holes in the device to let the smoke out, water can get in through those holes when it rains. Respondent claims that what is needed, if a total absence of water is desired, is to place a cover over the cap. Respondent contends that all fireplaces built that way with an uncovered cap, admit water to some degree. There was no evidence presented by the Petitioner to contradict Respondent's assertion or to show that Respondent improperly installed the chimney cap. With regard to the windows, however, after Mr. Powell had made the repeated efforts to have Respondent repair the windows so that the leakage would stop, he subsequently contracted with another builder to replace them. When this second builder examined the windows, it was determined that they were too small for the opening in which they were placed and that they were improperly installed. This left a large area around the window which Respondent had attempted to fill with caulking, but the space was so large that caulking itself was insufficient to correct the problem. The second contractor determined it would be necessary to remove the windows and install appropriate sized windows in a proper fashion and this was done at a cost of in excess of $500.00. The windows have not leaked since. Respondent contends that the windows were properly installed and caulked and that the leak did not come from the space around the windows. Instead, he contends, the leak was caused by improper caulking of the batting above the window below the soffit which was the responsibility of the painter who was, in fact, Mr. Powell's son-in-law and hired by him. Even the builder who replaced the windows agrees that caulking of the batting would be the responsibility of the painter, but he contends that this leak was not caused by this deficient caulking but by the improperly sized and installed windows. This was Respondent's responsibility and it is so found. There is no evidence, aliunde that described above which in any way shows that Respondent made any misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent misrepresentations in the practice of contracting. Though no detailed information was presented regarding the actual number of days Respondent was absent from the job site, there was some substantial evidence on the part of Mr. Powell, who had no reason to lie, that Respondent was absent from the job site quite frequently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of imcompetence in the installation of the windows in question in Mr. Powell's house, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint that the remaining allegations be dismissed that Respondent be reprimanded that his license be placed on probation for a period of two years under such terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board shall determine appropriate, and that he make restitution to Mr. Powell in the amount of $577.23. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1986. Copies furnished: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred H. White, pro se Route 8, Box 85-B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. lla. Irrelevant. Subordinate to the finding that Respondent was the general contractor. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Irrelevant. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 18-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 22-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 28. Irrelevant. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12.
The Issue Whether respondent on several occasions aided an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting by obtaining permits on respondent's license for contracting jobs performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether respondent committed the statutory violations alleged; and If so, whether respondent's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether some other penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida holding License No. CG C000572. Johnnie T. Thomas is the president of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Mr. Thomas is not a licensed contractor in the State of Florida. Although respondent has used his license to qualify several corporations, the last being Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., respondent never qualified J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Indeed, J. T. Thomas Construction has never been qualified by any licensee. During the time period relevant to this action, J. T. Thomas Construction Company was the name used by Mr. Thomas to engage in the contracting business. On July 25, 1983, J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Hazel N. Jones for the construction of a residence at 11729 Rock Hill Road, Thonotosassa, Florida, in Hillsborough County. Johnnie Thomas signed the contract on behalf of J. T. Thomas Construction Company as "President and Builder." Ms. Jones did not know that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. James Montjoy drew the plans for the house and recommended Thomas as the builder. The total price for the house was $75,500. The house was started in September of 1983, and on January 30, 1984 final payment was made. After moving into the house, Ms. Jones discovered several problems. In June of 1984 an energy check found that the home was not properly insulated; however, this was apparently corrected in May of 1985. Ms. Jones had several other problems with the home and sent a "punch-list" to Mr. Thomas setting forth the items that needed to be corrected. Although Mr. Thomas admitted at the hearing that there were items that should have been corrected on the punch-list, he also admitted that he did not correct them because he disputed other claims of Ms. Jones. The building permit application for Ms. Jones' home was signed by the respondent. On the building permit application, the contractor was listed as Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. The building permit was issued on August 15, 1983. It listed Julius H. Isaac and Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. as the contractor. The building permit was signed by Julius H. Isaac as agent. Ms. Jones never met Mr. Isaac, never saw him and never knew that he was involved in any way in the construction of her home. In late 1984, Ms. Catherine Farragut, the owner of a building located at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida, contracted with J. T. Thomas to have her building remodeled. Ms. Jones recommended Mr. Thomas to Ms. Farragut before Ms. Jones began to experience problems with Mr. Thomas. Ms. Farragut was not aware that Mr. Thomas was not a licensed contractor. The remodeling of the building was completed in early 1985. The permit for the interior remodeling of the offices at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue was issued on July 23, 1984 to Julius Isaac & Association. Ms. Farragut did see Isaac at the job site in the central parking area; however, Mr. Thomas never advised Ms. Farragut that respondent was involved with the project. On August 20, 1985 J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Evelyn S. Williams to construct a residence at 3620 East North Bay Street, Tampa, Florida. The contract price for the home was 66,000 and payments by check were made to Johnnie Thomas in intervals. Construction on the home began in November 1985. Ms. Williams moved into the home in August of 1986. She discovered some problems with the house, and gave Mr. Thomas a list of the items that needed to be corrected. Mr. Thomas corrected all the items but one. Ms. Williams still has a problem with the roof getting moldy due to water retention. A permit was issued by the City of Tampa Building Department on November 20, 1985, for construction at 3620 East North Bay Street. The permit was issued to Julius Isaac and the contractor of record is stated as Julius Isaac d/b/a Julius Isaac & Associates. Ms. Williams never met Mr. Isaac or saw him; however, Ms. Williams did not go to the job site during construction since the mortgage company was supposed to periodically inspect the house during construction. Ms. Williams was not aware that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. On August 28, 1986, J. T. Thomas Construction Company entered into a written contract with Ms. Verlie Nelson to construct a residence at 8105 Jad Drive for a price of $102,560. Ms. Nelson thought that Mr. Thomas was a licensed contractor. She never saw Mr. Isaac at the job site, however, she was rarely there because Sun Coast Federal Credit Union was paid to do the inspections. On October 16, 1986, respondent applied for a building permit for 8105 Jad Drive. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners and Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., was listed as the general contractor for the project. On November 7, 1986, the permit was issued by the Hillsborough County Building Department. Julius H. Isaac was listed as the applicant and contractor. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners of the property at 8105 Jad Drive. Mr. Thomas admitted that J. T. Thomas Construction Company built the homes for Ms. Jones, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Williams, and did the renovation on the building owned by Ms. Farragut. Mr. Thomas received the payments for the projects, hired and paid the subcontractors and supervised construction. He also managed the daily affairs of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. J. T. Thomas Construction Company was formed in 1971 under the name Thomas (J. T.) Construction Company. However, the company, as a corporate entity, was dissolved by proclamation in 1973. J. T. Thomas' brother Leslie was the secretary of the corporation and a licensed contractor. He obtained the building permits for the company until be became ill. Thereafter, respondent obtained the building permits for J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Respondent knew that Mr. Thomas was not licensed and could not get the permits himself. Respondent is not a salaried employee of J. T. Thomas Construction Company, and he received no compensation for his services although he was reimbursed for the actual cost of obtaining the permits. Other than obtaining the permits, respondent's only connection with Mr. Thomas' construction projects was to visit job sites before inspections or go to a site if Mr. Thomas asked for his help with a construction problem. However, there was no competent evidence establishing that respondent ever went to the particular job sites involved in this case. Respondent had no responsibilities in connection with the projects and had no authority to take any actions. In essence, respondent was simply "helping" a long time friend. Respondent has been licensed since 1968, and there was no evidence presented of any prior violations or any prior complaints.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of the act set forth in Section 489.129(e), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5586 Rulings on petitioner's proposed findings of fact by paragraph: 1-8 Accepted generally. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Julius H. Isaac 421 Ella Mae Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil Stephen F. Hanlon, Esquire General Counsel BARNETT, BOLT & KIRKWOOD Department of Professional Post Office Box 3287 Regulation 100 Twiggs Street 130 North Monroe Street Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered general contractor having been issued license No. RG 0019051. (Stipulation.) At all times pertinent to the charges, respondent engaged in the business of contracting under the name of Atlas Associates, Inc., of which he was the president. (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) Atlas Associates, Inc., however, was not qualified, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes (1977), to engage in the business of contracting. (Stipulation.) Respondent's registration authorized him to engage in the business of contracting only in Hillsborough County. He was not qualified to contract in any other county. He knew that he was not authorized to pull building permits in Pasco County. (Tr. 5, 171-172.) (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) II. Atlas Associates, Inc., entered into a contract with Darryl R. Sutphin and his wife to construct a residence in Pasco County at 631 North Shore Drive, Lake Padgett, Florida. Respondent executed and performed under this contract as president of Atlas Associates, Inc. (Stipulation.) Respondent obtained the assistance of his brother-in-law, James Weinman, president of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., which was authorized to engage in contracting and pull building permits in Pasco County. At Mr. Weinman's request, John Weinman, an employee of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., pulled the building permits for the Sutphin job in the name of Masterpiece Homes, Inc. However, neither Salvatore Carollo, its licensed contractor, nor any other licensee employed by Masterpiece Homes, Inc., was involved in or supervised the subsequent construction of the Sutphin residence. (Tr. 71.) (Testimony of Weinman, Robinson, Carollo, Sutphin.) Construction of the Sutphin residence was financed by Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Fidelity Federal"). An agreement was entered into between Fidelity Federal, the Sutphins, and Atlas Associates, Inc., whereby Fidelity Federal was to disburse the loan proceeds to Atlas Associates, Inc., in four draws. In conjunction with the payment of each draw, Fidelity Federal required respondent, on behalf of Atlas Associates, Inc., to execute standard no-lien affidavits certifying the following: All the persons, firms, and corporations who have furnished any labor, services and/or materials in connection with the construction or improvements on the real estate [in question]. . .have been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit. . .The undersigned owner further certifies that he has received no notices of unpaid bills or claims affecting the foregoing real estate except as are shown above. (P-5, P-6, P-7.) (Testimony of Hager; P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7.) Atlas Associates, Inc., contracted with Nu-Air Manufacturing Company ("Nu-Air") to install windows and screens at the Sutphin residence. On October 16 and 22, 1979, Nu-Air installed the windows and, except for installing the screens, provided all the services and materials required under the contract. In November, 1979, Nu-Air mailed invoices totaling $700.56 to Atlas Associates, Inc. When the invoices were not paid, Nu-Air's credit manager sought payment by directly contacting a representative of Atlas Associates, Inc. No payment has been made, and the $700.56 remains unpaid. A claim of lien was subsequently filed on January 14, 1980. Yet, on October 19, 1979, and February 14, 1980, respondent executed Fidelity Federal's standard affidavits certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms who furnished labor or materials in connection with the Sutphin job had "been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit." As a result, Nu- Air suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Boyles; P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10.) On October 24, 1979, another subcontractor, Nuccio Heating and Air Conditioning ("Nuccio"), contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to furnish and install central heating and air conditioning units at the Sutphin job. Nuccio completed installing the units required by the contract on November 4, 1979. An invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., by November 6, 1979. When it was not timely paid, Nuccio contacted respondent in December, 1979. Nuccio was never paid for its labor and materials; on July 22, 1980, it filed a claim of lien for a total of $2,927. Since Nuccio subsequently repossessed the condensing units, the amount that is now due and remains unpaid is $1,462. Yet, on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal the required affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and material for the Sutphin job had been fully paid. As a result, Nuccio suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Nuccio; P-7, P-8, P-9, P-12.) On January 2, 1980, another subcontractor, W. W. Drywall, contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to install drywall for the Sutphin job. The drywall work was completed in early January, 1980, and an invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., on or about January 12, 1980, for $2,591.06. On February 14, 1980, W. W. Drywall received a partial payment of $1,000, but the balance of $1,591.06 remains due and unpaid. W. W. Drywall subsequently filed a claim of lien for this amount. Yet on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal a standard affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and materials for the Sutphin job had been paid. As a result, W. W. Drywall has suffered financial loss. (Testimony of West; P-7, P-13, P-14.) III. Respondent admits that when he executed the first October 19, 1979, affidavit, he knew that there were subcontractors which had not been paid. (Tr. 182-183.) He explains that he intended to pay them with the money he received from the draw. By the time he signed the February 14, 1980, affidavit, subcontractors had begun submitting bills directly to the loan officer of Fidelity Federal. He assumed, without checking or inquiring, that the subcontractors had been paid. (Testimony of Robinson.) Respondent was unaware of the Construction Industry Licensing Law requirement that registered contractors must register the corporate names under which they are doing business. Thus, his failure to qualify Atlas Associates, Inc., was not a willful or intentional violation of the Construction Industry Licensing Law. (Testimony of Robinson.) Between October, 1979, and February, 1980, respondent's working relationship with Mr. Sutphin began to deteriorate for reasons not material here. As a result, Mr. Sutphin began to actively participate in the project and deal directly with the various subcontractors. (Testimony of Robinson, Sutphin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the violations alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate building contracting. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C058340 in 1996. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. McKinney owned and resided in a house (the House) in Opa Locka, Florida. Ms. McKinney’s mother, Mattie P. Mathis, also lived in the House. In 2001, Ms. McKinney solicited bids for an addition she wanted to put on the House. Ms. McKinney and her mother, Ms. Mathis, planned to pay for the addition with life insurance proceeds on the life of Ms. Mathis’s deceased daughter (Ms. McKinney’s sister). On the recommendation of a colleague at her work, Ms. McKinney asked Willie Muse, Jr., to bid on the work. Based on the bids she received, Ms. McKinney hired Mr. Muse to construct the addition to the House. Ms. McKinney told Mr. Muse that she wanted all work to comply with all applicable permitting requirements and laws. Mr. Muse represented to Ms. McKinney that he would get the necessary building permits and that the work would comply with all applicable laws. On July 18, 2001, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis entered into a written contract with Mr. Muse whereby Mr. Muse agreed to construct the addition for the sum of $45,000.00. Mr. Muse has never been licensed as a general contractor in Florida. Ms. McKinney thought Mr. Muse was a licensed contractor and would not have entered into a contract with him if she had known that he was not licensed. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis paid Mr. Muse the following amounts on the following dates: $6,000.00 on July 20, 2001; $7,500.00 on October 10, 2001; and $13,500.00 on November 2, 2001; for a total of $27,000.00. On or about August 21, 2001, Mr. Muse brought to Ms. McKinney a building permit application form for her to sign. The application form had been filled out before Mr. Muse presented it to Ms. McKinney. Respondent was not present when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Respondent’s name, signature, and contractor’s license number appeared on the application form when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Ms. McKinney signed the form on August 21, 2001. Ms. McKinney saw Respondent’s name for the first time when she read the building permit application form. Prior to that time, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had never known or heard of Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Muse was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Muse submitted the building permit application form to the Miami-Dade County Building Department (Building Department), which issued a building permit for the work on the House on October 5, 2001. Mr. Muse commenced working on the House in October 2001, but he never finished. After he received the payment in November 2001, Mr. Muse stopped working on the House for an extended period of time. During that time, Ms. McKinney attempted on several occasions to persuade Mr. Muse to resume work on the House. Prior to stopping work on the House, Mr. Muse removed a portion of the roof of the existing structure, which exposed the interior of the House to the elements. That exposure resulted in extensive damages to the House, including the collapse of the kitchen ceiling from water intrusion. By letter dated April 15, 2002, the Building Department advised Ms. McKinney that her building permit would expire in approximately 30 days. That letter prompted Ms. McKinney to contact the Building Department, where she was told that Respondent was her contractor, not Mr. Muse. Ms. McKinney secured information (from the face of the building permit) that enabled her to contact Respondent’s mother.3 That contact resulted in two meetings between Ms. McKinney and Respondent towards the end of April 2002. During the first meeting, Ms. McKinney related to Respondent the history of the project, including the amounts that had been paid to Mr. Muse. She also showed him the work that had been done and the damages that had occurred. During the second meeting, Mr. Muse was in attendance. Ms. McKinney, Ms. Mathis, and Respondent reached a verbal understanding that was not reduced to writing. They agreed that Respondent would finish the work on the House for the unpaid balance of the contract price $45,000.00 less $27,000.00 paid to Mr. Muse, which equals $18,000.00.4 The parties agreed that Respondent would pay for labor and that Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would pay material suppliers directly and receive credit toward the contract price for such payments. The parties contemplated that Mr. Muse would perform most of the labor because of the monies he had already received. On the basis of the verbal contract, Respondent resumed the work on the House. On June 12, 2002, Respondent presented a draw request for $3,500.00 for electrical, plumbing, and roofing work that had been performed. Ms. Mathis wrote Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500.00 for that work. Ms. McKinney was opposed to paying Respondent the sum of $3,500.00 because she believed he had not completed the work for which he was billing. Ms. Mathis paid that sum despite Ms. McKinney’s opposition. At some undetermined time following June 12, 2002, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Mr. Muse working on the House. Respondent then asked to be paid in advance for work to be done on the House because he would have to pay his laborers. Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would not agree to payment in advance. In July 2002, the project was not complete and Respondent’s progress on the work on the House became unsatisfactory to Ms. McKinney. On October 14, 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner, claiming, among other things, that Respondent had abandoned the project. Her complaint alleged that work ended on the project in July 2002. At some undetermined time between June and October 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, which resulted in criminal misdemeanor charges being filed against him in Miami-Dade County Court. After she filed the criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she wanted to wait to proceed with the project until she knew what was going to happen with her criminal complaint. In the criminal proceeding, the Court ordered Mr. Muse on April 11, 2003, to pay restitution to Ms. McKinney in the amount of $16,008.04, payable in monthly installments of $300.00. On March 2, 2004, the Court reduced the amount of restitution to $4,000.00, payable in monthly installments of $50.00 beginning April 1, 2004. As of the date of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Muse had paid Ms. McKinney restitution in the total amount of $750.00. As part of the criminal proceeding, Respondent was asked to give his opinion as to the value of the work completed by Mr. Muse and his estimated cost of completing the work. Respondent valued the work completed by Mr. Muse at $14,073.75 (labor and materials). Respondent estimated that it would cost $22,200.00 to complete the project. Both estimates were dated March 23, 2003. On October 1, 2003, Theodore R. Gay, Assistant General Counsel for Petitioner wrote Ms. McKinney the following letter pertaining to the complaint she had filed in October 2002: The Legal Department has evaluated your complaint against the above named contractor [Respondent]. After reviewing the evidence gathered during the investigation of the referenced matter, we have determined that in accordance with the rules and policies of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, this case is appropriately closed with the issuance of a Letter of Caution to the contractor. Because this case has been dismissed without a finding of probable cause, the file will remain confidential and exempt from the public records. On January 6, 2004, Ms. McKinney wrote Mr. Gay a letter that provided, in part, as follows: This letter is a request to re-open the case [against Respondent] because as prior conversation (sic) when I spoke to you in late August 2003 or early September 2003, I informed you that Mr. Jones told me that he would help me as much as possible to complete the construction on my property. Since your letter that stated you didn’t find any error on Mr. Jones’ behalf, I have not heard or seen him since October 2003, nor has any work been performed on my property. . . . Respondent came back to the House after October 2003 and talked to Ms. McKinney about the work. Ms. McKinney told him that she would pay up to a total of $45,000.00 for the work, but that she would not pay above that figure. Because of the estimate Respondent provided in the criminal proceeding dated March 23, 2003, Ms. McKinney believed that Respondent wanted $22,0000.00 to complete the work. However, Respondent never told her that he would not complete the work for a sum equal to $45,000.00 less the sums that had already been paid. Ms. McKinney would not pay Respondent for work until after the work was completed. After Mr. Gay’s letter dismissing the complaint that Ms. McKinney had filed, Respondent did no further work on the House, but he did have further conversations about the project. Ms. McKinney and Respondent could not agree on payment terms for Respondent to complete the project. Ms. McKinney testified that she did not fire Respondent. However, it is clear that she would not let Mr. Muse do further work on her house and she would not pay Respondent until after the work had been done. Ms. McKinney changed the terms of her verbal contract with Respondent by prohibiting Mr. Muse from working on the project. In November 2003, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had an argument over the money that had been spent on the house. Ms. McKinney talked to Respondent about his helping her obtain a mortgage on the house to pay for the balance of the work on the House. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Respondent to ask her mother for any more money. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she would use him as the contractor to complete the work if she obtained the financing. Ms. McKinney was unable to get the financing due to the condition of the House. The permits obtained by Respondent are still valid. Ms. McKinney has hired various workers on her own in an effort to complete the work on the House. As of the final hearing, the work on the House had not been completed. As of May 19, 2005, Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with attorney time, totaled $920.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Final Order: Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and impose against him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, but impose no additional administrative fine for that violation; Find Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; Order that Respondent be jointly and severally liable to Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis with Mr. Muse for restitution in the amount of $4,000.00, minus $750.00 paid by Mr. Muse; and Order Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter in the amount of $920.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of August, 2005.
