Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1986, the Respondent, James A. Campbell, and his associate, David Ritchie, were operating a construction business known as Town & Country Construction Corp. of Tampa. Campbell was the company's qualifying contractor. At the same time, Campbell and Ritchie were in the process of starting a new company to be known as Bay City Builders, Inc. In the application for state registration of the new business, Campbell also was listed as the qualifying contractor. Campbell and Ritchie had business forms, including contract forms, printed in the name of Bay City Builders, Inc., so as to be ready to do business upon approval of the pending application. On December 5, 1986, an employee of Campbell's company, a Mr. Earl Mills, responded to a telephone inquiry from a Mrs. Josefina Rodriguez, who was interested in having a room added and some other renovations done to her home at 551 South Lois Avenue in Tampa. Mills erroneously committed Bay City Builders to a bid on the job before its application was approved. In addition, the bid was seriously low and committed to completion of the job in just 60 days, an overly optimistic time frame even on a reasonable bid. Rodriguez accepted the bid, and Mills obligated Bay City Builders to a contract with her on December 5, 1986, with an addendum dated December 18, 1986. When Campbell, who was out of town at the time, and particularly Ritchie found out what Mills had done, they fired Mills. But they decided to honor the contract. Work began timely during the last week of December, 1986. At the outset of the work, the plumbing subcontractor discovered seriously deteriorated pipes all the way to the street. It was agreed that the pipes would be excavated and replaced outside the contract, to be paid directly by Rodriguez. This delayed the performance of the contract for a limited period of time. Nonetheless, work progressed in a timely fashion through January, 1987. By January 12, 1987, Rodriguez had paid $7859 of the $12,300 due under the contract. By some point in January, 1987, the foundation footers for the 15' by 24' addition had been dug and put in, the rough plumbing had been done, the concrete slab for the addition had been poured, the concrete block walls had been laid, and the framing for the roof had been built. But then work stopped for several weeks. Mrs. Rodriguez became very concerned for several reasons. First, she was planning a trip to Puerto Rico from June to August, 1987, and, as she had explained to Mills and Ritchie, she wanted the work done before she left. Second, without a roof over the addition, water began to pool in the addition during rains and leak into the main part of the house. Third, she had had difficulty contacting the entity that had taken her money. Mills was gone, and Bay City Builders seemed to her not to exist. Campbell and Ritchie had withdrawn the application to qualify it after the Rodriguez fiasco, and it never did any business before or since. There never was a telephone listing for it. As early as February, 1987, Rodriguez sought help from the Better Business Bureau, which could not even find Bay City Builders, and filed a complaint with the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, that the contractor had abandoned the job. In mid-February, 1987, a crew returned to the job site and put plywood and tar paper roofing material on the roof. This stopped the water leakage into the main house. But then work came to a virtual standstill. All of the $7859 had been spent, and work had not progressed far enough for the next draw, $2000, under the contract. Ritchie tried to explain the situation to Rodriguez, starting from Mills' unrealistic bid. As it was, Ritchie explained, the work would be done but it was going to be long and slow. Ritchie wound up having to borrow money personally and prevailed upon sympathetic subcontractors to forebear in collecting their due in order for Ritchie to finish the project. Practically no work was done during the rest of February, any of March or the first part of April, 1987. In late April, 1987, without any prompting from the DPR or the Better Business Bureau, Ritchie managed to get workers to the job site to finish the dry wall in the addition, which would trigger the next $2000 draw under the contract, and to shingle the roof of the house (addition and pre-existing roof.) When this work was finished in May, 1987, Ritchie contacted Rodriguez to ask for the $2000 draw. Mrs. Rodriguez asked to be assured that the work would be finished before she left for Puerto Rico in June. Ritchie apologized but said it would be impossible under the circumstances. He asked her to allow the work to continue in her absence. Rodriguez refused and also refused to pay the $2000. She said if Ritchie couldn't finish the work before she went to Puerto Rico, she would get someone else to do it. That was the last Ritchie or Campbell heard about the Rodriguez job until DPR initiated this proceeding. Rodriguez did not contact another builder about finishing the work until the end of October, 1987.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, James A. Campbell. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 7th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James A. Campbell 719 South 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified building contractor having been issued license No. CE C014020. Be was so licensed and was the qualifier for ARC Construction, Inc. at all times material to this proceeding. On July 25, 1980, Respondent, on behalf of ARC Construction, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Richard Doyle to remodel a residence in St. Petersburg. The contract price was $43,180, plus extras of $1,525. Respondent was paid $1,500 initially and received draw payments of $4,318 on August 11, 1980, $8,636 on August 19, 1980, and $10,795 on September 3, 1980. These payments totaled $25,249, or about 58 percent of the basic contract amount and 56 percent of the contract price with add-ons. Respondent was obligated to pay suppliers and acknowledged this responsibility to the complainant, Mr. Richard Doyle, but advised him that he was having cash flow difficulties. Respondent's checks to Scotty's, dated August 10, 1980, for $2,518.28, and August 22, 1980, for $738.99, were dishonored by the bank. His check for approximately $5,000 to Florida Forest Products was likewise returned. Respondent failed to settle these accounts and the complainant was eventually obliged to do so in order to remove the liens on his property. Respondent ceased work on the project in mid-October, 1980, and was terminated by the complainant in January, 1981. At the time Respondent ceased work the project was 50 percent to 80 percent complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James H. Thompson, Esquire 620 Madison Street Suite 2-C Tampa, Florida 33602 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Construction Industry Licensing Board was the state agency responsible for the licensing and certification of building contractors, and the regulation of the construction industry in this state. Respondent, Kenneth McDuff Roesch, III, was certified as a building contractor under license number CB C057040, issued initially on December 20, 1993. On March 20, 1998, he changed the status of his license from "Active d/b/a individual" to "Active qualifying Roesch Housemovers, Inc." (RHI). The evidence does not indicate exactly what the relationship between Respondent and RHI was prior to the contract in issue here. Although Respondent's name does not appear on the contract or on any of the other documentation relevant hereto, at hearing he freely indicated his participation in the management of RHI and his responsibility for actions taken by the company. In September 1996 the City of St. Petersburg advised David Maffo that because of the effects of tropical storm Josephine, he would either have to elevate his house in St. Petersburg or tear it down. On November 22, 1996, Mr. And Mrs. Maffo entered into a contract with RHI to raise by five feet their residence located at 8211 Carolyn Street in St. Petersburg and install a new solid foundation. The price for the contracted work was $23,500, with $11,500 due at the signing of the agreement. The contract form reflects that RHI had been bonded and licensed house movers since 1934, but neither Respondent's license number nor his certification number appears on the contract agreement. The contract agreement was signed by Mark Roesch, Respondent's brother, for RHI. Respondent's name does not appear on the contract form. RHI submitted plans for the work called for under the contract to the Building Department of the City of St. Petersburg on February 26, 1997. The application form was signed for the company by Mark Roesch, Respondent's brother. That same date, February 26, 1997, a permit was issued for the work called for under the contract and the application. The contractor was listed as Roesch Housemovers, Inc. on both the application for the permit and the permit. Mark Roesch was the representative of RHI who signed the application for the permit. According to Mr. Maffo, work on the project started on January 28, 1997, prior to the issuance of the permit, at which time Mr. Maffo paid $4,000 to a representative of RHI. Mr. Maffo paid RHI an additional $10,000 on January 30, 1997, and $5,000 more on March 25, 1997, for a total of $19,000. On February 27, 1997, Glenn Savell, the chief building inspector for St. Petersburg, inspected the work being done by RHI and issued a red tag because there was no footer ground and vertical steel was not tied to the footer steel. Neither Respondent nor any of his employees thereafter called the building department for a final inspection subsequent to the issuance of the red tag, and in March 1997 Respondent advised the Maffos that the work called for under the contract had been completed. Mr. Maffo immediately informed Respondent that the project had not undergone a final inspection, and as a result, the house could not be reoccupied. Mr. Savell again inspected the property on June 12, 1997, and again issued a red tag, this time demanding that Respondent obtain a certification from a structural engineer that the foundation and piers met specifications. Mr. Roesch was aware of the issuance of that red tag, but took no action to obtain the required certificate at that time. On June 25, 1997, Mr. Maffo retained Austin Engineering, Inc., to perform an inspection of the project and paid the firm a fee of $1,275.00. Austin's report, a copy of which was given to Respondent, indicated that the project as accomplished by RHI was not acceptable. Upon receipt of this report, Mr. Maffo and Respondent met to discuss it, and Respondent gave Maffo sufficient assurances so that he, Maffo, started a renovation of the interior of the home to correct the damage done by the storm. However, Maffo did not complete them because all assurances made by Respondent did not come about. At the end of July 1997, Mr. Savell's supervisor, Mr. Hill, directed Respondent by letter to hire a structural engineer of his choice to evaluate the project. It was implied that if Respondent's engineer approved the work, the final approval would be issued. More than a year later, on October 8, 1998, Benson Engineering, Inc., the structural engineering firm retained by Respondent in response to Mr. Hill's letter, visited the masonry foundation and support walls and piers done at the Maffo house, and on October 16, 1998, submitted its report approving the project. Based on this approval, Mr. Savell, for the City, issued final approval even though he did not again personally inspect the work. Petitioner contends that the lapse of time between the last work done and the notice to obtain an individual engineering report in June/July 1997 and the receipt of that report more than a year later was unreasonable. Absent any explanation or justification for the delay, it would so appear. Mr. Maffo had Austin Engineering again inspect the property on January 29, 2000. In its report, Austin took exception to the Benson Engineering evaluation of RHI's work and identified many problems still existing. The project was also examined by Wilbur Yaxley, a licensed professional engineer and expert in structural and construction engineering. He found the same defects as found by Austin. These included: The fill cells used to raise the foundation were never adequately filled with concrete as called for in the plans for the project. In at least one location there was no tie-in from the new foundation to the existing foundation. Several of the pillars used to raise the foundation were loose and able to be moved by hand, and others had fallen over. Several of the pillars used to raise the foundation were not horizontal. The foundation walls contained cracks. The interior piers were not constructed in accordance with their design. The floor of the interior had bowed in the center. The horizontal joint reinforcement was not completed as required by the plans. The project as completed does not comply with the plans approved by the City of St. Petersburg at the time of issuance of the permit. The project as completed is not as sound structurally as it would have been if it had been constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the City. During the first year after retaining Respondent's firm to raise his house, while waiting for Respondent to obtain final approval on the work, Mr. Maffo continued to make his monthly mortgage payments of $1,200 even though he and his family did not occupy the property. For financial reasons he was ultimately required to cease making his mortgage payments and the property was lost to foreclosure in April 2000. The experts who examined the property have concluded that further remedial work estimated to cost approximately $17,000 would be required before it could be occupied. These experts, who are familiar with the project, suggest that a reasonable time to complete it would be four months. It is so found. Respondent's father and brother, both of whom are active in the business, indicated the company has been in business for many years without complaint. Respondent presented the testimonials of several prior clients who appear to have been satisfied with the work done for them, and no evidence to the contrary was presented by the Department.
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 placing Respondent's license as a certified building contractor on probation for one year; imposing a total administrative fine of $950; requiring Respondent to pay $2,625.41 as costs of investigation and prosecution; and requiring Respondent to reimburse the Maffos such sums as can be considered above actual RHI's out-of-pocket costs related to this project. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kenneth McDuff Roesch, III 13650 66th Street North Largo, Florida 33771 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Northwood Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor’s license should be granted, and whether Respondent relied upon an unadopted rule in formulating its intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Respondent or Board), is charged with administering chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, relating to construction contracting, and issuing licenses to certified building contractors. Petitioner, Tony L. Phillips, applied to the Board for a certified building contractor’s license, pursuant to section 489.111, on March 3, 2015. Petitioner passed the required written examination and his application was scheduled for hearing before the Board on May 14, 2015. Building contractors are licensed to construct commercial buildings, and single-dwelling or multiple-dwelling residential buildings, not exceeding three stories in height. See § 489.105(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Section 489.111(2)(c)2. provides eligibility for licensure as a construction contractor. An applicant is eligible for licensure by examination if he or she has a total of at least four years of active experience as a worker who has learned the trade by serving an apprenticeship as a skilled worker who is able to command the rate of a mechanic in the particular trade or as a foreman who is in charge of a group of workers and usually is responsible to a superintendent or a contractor or his or her equivalent, provided, however, that at least 1 year of active experience shall be as a foreman. (emphasis added). Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.001(2)(a), provides the qualifications for certified building contractors, in pertinent part, as follows: In the case of applicants for certification in the general or building contractor categories, the phrases ‘active experience’ and ‘proven experience’ as used in Section 489.111(2)(c)1., 2., or 3., F.S., shall be defined to mean construction experience in four or more of the following areas: Foundation/Slabs in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. Masonry walls. Steel erection. Elevated slabs. Precast concrete structures. Column erection. Formwork for structural reinforced concrete. (emphasis added). In his application, Petitioner listed his experience as a foreman with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs), to meet the statutory and rule requirements for active experience in the trade. At all times relevant hereto, Jacobs was a construction engineering inspection consultant for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Jacobs performed the inspection of various design-build roadway projects undertaken by construction contractors on behalf of FDOT. Petitioner’s application included three specific projects to demonstrate Petitioner’s relevant experience: Wekiva Parkway, John Young Parkway Extension, and Baseline Road. The Wekiva Parkway project consisted of a four-lane highway, three category one bridges, a toll gantry, and equipment enclosure. The general contractor charged with construction of this project was the De Moya Group. Jacobs performed the construction engineering inspection role for FDOT. Jacobs’ role was quality control and inspection. Petitioner indicated in his application that he was the foreman “charged with overseeing the construction of the work on the bridges, roads and related structures.” Jacobs employed Petitioner as a foreman of Jacobs’ employees, who conducted inspections of construction work performed by the De Moya Group. Petitioner’s duties on the Wekiva project were to perform inspections. Petitioner did not perform construction duties, but rather inspected the construction performed to ensure compliance with the applicable FDOT and contractual requirements. While Petitioner’s inspection duties were vital to ensure the soundness of the facilities under construction, he did not perform construction work. The John Young Parkway project consisted of a flyover over State Road 441, including a large steel girder with integral pier box flyover bridge, sound walls, signalization, sidewalks, asphalt, and reinforced earth walls. The general contractor charged with construction of this project was Southland Construction. Jacobs performed the construction engineering inspection role for FDOT. Petitioner was project foreman for Jacobs on the John Young Parkway project. As such, Petitioner was responsible to ensure that the work was performed in accordance with the contract documents. Petitioner did not perform any construction work or supervise the construction workers employed by Southland Construction. As senior roadway inspector on John Young Parkway, Petitioner had the authority to question the work of the construction crew, and redirect work if it was not being performed per the contract documents or FDOT specifications. If necessary, Petitioner, through the chain of command at Jacobs, could stop work on the project in order to conform work to specifications. However, Petitioner did not perform any construction work on the project. The Baseline Road project consisted of small bridges, small animal crossings, noise walls, drainage structures and gravity walls, signalization, curb gutters, and sidewalks. The general contractor charged with construction of this project was C.W. Roberts Contracting. Jacobs performed the construction engineering inspection role for FDOT. On the Baseline Road project, Petitioner supervised the inspection of all animal crossing structures, as well as the relocation and installation of utilities, and the movement of traffic through the construction site. Petitioner admitted that all of the technical qualifications listed in his application were earned as a Jacobs’ employee performing the task of construction engineering inspection on these three projects. All of the experience Petitioner listed in his application was in the execution of projects performed on behalf of FDOT. None of the job descriptions which Petitioner listed in his work experience as road inspector, bridge inspector, utility coordination facilitator, environmental monitoring personnel, and administrator of maintenance of traffic contracts is considered “construction” by the Board. In fact, contracting work on roads, bridges, streets, and highways is exempt from regulation as construction contracting. See § 489.103(1), Fla. Stat. Thus, even the work performed by the FDOT contractors on those three projects was not “construction” subject to regulation by the Board. The single building or enclosed structure of any kind that Petitioner had any involvement with over the four years of work experience offered in his application was a one-story concrete enclosure to house toll-reading equipment. Petitioner did not supply any further information on this structure. It is clear from the record that Petitioner did not perform any of the construction work himself nor was he a foreman on any of the construction crews. All of the work that he performed concerned the inspection of work performed by construction contractors. Petitioner admitted that he has never built, or supervised the construction of, a single, two, or three-story, habitable, commercial, or residential building. Unadopted Rules Petitioner alleges that Respondent relied upon non- rule policy in formulating its decision to deny Petitioner’s application, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e). Section 120.57(1)(e)1. prohibits agencies from basing agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule. The denial of Petitioner’s application for a building contractor’s license affects Petitioner’s substantial interests. A “rule” is “an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy.” § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. Agencies are required to adopt each agency statement defined as a rule by rulemaking procedures set forth in section 120.54. See § 120.54(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner alleges Respondent maintains three statements which constitute rules, pursuant to section 120.52(16), but which have not been adopted as rules, pursuant to section 120.54, and relied on those statements in formulating its decision to deny Petitioner’s application, in violation of section 120.57(1)(e). First, Petitioner maintains the Board denied his application because, on the jobs he submitted to demonstrate his relative experience, he could not “hire or fire” contractors and did not control the “means and methods” of construction. Because these terms are not used in the controlling statute or rule, Petitioner argues that the Board relied upon statements of general applicability which have not been adopted as rules.2/ During the hearing on Petitioner’s application, two of the seven Board members, Mr. Boyette and Mr. Cathey, questioned Petitioner about whether he had control over the “means and methods” of construction on the projects he listed in his application. Both Board members concluded that, on the projects Petitioner listed as experience relevant to the building contractor’s license, he did not control the “means and methods” of construction. “Means and methods” of construction is a term of art in the construction industry referring to the plans for executing the work on a particular project. The term encompasses scheduling different aspects of a project and directing the work of a construction crew and, sometimes, subcontractors. A construction foreman has the ability to direct a construction crew and subcontractors. Thus, having control of the “means and methods” of construction is integral to the job of a construction foreman. At the hearing on Petitioner’s application, one of the members, Mr. Boyette, questioned whether Petitioner had authority to hire and fire C.W. Roberts, the prime contractor on the Baseline Road project. A construction foreman may have the authority to hire and fire members of a construction crew, depending on the size of the job. The record reflects that Petitioner’s application was denied because he did not meet the requirements for “active experience” in construction, as defined in the rule, not because he was not empowered to hire and fire members of the construction crew. Second, Petitioner contends that the Board refused to accept an affidavit certifying his construction experience, which is contrary to the rule requirements, thus applied an unadopted rule in reaching its decision to deny his application. Rule 61G4-15.001(1)(a) provides that “[a]ctive experience in the category in which the applicant seeks to qualify shall be verified by affidavits prepared or signed by . . . an architect or engineer . . . who is licensed in good standing . . . listing chronologically the active experience in the trade, including the name and address of employers and dates of employment (which may be corroborated by investigation by the Board). Petitioner did not submit an affidavit with his application. Respondent does not contend Petitioner’s application was denied for failure to include the affidavit with his application. At hearing, Petitioner introduced an affidavit from Anthony Caruso, Petitioner’s supervisor at Jacobs. In the affidavit, Mr. Caruso certified that Petitioner “has more than four years proven experience as a foreman” in the following areas of construction work: [f]oundation/slabs in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, [s]teel erection, [e]levated slabs, [p]recast concrete structures, [c]olumn erection, and [f]ormwork for structural reinforced concrete (six of the seven criteria listed in rule 61G4-15.001). At hearing, Respondent’s expert, Paul Del Vecchio, a certified general contractor and former 12-year member of the Board, testified that the Board does not rely on affidavits to verify an applicant’s active experience. Mr. Del Vecchio related that the Board had been advised it had no statutory authority to require an affidavit and had discontinued accepting affidavits pursuant to the rule.
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 denying Petitioner’s application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 10th day of March, 2016.
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
