Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of general contractor's license number CG C007235, and certified residential contractor's license number CR C006769. On or about January 6, 1976, Respondent entered into a Building Agreement with Walter and Ellen Scott (hereinafter "owners") for construction of a residence to be located at 10244 Deerwood Club Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Among the provisions contained in this agreement was the following: [Respondent] will construct house for actual Construction Costs plus $10,000 profit. Addendum to contract Number 19 contains construction estimate sheet and allowance sheet which is guaranteed by [Respondent] not to exceed $85,000, plus $10,000 profit. All construction costs above $85,000 will be absorbed by contractor resulting from faulty workmanship or incorrect overall estimate. Additional costs resulting from exceeding allowances or phases not covered by estimate, (Wallpaper, Light fixtures, etc.), will be paid by purchaser. [Respondent] will be compensated at $2,500.00 out of each of the last four construction draws. Purchaser will be refunded in difference of construction under $85,000.00. Purchaser has the right to examine cost of construction at any stage to determine how close cost [sic] are running to estimate. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the Building Agreement contains a listing of allowances for various items such as carpet, flooring, wallpaper, doors, fireplaces, appliances, plumbing fixtures, wiring and windows. These provisions of the contract deal with standard items to be included in the construction, absent some request and agreement between the parties to specific changes. With respect to changes, the agreement provides specifically that: Should the Purchaser at any time during the progress of said residence require any alterations to or deviations from, additions to, or omissions, in said Agreement, which are acceptable to the Contractor, they shall have the right and power to make such change or changes when practicable, and the same shall in no way make void the Agreement; but the differences shall be added to, or deducted from the amount of the Agreement as the case may be, by a fair and reasonable evaluation . . . (emphasis added.) Finally, the Building Agreement also provides that Respondent was to use his best effort to deliver the completed residence on or about 180 days from the start of construction, which, by terms of the agreement, is defined as the date on which footings are poured or the day rough plumbing was begun. Although Respondent obtained a building permit for construction of the residence, from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, dated February 5, 1976, there is nothing in the record of this proceeding on which a firm determination can be made as to when construction actually started. Although the actual starting date for construction is unclear, it is obvious from the record that Respondent and the owners began to experience problems from the outset. The owners received a notice of lien soon after the slab for the residence was poured. In addition, there appears to have been some miscalculation with respect to the size of the slab for the structure to which some additions had to be made. Respondent apparently failed to pay for the initial treatment for subterranean termites at the time of the pouring of the slab, and the termite bond on the residence was cancelled. In addition, the slab appears to have been poured in such a fashion as to require adjustments in the construction of the driveway to avoid rainwater runoff entering the residence. One of the more difficult problems in the initial stages of construction involved leaks in the roof of the structure. When it appeared that efforts to repair the leaks had not been entirely successful, the owners requested that Respondent delay work on the interior in order that repairs on the roof might be accomplished before proceeding in order to avoid interior damage. After an extended delay occasioned by an unusual period of dry weather which prevented a determination as to whether the roof would continue to leak, work on the interior was recommenced, only to discover that the roof had not been sufficiently repaired. As a result of continuing problems with the roof, work which had been completed in the interior of the structure was damaged by rainwater. In fact, as of the date of final hearing in this cause, it appears that final repairs to the roof had still not been accomplished. It appears from the record that construction delays attributable to roof leaks in the residence set the tone for the remainder of the business dealings between Respondent and the owners. From this point forward, the relationship between Respondent and the owners became virtually adversary in tone. This state of affairs was complicated by an extensive series of changes or substitutions in the original plans and specifications by the owners. As indicated above, the original Building Agreement contained provisions concerning allowances for various portions of the work, and optional items which could be added at additional charge to the owner. Unfortunately, the record is unclear as to exact dollar amounts attributable to extras selected by the owners, as well as to amounts actually received by Respondent in the course of construction draws on the original contract. However, it is clear that extras selected by the owners totalled between $20,000 and $25,000. These items, which were not contained in the original contract, included ceramic tile flooring; double oven; wooden window frames; extensive extra bricking work, including brick more expensive than that described in the original contract; a larger driveway; burglar alarms; simulated marble vanities, tubs and sinks instead of cast iron fixtures as originally contemplated; crown moldings and interior door moldings throughout the interior of the residence; more expensive plumbing fixtures; extensive parquet flooring; larger closet areas; and extensive changes in the location of plumbing fixtures and electrical outlets. In addition, what appears from the evidence to have been a handmade stairway was substituted at an additional cost of approximately $5,000. The construction of the staircase not only included additional expense, but for some reason not entirely apparent from the record, caused additional delay in construction of other areas in the residence. Respondent apparently did not maintain a separate checking account for construction draws on this project, instead comingling disbursements on the construction loan with other funds in his general checking account. Additionally, no documentation was submitted by either Petitioner or Respondent to establish dates on which draw requests were either submitted by Respondent to the owners or the financial institution financing construction, or the dates on which any such draw requests were funded, either in whole or in part. As a result, it is virtually impossible from the record in this proceeding to determine the basis for disbursements from the construction loan account, or the disposition of those sums once disbursed. Although there was some general testimony about the filing of liens by various subcontractors, no documentation of these liens was submitted into evidence. What is, however, apparent from the record is that in early 1977, almost one year after initial disbursement of construction funds to Respondent, almost the entire $95,000 constituting the construction account was depleted. At that time the residence was approximately 90 percent complete. Thereafter, by Agreement dated February 18, 1977, Respondent and owners agreed that an additional $25,000 would be necessary to complete construction of the residence. Respondent acknowledged that he was in default under the terms of the original Building Agreement, and agreed to reimburse owners for the additional $25,000 needed to complete construction of the residence, subject to certain adjustments. Respondent agreed to complete construction of the residence within 40 days, and further agreed that the financial institution holding the mortgage on the residence was authorized to disburse the additional $25,000 directly to subcontractors, materialmen and laborers for work performed for services rendered on the property. Respondent executed a note in the amount of $25,000, secured by certain property belonging to him as evidence of his obligation to complete construction. However, shortly after execution of the February, 1977, Agreement, Respondent and owners had a dispute over payment of certain laborers. As a result, Respondent was advised by owners not to return to the job site. After this notification, evidence in the record establishes that Respondent contacted the financial institution which held the mortgage on the property and advised them that he would not be completing construction of the residence. It is clear from the record that the owners had more than ample cause for dissatisfaction with both the quality of workmanship and the timeliness with which work was performed by Respondent. Those matters are not, however, at issue in this proceeding. It is also abundantly clear that both Respondent and owners conducted their dealings with one another in a most informal fashion. With the exception of the original Building Agreement, and the February, 1977, agreement, most of the dealings between Respondent and the owners were verbal. Additionally, the absence of detailed documentary evidence makes resolution of many of the factual disputes in this proceeding difficult at best. However, the record clearly establishes that Petitioner failed to request that official notice be taken of any of the provisions of the building codes or other laws of the City of Jacksonville, and that none of these codes or laws were offered into evidence in this proceeding. As a result, a motion to dismiss that portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of applicable building codes was granted by the Hearing Officer at the close of Petitioner's case. Further, although the owner testified as to his belief that certain building materials were "floating" between the project which is the subject of this proceeding and other projects being constructed by Respondent, there is no direct evidence to establish that Respondent, in fact, diverted any funds or property improperly. Finally, as to the question of abandonment, it appears from the record that the owner dismissed the Respondent prior to the expiration of the 40-day period contemplated in the February, 1977, Agreement, and that Respondent advised both the owner and the financial institution financing construction of the project that he would not complete construction of the residence as contemplated in the various agreements between the parties.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by obtaining licensure by fraud or misrepresentation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure of certified general contractors. The Respondent Lawrence I. Paul, III, ("Respondent") is a licensed general contractor, holding State of Florida licenses GC C046485 and CG CA46485. On or about December 12, 1988, the Respondent submitted his application to the Department of Professional Regulation seeking leave to take the examination for certification as a general contractor. The Respondent subsequently took and passed the certified general contractors examination. In his application, the Respondent states that he is qualified to take the examination by virtue of having four years of proven experience as a workman or foreman of which at least one year was as a foreman. On the experience verification form submitted to the DPR as part of his application the Respondent states that from January, 1977 to January, 1980, he had been employed as a construction workman and that from January 1980 to January 1981 he had been employed as a construction foreman. The application includes an experience verification form executed by the Respondent and Paula Wisnik, a New York licensed architect. The form indicates that the Respondent had experience in steel erection form work, masonry walls, concrete slabs, footings, site work, excavation, rebar, trusses, and floor and ceiling joists, in single family residences, strip stores and high rise condominiums ten stories and higher. The experience verification form executed by Ms. Wisnik and the Respondent states as follows: I have read the CANDIDATE INFORMATION BOOKLET and reviewed the experience requirements and understand that any false information provided on this form may subject the person(s) signing below to disciplinary action and possible loss of license. I understand that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE does NOT mean that I am relying on a statement from the applicant that he has met the requirements. Ms. Wisnik has no direct knowledge of the Applicant's experience or of the applicant personally. Her knowledge was based upon information provided to her by Peter Wendt, another licensed architect. The Respondent originally sought to have Mr. Wendt complete the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt forwarded the form to Ms. Wisnik and she subsequently signed the document. Mr. Wendt has no direct personal knowledge of the Respondent's experience as set forth on the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt did not meet the Respondent until the Respondent's move to Florida, which occurred subsequent to the period of employment identified in the application. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that at the time the application was completed, the Respondent did not have the claimed four years of proven experience as construction worker or foreman. The Respondent's application states that first he became employed in the construction trade in January, 1977. In fact, he became employed full time in late December, 1978, with Paul Brothers, Inc., a family owned fire restoration business in Philadelphia. He worked primarily as a salesman and estimator with Paul Brothers until June, 1982, a period of approximately three and one-half years. Although there were periods when the Respondent worked on- site, it was not his primary responsibility throughout the employment period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order revoking the licensure of Lawrence I. Paul, III, as a certified general contractor, license numbers GC C046485 and CG CA46485. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0193 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. The proposed finding is modified to reflect that the Respondent did not hold the licenses prior to examination. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, illogical and unsupported by evidence. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert G. Harris, Esq. Senior Attorney Dept. of Professional Regulation 2295 Victoria Avenue #263 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Timothy J. Murty, Esq. 1633 Periwinkle Way, Suite A Sanibel, Florida 33957 Wellington H. Meffert, II Chief Construction Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Findings of Fact 1-13 are made based upon the Stipulation of the parties filed on July 10, 1987. Respondent is, and was at all times material to the pending amended administrative complaint, a certified building contractor having been issued license number CB CAO9793 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material the pending amended administrative complaint Respondent's certified building contractor license (CB CAO9793) qualified "George E. Longino and Associates, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent is, and was at all times material to the pending amended administrative complaint, a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license number CA CO24348 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material to the pending amended administrative complaint, Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor license (CA CO24348) qualified "George E. Longino and Associates, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent is, and was at all times material to the pending administrative complaint, a registered mechanical contractor having been issued license number PM 0031246 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material to the pending administrative complaint, Respondent's mechanical contractor license qualified "J. C. and Sons, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the pending amended administrative complaint was Respondent the qualifying agent for "First City Contractors, Inc." as defined by Sections 489.105(4) and 489.119, Florida Statutes. At no time material to the pending amended administrative complaint was Charles L. Crowe registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the pending amended administrative complaint was "First City Contractor's, Inc." registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about January 23, 1986, Charles L. Crowe d/b/a First City Contractors, Inc., contracted with Steve Bell to construct a room addition at 3110 Carrevero Drive West, Jacksonville, Florida. The contract price was approximately $25,000. On or about March 10, 1986, the City of Jacksonville, Building and Zoning Inspection Division, issued building permit number 6196 to George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The above referenced building permit was for the construction of a room addition at the residence of Steve Bell, 3110 Carrevero Drive West, Jacksonville, Florida. The following Findings of Fact are based upon the evidence introduced at formal hearing. In December, 1985, or January, 1986, Charles L. Crowe, sole owner of First City Contractors, Inc., approached Longino and asked him to become a partner in the business and to pull permits and be the qualifying agent for First City Contractors, Inc. Longino advised Crowe that he would not be interested in doing that until he had resolved certain pending problems with his licenses. Specifically, the Construction Industry Licensing Board had filed a disciplinary action against Respondent's licenses and that case had been heard and a Recommended Order entered on October 30, 1985. The Recommended Order was scheduled to be considered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 9, 1986. Longino did agree to pull permits for any job on which he would be paid to supervise the construction. Longino did pull the permit and supervise the construction of a garage addition in Arlington, Jacksonville, Florida, for First City Contractors in January or February, 1986. On January 23, 1986, Charles L. Crowe, doing business as First City Contractors, Inc., entered into a contract with Steve Bell to construct a room addition to a residence located at 3110 Carrevero Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. The contract price was $25,000. Based upon the contract, Crowe asked Longino to use his license number to sign a permit application for the Bell job. Longino used a building permit application form which he had in his truck and filled in the pertinent information on the building permit application. Specifically, Longino filled in the name of the licensed contractor as "First City Contractors, Inc." and signed his name as the licensee with license number CB CA09793. Longino signed the building permit application on or about the last week of January, 1986. Financing was not secured for the Bell job until March, 1986. On March 10, 1986, Crowe used the permit application which had been previously signed by Longino and sent an employee of First City Contractors, Inc., Robert Cumpston, to secure a building permit from the City of Jacksonville for the Bell job. Specifically, permit number 6196 was issued based upon the permit application which had been previously signed by Longino. On February 19, 1986, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered a Final Order suspending Longino's licenses. Longino received notice of the suspension on February 24, 1986, by certified mail. Longino advised Crowe that his licenses had been suspended within a few days following receipt of the Final Order. Despite the knowledge that Longino's licenses had been suspended, Crowe used the presigned building permit application to secure a building permit for the Bell job on March 10, 1986. Building permit number 6196 was issued to Longino's license number doing business as George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The name of the business was changed from that which was stated on the building permit application because Longino was not a qualifying agent for First City Contractors, Inc. He was only a qualifying agent for George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. A permit could not be issued to First City Contractors, Inc. using Longino's license number. The Bell job was completed using permit number 6196. Longino did supervise that construction and was present at the site on a daily basis. Permit number 6196 was posted at the site. Despite Longino's statements that he did not know that the permit was issued to his license number, it is found that Longino knew or should have known that permit number 6196 was issued to his license number, doing business as George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. Longino did nothing to remedy the problem even though his licenses had been suspended.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order suspending the licenses of George E. Longino for a period of one (1) year in addition to the previous suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1987, in Leon County, Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Michael Rada was a certified general contractor, the qualifying agent for A-Team Remodeling and Design, Inc. and held license number CG C026705 of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or around December 10, 1987, Mrs. Katherine Hill contracted with A- Team Plumbing, Inc. to renovate a bathroom in her home. A-Team Plumbing, Inc. is an entity separate and distinct from A-Team Remodeling and Design, Inc. and Mr. Rada was not associated with A-Team Plumbing, Inc. Following A-Team Plumbing, Inc.'s failure to complete the job, Mr. Rada, on behalf of A-Team Remodeling and Design, Inc. agreed with Mrs. Hill to re-do the job. Mr. Rada, as qualifying agent for A-Team Remodeling and Design, Inc., applied to the City of Plantation for the building permit on January 11, 1988, and it was issued on February 13, 1988. At the instruction of the City of Plantation, the job was gutted, and Mr. Rada began his work sometime in March, 1988. The job should have been completed in two to three weeks, but was not completed until May 6, 1988. During construction, Mr. Rada's work was erratic and at times dilatory. On several occasions, he made appointments to work on the job, necessitating Mrs. Hill's absence from her employment, and, then, he would not keep the appointments or even contact Mrs. Hill about his failure to report. In addition to having failed to complete the job in a timely manner, the proof demonstrated that when completed the work failed to conform to that standard existent in the community for similar work. Even after the final inspection, a hole remained in an adjoining closet wall, the base boards were not flush with the walls and "gop" hung down in one corner of the room. Mrs. Hill refused to pay for the job because of her dissatisfaction. As general contractor, Mr. Rada assumed responsibility for the completion of the job at the time of his initial visit to Mrs. Hill and his application for the building permit. By failing to complete the job in a workmanlike and timely manner, Mr. Rada's performance was incompetent and exemplified misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing on Respondent an administrative fine of $750. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-187 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached 2. Subordinate to the result reached. In part, subordinate to the result reached; in part, addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 4. In part, addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5; in part, subordinate to the result; in part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence. In part, subordinate to the result reached; in part, addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. In part, subordinate to the result reached; in part addressed in paragraph 2. Subordinate to the result reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Michael Rada, pro se 4576 Northwest 16th Terrace Tamarac Lakes, Florida 33304 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to perform the contracting job alleged in the Administrative Complaint in a reasonably timely manner, or abandoned the job, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), (k), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent failed to properly pay subcontractors or suppliers during his term as the qualifying contractor, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Donald Lewis Geckler was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license lumber CG C025824. The Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Monarch Construction, Inc. (hereinafter Monarch). On November 28, 1986, Monarch entered into a contract with Elliot Zaleznik and Joyce Zaleznik (hereinafter Owners) to construct a residence at 164 Edgemere Way South, Naples, Collier County, Florida. A copy of the contract is Petitioner's Exhibit 1. During this time period, the Respondent held stock in Monarch and was the Vice-President of the corporation. Under the terms of the construction contract, Monarch agreed to construct a residence according to the plans and specifications for $489,000.00. The contract contained a draw schedule which identified the amount of monies to be paid and the stages of construction which had to be completed before the draws would issue. The schedule contained five draw opportunities before the final draw, which could be obtained by Monarch when the house was ready for occupancy. Construction on the Zaleznik project began during the end of December 1986 or early January 1987. The contract required written and signed change orders before the work could be altered, increased or decreased. In such event, the Owners were required to pay Monarch the cost of the change prior to the change taking place. Evidence of two change order requests were presented at hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. The first change order created an additional charge of $30,000.00, to be paid when the additional work was installed. The second change order cost was $30,620.55. An immediate payment of $15,310.27 was required in March of 1987, and $15,310.28 was due when the additional work was installed. With these change orders, the new contract price became $54,620.55. During the course of construction, the Owners made the following disbursements, according to Petitioner's Exhibit 4. 2/18/87 $ 77,000.00 3/24/87 15,310.27 3/25/87 108,300.00 4/9/87 99,300.00 $ 299,910.27 The amounts paid by the Owners do not correlate with the draw schedule. The Owners paid the $15,310.27, and the other three draw requests were made upon the lender, Sun Bank, who paid them in derogation of the draw schedule. It is unknown if the bank made inspections prior to disbursement. All work was completed on schedule from December 1986 through most of April 1987. The lender was authorized by the Owners to release the monies requested by Monarch. The Respondent's wife was in a very serious car accident on March 2, 1987, which resulted in multiple injuries that required surgery and hospitalization. The Respondent spent as much time as possible with his wife, and balanced his schedule accordingly. During this time period, Mr. Monarchino, Jr., purchased all of the Respondent's stock in Monarch. Mr. Monarchino, Jr., became the sole shareholder of all issued stock in the corporation. The purpose of the stock transfer was to give the Respondent funds in order to meet his wife's hospital expenses. During the period of time that the Respondent was a shareholder in Monarch, Mr. Monarchino, Jr., was responsible for the financial end of the company, including financial disbursements on the Zaleznik project. The Respondent was only responsible for the estimating, the bid letting, and construction supervision. In early April of 1987, before the Respondent's wife was scheduled for surgery, the couple took a vacation with Mr. and Mrs. Monarchino, Jr. During this vacation, the Respondent reviewed the financial disbursement sheets on the Zaleznik project and other pending projects. The financial accounting showed that there were some outstanding costs on the Zaleznik project. However, the Respondent believed that enough money was coming in from different jobs that were closing, to offset the deficit. On April 21, 1987, the Respondent received a paycheck from Monarch. He accompanied his wife to St. P-etersburg, Florida, for specialized surgery on April 30, 1987. During his stay in St. Petersburg, the Respondent was told by Mr. Monarchino, Jr., to return to work. The Respondent refused to do so immediately, but confirmed he would return as soon as practicable. In the latter part of April or early May 1987, while the Respondent was in St. Petersburg, Mr. William "Bill" Monarchino, Jr., President of Monarch, advised the Owners that there were financial difficulties on the job. The Owners did not request an accounting. Monarch was allowed to proceed with construction. It is unknown if the bank was made aware of the financial problems. However, Mr. Monarchino, Jr., represented that Monarch would make up the shortfall by obtaining a $60,000.00 mortgage on the Respondent Geckler's home. Construction on the project began to slow down after the Owners were advised of financial problems. The Respondent was unaware of the conversation between the Owners and Mr. Monarchino, Jr. Upon his return to the corporation on May 7, 1987, the Respondent learned that he had been locked out of the business, and that his name had been removed from all of the business accounts. The Respondent attempted to discover the problem between himself and Mr. Monarchino, Jr. in order to reconcile and continue in business together. The Respondent was made aware that Monarch would have to make up the shortfall on the Zaleznik project. The Respondent and his wife agreed to place a $60,000.00 mortgage on their home for this purpose. A note and mortgage was signed on May 21, 1987. However, when the Respondent asked Mr. Monarchino, Jr. for financial records to verify that a shortfall had occurred and the amount of the shortfall, he was unable to obtain these records. The Respondent became suspicious of Mr. Monarchino Jr.'s motives as the mortgage was placed in Mr. Monarchino Jr.'s name. When the Respondent was not given the opportunity to review the Zaleznik project records, the note and mortgage, Respondent's Exhibit 6, were cancelled. When it became apparent to the Respondent that he was unable to reconcile with Mr. Monarchino, Jr. or obtain the financial records of the company, he decided to withdraw as the qualifying contractor. His last paycheck from Monarch was the one received on April 21, 1987. Prior to the Respondent's withdrawal as qualifying contractor for Monarch, the Owners received Notices to Owners and Notices of Liens from unpaid contractors and materialmen on this construction project. These liens have not been satisfied by Monarch, the Owners, the bank, or the Respondent. On June 22, 1987, the Respondent Geckler notified the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter the Department) of his withdrawal as qualifying contractor for Monarch in Respondent's Exhibit 2. According to Petitioner's Exhibit 5, liens which had been perfected before the Respondent left the project were: Robert Hunt corp., $22,075.70; Rite Electric, Inc., $8,045.00; Headly Construction, $5,392.30; and CES Industries, Inc., $1,318.57. These have not been paid and are currently outstanding. When the Respondent Geckler withdrew as Monarch's qualifying contractor, he did not notify the Owners, and he did not require an accounting and reconciliation by Monarch of the contract price paid and the percentage of project completed on the Zaleznik residence. Monarch continued with construction on the Zaleznik residence until mid-August 1987, when the Owners were informed that Monarch would not complete the project. The Owners are currently in litigation with Monarch regarding the construction contract. The Hearing Officer was not informed of what type of litigation is pending, or the effect of the pending litigation on the liens which had been perfected prior to the Respondent Geckler's withdrawal as qualifying contractor for Monarch. In the Respondent's opinion, the estimate for the Zaleznik job was a good estimate for the costs of construction. The estimate was not a reason for the problems on this project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that all violations charged against the Respondent, Donald L. Geckler, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, Case No. 88-3448, should be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-3448 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See Preliminary Matters. Reject the conclusion "entered" a contract. The rest of paragraph 3 is accepted. See HO #1 and HO #2. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #14. Reject conclusion. Accept three draws occurred. See HO #7 and HO #8. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14 and HO #23. Accepted. See HO #19 and HO #20. Accepted. See HO #23. Accepted. Rejected. There was no evidence to demonstrate that the house was finished from the same plans and specifications. Accepted. See HO #19 and HO #24. Accepted. See HO #14. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Legal conclusion. Rejected. Legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper foundation, based on facts not in evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Lack of knowledge. Improper summary. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #25. Accepted. See HO #16. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Donald L. Geckler 2596 - 47th Street, S.W. Naples, Florida 33999 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent, John R. Meyer. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 19th day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald A. Cyril, Esquire 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 79-1355 JOHN J. MEYER, CB C012853 Respondent. /
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of various specified provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes. The allegations are set forth in a seven count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C046419, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in an individual capacity and thereby responsible for all his contracting activities. On June 6, 1993, Respondent, doing business as Universal General Contractors, entered into a construction contract with the Fagnanis for the remodeling of a bathroom in their residence located at 3440 Northeast 170th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. The contracted price was three thousand eight hundred dollars ($3,800,00). The Fagnanis paid at least two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700.00) to the Respondent as payment toward the contracted work. The written contract between the Respondent and the Fagnanis did not include the Respondent's contractor's license number. That written contract had printed on it the business name "Universal General Contractors." When they entered into the contract, the Fagnanis thought they were doing business with a company named "Universal General Contractors." At no time material hereto was Respondent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as the licensed qualifier for Universal General Contractors. Construction commenced on or about August 20, 1993. Respondent failed to obtain a building permit or inspections for the Fagnani project. Shortly after commencing the project, Respondent informed the Fagnanis he had to go to Boca Raton for an estimate, but would return to finish the project. Respondent failed to return to finish the Fagnani project. Respondent abandoned the Fagnani's project without just cause or notification to the Fagnanis. Respondent did not respond to any attempts by the Fagnanis to contact him concerning the completion of their project. At the time Respondent abandoned the project the work was not complete. At the time of abandonment, the percentage of work completed was substantially less than the percentage of the contract price paid by the Fagnanis. On December 28, 1993, as a result of Respondent's failure to complete the project, the Fagnanis filed a civil suit against Respondent in Case Number 93-16225 SP23(03), County Court in and for Dade County, Civil Division. On January 11, 1994, Respondent was properly served with notice of the civil suit. On January 27, 1994, a Default Final Judgment was entered against Respondent in favor of the Fagnanis. The Default Final Judgment entered against Respondent in the case was in the principal amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) and costs of one hundred nine dollars ($109.00) for a total amount of two thousand six hundred nine dollars ($2,609.00), and bore interest at the rate of 12 percent per year. The Default Final Judgment is related to Respondent's practice of contracting. To date, Respondent has failed to satisfy the terms of the Default Final Judgment. Respondent failed to satisfy the terms of the Default Final Judgment within a reasonable time. Respondent's incompetence and misconduct in overseeing the contracting and financial activities of his construction practice has resulted in a two thousand six hundred nine dollar ($2,609.,00) loss to the Fagnanis. The Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In two prior cases (DBPR Case Nos. 93-12155 and 94-04871) the Board has issued final orders finding the Respondent guilty of several provisions of the statutes regulating contractors. Several of the prior violations are of the same type as the violations at issue in this case.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case to the following effect: Adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in all seven counts of the Administrative Complaint; Revoking the Respondent's license; Ordering the Respondent to pay administrative fines in the total amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00); Ordering the Respondent to pay restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Fagnani in the amount of two thousand six hundred nine dollars ($2,609.00); and Ordering the Respondent to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this proceeding in an amount to be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997.
