The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged failure or refusal to satisfy a civil judgment in a reasonable period of time.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bradley T. Barbour, has not disputed that he is a certified tile and marble specialty contractor, holding Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board license number C-5778. The Respondent entered into a contract with Cameron Vale to tile the floor of his house. The tile job was unsatisfactory to Vale, who sued in the County Court, Pinellas County, Small Claims Division, Case No. 93-5287 SC-NCD. On February 14, 1994, Vale and the Respondent entered into a Pretrial Conference Agreement. Under the Agreement, the Respondent agreed, among other things, to pay Vale $2,500, payable $200 a month beginning February 18, 1994, until paid in full. Based on the Agreement, Vale and the Respondent filed a Stipulation to Stay Entry of Judgment on February 14, 1995, and two days later the court entered an Order staying entry of final judgment. Contrary to the terms of the Agreement and Stipulation, the Respondent only made one payment of $100. On June 7, 1994, the court entered a Judgment against the Respondent in the amount of $2,400, together with 12 percent interest on the Judgment. The Respondent has made no payments to Vale on the Judgment and has not satisfied the Judgment either in full or in part. The Board has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action" which provide for a $300 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction and a $750 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "major" infraction. The Guidelines give no guidance in distinguishing between "minor" and "major" infractions. The Guidelines also list aggravating and mitigating circumstances which focus on the harm done by the offense, the licensee's efforts to rectify the situation, and whether there is a history of similar offenses by the licensee. They also authorize suspension or revocation and fines "not to exceed $1,000 per count."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 24(2)(c) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida (1975), as amended; (2) fining him $750; (3) revoking his license; and (4) conditioning relicensure upon both full restitution to Cameron Vale under the terms of the outstanding Judgment and full payment of the fine imposed in this case. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 23rd day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Bradley T. Barbour B & B Tile 2035 Philippe Parkway Safety Harbor, Florida 34695
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor, having been issued license number CB C012964 by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed as an individual only. On or about April 14, 1982, Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., entered into a contract with Mary Fedico to enclose the carport on her home, which was located at 2085 Victory Avenue, Largo, Florida. The contract price was $5,000.00. Mike Fredricks acted as the saleman for this contract on behalf of Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc. At all times material hereto, Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was owned by Kenneth Larrow. The only employees of this corporation were Kenneth Larrow and his son. Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was formed in January of 1982 for the purpose of performing room additions and other types of construction. On April 14, 1982, the sole officer of Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was Kenneth Larrow, who also served as a director. An attorney John L. Riley, was the registered agent. At all times pertinent hereto, Kenneth Larrow was not licensed to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. On or about April 16, 1982, Kenneth Larrow and his salesman, Mike Fredricks, went to the City of Largo Building Department to obtain a construction permit for the enclosure of Mary Fedico's carport. Neither of these persons wash qualified, or licensed, to engage in the business of contracting in the City of Largo. Therefore, the Largo Building Department refused to issue a permit for this construction. When Kenneth Larrow and Mike Fredricks were unable to obtain a permit for the construction of the addition to Mary Fedico's home, they informed the Largo Building Department that the qualifier for Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., was Barry L. Critoph, the Respondent. The Largo Building Department informed Mr. Larrow and Mr. Fredricks that the Respondent had to sign the permit application in order for a permit to be issued for the construction to be performed on Mary Fedico's home. On or about April 16, 1982, the Respondent applied for and obtained a construction permit for the enclosure of Mary Fedico's carport. This permit was issued to Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., with the Respondent as the qualifying contractor. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent did not qualify Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all pertinent times, the Respondent did not have in his possession a certificate issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board with the notation "Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc." thereon. Moreover, the Respondent admitted he was not positive that he had properly qualified Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., when he obtained the permit for the enclosure of Mary Fedico's carport. On or about May 5, 1982, Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., entered into a second contract with Mary Fedico to finish the interior of the carport which was to be enclosed by Cedar Homes of Pinellas, Inc., pursuant to the prior contract, for a price of $710. Kenneth Larrow began to perform the work required under the terms of the two contracts. Mary Fedico never saw the Respondent at the project site. Mr. Larrow hired all subcontractors and was responsible for paying them. He was also responsible for supervision of the construction of the carport enclosure. The Respondent did not know that there was a second contract for interior work in Mary Fedico's carport enclosure, and the Respondent performed no work on the project. He did drive his car by the site three times, but he never entered onto the project, and he simply viewed the construction being performed from the street. The Respondent had no knowledge as to who the subcontractors were on the Fedico project, and he had no responsibility for hiring them. He had no knowledge of the money that was being obtained from this project, and he did not know whether or not the subcontractors were being paid. At a time uncertain, construction of the carport enclosure addition to the Fedico home began to slow down. When Mary Fedico began to receive notices from subcontractors that they were not being paid, she contacted Kenneth Larrow about problems with the construction. However, when Mr. Larrow was unable to satisfactorily respond to Mary Fedico's questions regarding the work, she and her son-in-law took over the project, completed it, and paid all the subcontractors. The cost of completion was between $2,000 and $2,500 more than the contract price had been. As a result of the Fedico contracts noted above, Kenneth Larrow was charged with using the designation of "contractor" without a license, in two counts. Kenneth Larrow plead nolo contendere to these charges, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 plus court costs. Mary Fedico first became aware that the Respondent had some involvement with the construction of the addition to her home when she was subpoenaed to appear at this court proceeding. Prior thereto, she had not been notified by either the Respondent or Mr. Larrow, that the Respondent had any connection with her carport project. The Respondent's involvement with Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., was limited to obtaining permits and "supervision". As compensation therefor, the Respondent was to received two percent of the gross sales of the company. He was supposed to check jobs and verify construction, but this supervision was to consist of checking the projects contracted for by Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., at his own convenience, to determine if these projects were "okay". The Respondent was not connected with the financial operation of Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., he had no financial control over the operations of the corporation, and he could not sign checks. All subcontractors were hired and paid by Kenneth Larrow. Mr. Larrow and his salesmen actually entered into the contracts, and the Respondent had no involvement with the contracts except to determine if work contracted for was structurally sound. Kenneth Larrow actually supervised all of the construction projects of Cedar Homes of Pinellas Inc., on a daily basis, and the Respondent was not aware of all the projects entered into by the corporation. Kenneth Larrow eventually made restitution to Mary Fedico in the amount of $1,250 for the problems which occurred in connection with the carport enclosure work on her home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CB C012964 held by the Respondent, Barry L. Critoph, be suspended for two years. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 2nd day of December, 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 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John J. Fogarty, Esquire 327 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33517 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
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 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 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.
