The Issue Does the unsatisfied civil judgment in ABC v Millman et al, Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB relate to practice of Respondent’s profession, thus establishing that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,(2009)? If he committed the violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board has certified Millman as a General Contractor and a Roofing Contractor under the authority of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In 2009 and 2010, he held license numbers CGC l1522 (General) and CCC 1327057 (Roofing). Millman’s licenses are presently inactive. Millman has actively practiced the licensed professions of general contractor and roofing contractor in Florida since 1977. The Department and its predecessor agencies have never taken any disciplinary action against him. At all times material to this proceeding, Affiliated was a Construction Qualified Business in the State of Florida, certified under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, holding license number QB45287. Millman was the Primary Qualifying Agent for Affiliated under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, at all times material to this proceeding. On December 26, 2005, Millman signed a credit application with American Builders and Contractors Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Supply Co. Inc. (ABC), on behalf of Affiliated. Millman listed his Certified General Contractor’s License (CGC 011522) on the credit application and personal guarantee Although Millman provided his General Contractor’s license number on the application, ABC did not require a license number. The application indicates that the account is related to “low and steep slope roofing.” The account was for the purchase of roofing materials and supplies. On December 29, 2005, Millman signed a personal guarantee of the Affiliated account with ABC. Millman’s personal guarantee made him personally liable for Affiliated’s obligation to pay ABC. ABC granted the application and opened a line of credit for Millman and Affiliated. Millman and Affiliated used the account to purchase roofing supplies on credit. They purchased and paid for over $800,000 worth of supplies from 2006 into 2009. This is separate from the goods and materials that were the subject of the lawsuit described below. Most of the materials and supplies that Affiliated purchased on the ABC account were for specific roofing projects. But some, as Millman acknowledged in his testimony, were to maintain roofing materials in the Affiliated warehouse. He used these on small jobs and to supplement materials purchased for larger, specific jobs. All the goods and materials purchased related to Millman’s practice of the roofing contracting profession. In 2007 Millman and Affiliated started having financial difficulties. Millman’s business began failing. The failure of a lender that took over a construction project it was financing resulted in the lender not paying Millman for approximately $500,000 worth of his company’s work. This contributed to Millman’s business failure. In addition to Millman’s problems paying ABC, his landlord was evicting him. Millman worked hard during these difficulties to meet his obligations to ABC. He liquidated his Individual Retirement Account and his life savings to make sure he paid for all charges for supplies used for specified customers. He did this to protect customers from the risk of liens being placed on their properties. Millman advised ABC that he was being evicted from his warehouse. He told ABC that the warehouse contained materials obtained with his line of credit that had not been paid for. Millman did not have the ability to return the materials to ABC. As eviction neared, he urged ABC to retrieve the materials before eviction. ABC did not act to retrieve the materials. The landlord evicted Millman. What happened to the materials is not known. On March 4, 2008, ABC sued Millman and Affiliated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. ABC sought payment for goods and materials purchased on the account and delivered to Millman and Affiliated between January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008. The court assigned the action Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB. The goods and materials for which ABC sought payment were roofing goods and materials. They included roofing felt, roofing cement, shingles, plywood, lumber, roofing nails, lead sheets, insulation, roof tile cement, lead boots for pipes, roofing paint, asphalt, and galvanized roof edging. Much, although not all, of the material was delivered to roof tops. Many invoices for the material describe the roof for which the material is intended by height and pitch. The goods and materials related to Millman’s profession of roofing contractor. On June 17, 2008, barely three months after ABC filed suit, Millman entered into a Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default with ABC. Millman agreed in the Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default, that both he as an individual and Affiliated are indebted to ABC in the amount of $45,617.02. This amount included interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The stipulation included a schedule of eight payments starting with a payment of $2,500.00 on May 30, 2008, and ending with a payment of $22,720.02 on December 30, 2008. Millman made payments from January 1, 2007, forward, even during and after the collection litigation. Millman made over $16,000.00 of those payments. But he did not make all of them. As Millman made payments, he took care to designate payments for supplies allocated to a specific customer and job. He did this to protect his customers from liens and to make sure that documents he signed attesting that supplies for specific jobs had been paid for were honest and correct. On August 3, 2009, the court rendered a Final Judgment After Stipulation in ABC’s collection action. The court adjudged that ABC recover $29,617.02 together with interest at the rate of 11 percent per annum accruing from May 31, 2008, from Affiliated and Millman, jointly and severally. The judgment is for debt incurred relating to Millman’s practice of his licensed profession of roofing contracting. It is not related to Millman’s licensed profession of general contracting. ABC continued to actively pursue collecting the judgment. It garnished Millman’s bank account with Bank Atlantic and obtained $662.61. Millman and Affiliated have not fully satisfied the judgment within a reasonable period of time. The Department incurred $216.00 in costs for the investigation and this action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: Payment of an administrative fine of $500.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. Payment of costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $216.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 27th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Respondent aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor by obtaining a permit for a roofing job performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether the work on the job failed to fully comply with the local building codes; Whether the Respondent gave a guarantee on the job and thereafter failed to reasonably honor the guarantee; and Whether Respondent failed to properly supervise the job site activity.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor, holding License No. RC0030450. Carol Kilgore is the daughter of Beula Relihan, who owns a rental home located at 207 East Selma in Tampa, Florida. Mrs. Relihan is 86 years old, and for several years Mrs. Kilgore has been managing the property. In early 1987, Mrs. Kilgore was involved in obtaining estimates to replace the roof at the rental home. After obtaining estimates from contractors listed in the yellow pages, which Mrs. Kilgore felt to be high, Mrs. Kilgore responded to an advertisement for roofing work located in the Money Saver. She called the number listed in the advertiser, talked to Leroy Rison, and asked him to come to the house and give her an estimate. On or about February 26, 1987, Leroy Rison and his nephew, Gary Terrell, visited Mrs. Kilgore after looking at the job site, and wrote out an estimate for replacing the roof of $1,650.00. Mr. Terrell wrote the proposal which reflected the work to be done, the price, and the proposed beginning and finishing date. However, before any contract was entered into, Mrs. Kilgore discovered that neither Rison or Terrell were licensed contractors. She explained that she wanted only a licensed contractor who could pull the permit to perform the work. Although Mr. Terrell and Mr. Rison are willing to work for a homeowner if the homeowner will obtain the permit, Mrs. Kilgore insisted that she wanted a licensed contractor. Therefore, Mr. Rison recommended the Respondent, and later called the Respondent to advise him of the job. The next day, February 27, 1987, Respondent met Mrs. Kilgore and wrote a contract proposal on a form with a printed heading "MacDill Roofing", to which in handwriting was added "& Services." Respondent operates under the name of, and is the qualifying agent for, MacDill Services. The contract prepared by the Respondent merely copied the proposal submitted by Terrell and Rison, including the same price and the same misspelled words. The contract was accepted and signed by Ms. Kilgore's mother. Mrs. Kilgore paid Respondent $650.00, with the balance to be paid upon successful completion of the contract. Work was scheduled to begin the following day, Saturday, February 28, 1987 and be completed by Monday, March 2, 1987. The following Saturday work began. Respondent obtained the permit for the job, and apparently purchased the materials and had them delivered. Leroy Rison worked on the job and hired the laborers. Gary Terrell also worked on the job. One of the men Rison hired, Earl, worked for a roofing company during the week but did not have a license. Mr. Rison could not remember the name of any of the other men who worked on the job. Leroy Rison was not an employee of MacDill Roofing or MacDill Services, but he had worked for Respondent on other occasions. Although Respondent contends that he went by the job site on three or four occasions, staying at the job site between 1 and 2 hours on each occasion, his testimony is not credible. Charles Doty, who was the tenant in the rental home, had received a leg injury which forced him to stay home during this entire period of time. The only time Mr. Doty was gone was for an hour and half on Saturday to attend a therapy session. Mr. Doty never saw Respondent on the job site, although he had heard Respondent's name mentioned by Mr. Rison. Mrs. Kilgore also visited the job site on several occasions and she never saw the Respondent at the job site. Respondent simply did not supervise the job site activities. On March 3, 1987, the roof was scheduled for final inspection by the building department. Mrs. Kilgore went to the house to wait for the building inspector. After several hours, she left to get a soft drink. She was gone only five minutes, but when she returned, she discovered that the building inspector had come and gone, and a "green tag", indicating that the house had passed inspection, had been left on the porch. Mrs. Kilgore was very upset because she felt that the roofing work had not been done properly. She went to the building supervisor at City Hall and asked him if he could send the inspector back to the house so that she could point out the problems. The building supervisor agreed to send the inspector back to the house. The building department inspector was Terry Scott. On March 3, 1987, Mr. Scott had approximately 20 or 25 inspections to do. When he first went to the house he just looked around quickly and left a green tag. He admitted that a thorough inspection was only done if a homeowner complained. When Mr. Scott returned to the house on March 3, 1987, he still did not do a thorough inspection. However, he did issue a "red tag" which listed certain deficiencies that would have to be corrected before the roof could pass inspection. The red tag required that the contractor "replace bad wood where needed and install drip-edge where needed." Normally, when a red tag is issued, the contractor corrects the deficiency and calls for another inspection. That did not occur in this case. On April 9, 1987, Inspector Scott met Mr. Park at the job-site to discuss problems with the roof. On that day, a more thorough inspection was performed. Another red tag was issued and the following deficiencies were noted: "Bad wood not replaced--Wall flashing not properly installed. Flashing around chimney not proper--Felt under drip-edge." Respondent did not correct these deficiencies and never called for another inspection. The permit expired without the roof being approved by final inspection. Although not all the deficiencies noted in the inspection constitute code violations, the Tampa Building Code does require that rotten wood be replaced and the contract specified that the rotten decking would be replaced. Nevertheless, after Respondent completed the job, rotten wood remained in place. The replacement of the rotten wood was noted in both red tags. Respondent never attempted to correct this deficiency. On the day the property initially passed inspection, March 3, 1987, Respondent called Mrs. Kilgore and requested the remaining $1,000 owed on the contract price. Mrs. Kilgore refused to pay the Respondent since she was dissatisfied with the work and the first red tag had issued. At some point, apparently after the red tag issued in April, Respondent decided that he was not going to get any more money from Mrs. Kilgore. Other than asking for the money on March 3, 1987, Respondent has not attempted to collect the remainder of the money from Ms. Kilgore; however, he has also not attempted to correct the code violations and other deficiencies. Since Respondent did not collect the remainder of the money owed, Respondent did not pay Leroy Rison, and Mr. Rison did not pay the laborers who performed the work. As the contractor on this job, Respondent had full responsibility for ensuring that the work was done properly and that the roof passed final inspection. Respondent failed to supervise the work on the job, and the re- roofing was not done in a workmanlike manner. In essence, Respondent abdicated his responsibilities as the contractor on the job, and allowed the work to be performed by unsupervised unlicensed persons. The roofing material used was supposed to be fiberglass shingle guaranteed for 20 years. There was no evidence presented that something other than the material specified was used or that the shingles were not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The roof did not leak after the work was completed. No evidence relating to a guarantee, other than the guarantee related to the shingles, was presented. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 10, 1986, a 61 paragraph Administrative Complaint was filed against Respondent which alleged, among other things, willful violation of local law; failure to qualify a firm through which he was operating; gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud, or deceit in the practice of contracting; failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent; and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489. On March 26, 1987, Respondent signed a stipulated settlement with the Department of Professional Regulation admitting to all the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The stipulated disposition was that Respondent's licensure would be suspended for two years and indefinitely thereafter until an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 was paid. The stipulation was adopted by Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board rendered June 9, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revocation of Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted, generally except the date of February 26, 1987 appears to be the appropriate date, rather than February 7, 1987, in that the estimate from Larry Rison was obtained one day before the contract was entered into with Respondent. Accepted, generally. Accepted as true, but unnecessary and irrelevant, since Rison and Terrell did not enter into a contract for the job. 7.-14. Accepted. 15. Accepted as true; however, the last two sentences were considered unnecessary. 16.-19. Accepted, generally. First sentence accepted, sentences two and three rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Rejected as redundant and for the reasons set forth under Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6. First sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence, second sentence accepted, except as to Respondent's intent. Third and fourth sentences accepted in general. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Francis A. Park 6109 South MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida 33611 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative fine or other disciplinary action imposed for allegedly acting as a contractor without a license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Edsel Mathews, operated a business under the name of Home Repair Roofing in Monticello, Florida. Records of Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), establish that Respondent holds no licenses from that Board and thus he is not authorized to engage in any professions regulated by the Board. Gessie Lee Choice owns a residence at 1701 South Campbell Street, Perry, Florida. In 1995, her home was partially destroyed in a fire. Based on a recommendation by her lender, who was refinancing the repair work, Choice selected Respondent to repair her home. Relevant portions of the City Code of the City of Perry (City) were not made a part of this record. However, testimony established that under the licensing scheme for the City, an individual who has a specialty contractor license from the City may perform residential carpentry work if he works under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Alternatively, the same work may be performed by the license holder if the property owner obtains a building permit and signs an affidavit that he or she will be supervising the work. The license does not, however, authorize the holder to perform air-conditioning, electrical, or plumbing work even if the owner supervises the project. In addition, roofing work involving structural changes can only be performed under the auspices of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent held a valid specialty contractor license from the City. On August 7, 1995, Choice obtained a building permit from the City and executed an affidavit stating that she would be supervising the work. Under these circumstances, Respondent was authorized to perform all work on the house except that relating to the plumbing, electrical, and air-conditioning systems. Also, he could not perform any structural work on her roof. The evidence is conflicting as to the representations Respondent made to Choice regarding his qualifications before the two parties executed a contract. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that he represented he was a "subcontractor," but was not a licensed contractor within the Board's purview. While there is a conflict as to representations regarding his ability to perform plumbing and electrical work, it is found that Respondent simply agreed to procure for Choice a licensed plumber and electrician to do that type of work. Under the agreement executed by Choice, Respondent agreed to "furnish and perform the labor necessary for the completion" of a wide array of work. The items to be completed are listed on Petitioner's exhibit 3 and include removing asbestos from the outside of her house, enlarging three bedrooms and bath, removing an existing tin roof, installing new rafters, reroofing the home, building new cabinets and installing new plumbing and wiring for the kitchen, remodeling the existing bathrooms, building a utility room, installing new windows, insulating walls and ceilings, drywalling all ceilings, installing new carpet and vinyl, and placing vinyl siding on outside of home. Respondent established that even though the contract lists a number of items outside the scope of his authority, he intended to get licensed contractors to perform all work for which he held no authority under his city license. Choice agreed with this assertion. Despite Respondent's offer to obtain other contractors to perform the electrical and plumbing work, Choice selected her own licensed contractors to do that work. She also hired another individual to remove the asbestos from her home. Respondent performed a part of the remaining work, including the installation of a new roof. This latter work involved structural changes upon the house. Respondent made two draws totaling $13,200.00 from the escrowed funds. Also, in September 1995, Choice paid Respondent $446.00 in personal funds to purchase plywood to be placed on the floor and walls of the house. There is no allegation, however, that he failed to perform an equivalent amount of work before he was told by a Board inspector to stop working on the project. A short time after Respondent terminated work, a City building inspector, David Parker, inspected the roofing work performed by Respondent. Parker found that the truss system did not meet building code requirements. Because of numerous code violations, which are enumerated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the entire roof system had to be removed and reinstalled. Parker also noted that Respondent's work involved structural changes not authorized under his license. In mitigation, however, it is found that Respondent believed that he was authorized to do this work under his local license. Choice was forced to hire a licensed roofing contractor to reroof her home. That contractor described Respondent's workmanship as "not good." In order to correct the deficiencies and complete the remodeling project, Choice expended another $12,000.00 over and above her original contract price of $33,490.00. Except for this incident, there is no evidence of Respondent violating Board rules and statutes relating to contracting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 be imposed, to be paid within such time as the Board deems appropriate. A decision on Petitioner's request for the assessment of costs against Respondent under Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, is deferred to the Board. Finally, Counts I and II should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 14267 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Clifford L. Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 1057 Monticello, Florida 32345 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or other business organization. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered, certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of licensure.1 The Zapata job Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard, Miami, Florida. On August 1, 1996,2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of $8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing, Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996, Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then, nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or about September 5, 1996.3 On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed.4 With the discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without financial loss to the Zapatas.5 Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage Respondent's liability and property damage insurance policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.) The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, the Department offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled $306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Previous disciplinary action On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor] to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately $4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996, Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that at all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C58099. Respondent passed the licensing examination in August 1995. Case No. 99-0261 Respondent is not a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent's Certified General Contractor's license did not and does not permit him to obtain roofing permits to perform any type of work on roofs. Respondent's Certified General Contractor's license number was not low enough for him to be grandfathered in by the State to allow him to lawfully perform roofing work with his Certified General Contractor's license. On or about February 23, 1998, Delfina Valdes contracted with Johnny Hatcher, d/b/a Hatcher's Roofing, to repair the roof on her residence located at 18101 Northwest 32 Avenue, Miami, Florida. They contracted for Hatcher to remove Valdes' old roof and install a new roof at a cost of $4,000. Valdes paid Hatcher $2,000 as a down payment toward the cost of the roof's repair. At no time material hereto was Hatcher a licensed roofing contractor. Furthermore, at no time material hereto was Hatcher's Roofing qualified by the State of Florida to perform contracting. Hatcher removed the roof from Valdes' residence. After removing the roof, he did not perform any more work. Respondent met with Valdes and represented to her that Hatcher was working for him. Respondent further represented that he would obtain the permit for the roofing work. Respondent paid Cayetano Alfonso to obtain a roofing permit for the work on Valdes' roof. On or about March 26, 1998, Alfonso made application to Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation for the roofing permit, which was subsequently issued. Alfonso was a Certified General Contractor who was licensed to perform roofing work. Alfonso's Certified General Contractor's license number was low enough for him to be grandfathered in by the State to allow him to lawfully perform roofing work with his Certified General Contractor's license. Alfonso was not the qualifier for Hatcher's Roofing nor was he Respondent's qualifier. Alfonso did not enter into the contract with Valdes for repairing her roof. Alfonso was not a party to the contract for repairing Valdes' roof. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Hatcher was not acting on behalf of Alfonso when he entered into the contract with Valdes. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent was not acting on behalf of Alfonso when he represented to Valdes that he would obtain the permit for the roofing work. When Respondent discovered that Hatcher had received a $2,000 deposit from Valdes, he requested Alfonso to cancel the permit. On or about April 20, 1998, Alfonso cancelled the roofing permit. On or about June 5, 1998, Valdes cancelled the contract between her and Hatcher Roofing. Valdes received a refund of the $2,000 from Hatcher, through a third party, that she had paid him. Case No. 98-4859 On or about April 9, 1995, Respondent entered into a contract with Susan Casper to construct an addition to her residence located at 17350 Northeast 12th Court, North Miami Beach, Florida, at a cost of $38,135. Casper paid Respondent $36,285.00 toward the cost of the addition. Respondent was not licensed at the time that he entered into the contract. On or about March 20, 1996, Respondent obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation for the work on the addition. Several delays were encountered during the performance of the work. Some of the delays resulted from changes by Casper, which changes required approval by Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation; however, most of the delays were Respondent's own doing. In October 1996, Casper paid $2,588 to Best Truss Company for a claim of lien filed on her residence, associated with the work being performed on her residence. Respondent worked sporadically on Casper's addition through April 1997. He would inform her at times that he was returning but failed to return. At one point, Casper's children constructed a sign in their own handwriting, instructing Respondent to keep out and indicating that there was no trespassing by him. The sign was posted on the door of Casper's residence. Casper informed Respondent that her children constructed the sign. It was obvious that the keep out, no trespassing sign was constructed by children. Respondent's assertion that he was kept away from Casper's residence by the children's sign is not credible. Even after the children's sign was posted on the front door of Casper's residence, Respondent agreed with Casper to resume work, and he did so. However, his work was sporadic. In or around June 1997, Casper sought assistance from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation to get Respondent to complete the work. In July 1997, Respondent obtained a window permit for the work on Casper's residence. After July 1997, Respondent ceased working on Casper's residence. He did not provide Casper with any notice that he was ceasing work. Respondent had no valid reason for ceasing the work. In September 1997, Casper transferred the permit for the work on her residence from Respondent's name to her name. Respondent failed to perform all the work under the contract. Some of the work performed by Respondent or caused to be performed by Respondent contained code violations and needed correcting. Certain work performed by Respondent or caused to be performed by Respondent needed correcting. Wood doors, glass block, electrical work, and a sprinkler were in need of correction. Casper bore the expense of the corrections. The corrective work was completed at a cost of $1,675.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on Casper's residence was $18,272, minus the cost of the corrective work of $1,675, which equals a total value of the work at $16,597. This cost value includes overhead and profit. Even though the value of the work by Respondent was $16,597, Casper paid Respondent $36,285, a difference of $19,688. Casper hired a new contractor on or about September 17, 1997, to complete the construction on her residence at a cost of $16,350. As to Case No. 98-4859, as of January 26, 1999, Petitioner incurred a cost of $1,108.76 for the investigation and prosecution of Respondent. Petitioner previously disciplined Respondent for violating Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (1995), including violating Subsection 489.127(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1995), abandonment of a construction project.
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 and therein: As to Case No. 99-0261, finding that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). As to Case No. 98-4859, finding that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), in Count I; and dismissing Count II. Revoking Respondent's license. Ordering Respondent to pay restitution to Susan Casper in the amount of $19,688.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire 10300 Sunset Drive, No. 499 Miami, Florida 33173 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 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
