The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2003),1 by engaging in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed or had ever been licensed to engage in electrical contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc., did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as an electrical contractor qualified business. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the sole owner/operator of Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc. Respondent has an occupational carpentry license from Hillsborough County, Florida, and uses the general contractors’ licenses of others. In April 2003, Respondent contracted with Phyllis Price to do the following work at Ms. Price's residence in Riverview, Florida: enclose her back porch, add on a screened room, change the French doors in some of the bedrooms, and install electric ceiling fans, an electric outlet, and an exterior light. On or about April 17, 2003, Respondent contracted with Ms. Price to install and hook up four electric ceiling fans and install one exterior light for $130.00. On or about April 26, 2003, Respondent submitted a proposal to Ms. Price for the installation of one electric outlet at her residence for $25.00. Respondent completed the work that he contracted to do for Ms. Price, including the electrical work. Ms. Price paid Respondent at least $5,240.00 for the work that he performed. Of that amount, Ms. Price paid Respondent a total of $180.00 for the electrical work he performed at her residence. The electrical work contracted and performed by Respondent required a permit. No evidence was presented that, prior to this time, Respondent has been subject to disciplinary action for the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting. The total investigative costs to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $313.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that (1) finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in Count One of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finds Respondent guilty of the charges in Count Two and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; (3) imposes on Respondent an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for each violation, for a total administrative fine of $2,000; and (4) assesses Respondent costs of $313.00, for the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 6, 1982, the Petitioner, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, J. Hugh Smith, a registered electrical contractor, who holds license number ER 0004272. The Respondent is the President of Electric Hugh Company, Inc. Electric Hugh Company is the entity through which the Respondent engaged in the business of electrical contracting in the City of Jacksonville. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville met and considered charges filed against the Respondent for failure to use certified craftsmen. A Mr. Etheridge, an employee of Respondent, was permitted to engage in electrical contracting work unsupervised by a certified craftsman without being licensed as a certified craftsman. By so doing, Respondent violated Section 950.110(a), Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida. 1/ For that code violation, Respondent's certificate was suspended for a period of six (6) months. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and testimony of John R. Bond, Executive Director -- Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville) On June 2, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board convened another meeting to consider other charges filed against Respondent based on an alleged failure (by Respondent) to pull electrical permits on four instances wherein a permit was required. At that time, Respondent's certification was revoked effective June 2, 1982, and that revocation remains in effect. The action by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, City of Jacksonville, has been reviewed by Petitioner. By way of mitigation, Respondent opined that he considered the two years in which his license has been revoked by the City of Jacksonville as sufficient penalty for the violation. Respondent did not substantively contest the charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's registered electrical contractor's license number ER 0004272 be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of April 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent's mobile home installer's license should be disciplined, suspended, revoked or fined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently and at all times relevant to this proceeding licensed as a mobile home installer pursuant to Section 320.8249(9)(g), Florida Statutes. On August 3, 1998, Respondent installed a 1998 Homes of Merit, triple-wide mobile home for David Cay at 7643 Meridale Road in Woodville, Florida. On August 24, 1998, Petitioner's employee, David Cowfer, conducted a random inspection of the Cay mobile home. The inspection was for the purpose of determining compliance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and component manufacturer's installation instructions. The Cay mobile home had about 40, four foot long rod anchors with shovel-like stabilizer plates attached. When Mr. Cowfer inspected the Cay mobile home, he found that about one-third of the anchors had not been driven to the soil surface or to the top of the plate. The ground surface was about three or four inches below the tension head. Additionally, when Mr. Cowfer inspected the anchors on the Cay mobile home, he found that almost all of them had 10 to 16 inch holes around them exposing the stabilizer plates. When a mobile home's anchors are not properly installed, or buried, they can fail, resulting in the home going off its foundation or going airborne, endangering any people inside. The installation instructions for the type of anchor used on the Cay mobile home provide as follows: CAUTION: Anchors must be inserted in the ground all the way to the head of the anchor, such that no rod is above the ground. Installer is responsible for compliance with all ordinances, codes, laws and other requirements. For vertical pull, continue to operate machine until the head of the anchor is flush with the ground. (Illustration B) If the anchor is to be used for horizontal pull, (frame attachment) stop the driver, with the head about 12 inches from the ground, install an approved stabilizer against the anchor shaft with the top flush to the ground. (Illustration C). Now continue to drive the anchor the remaining 12 inches until the anchor head makes contact with the top of the stabilizer, and the head of the anchor is in line with the frame. Note: For anchors over three feet in length it is acceptable to excavate the first 24 inches of soil either before installing the anchor provided the earth is replaced by backfilling 1 foot, tamping and adding 1 gallon of water, and then complete filling in the hole, tamp earth and spray with one gallon of water. Clearly the anchors which were above the ground were not installed properly. Respondent's employee could not sink the anchors completely into the ground because the ground was too hard. However, the regulations do not appear to address the issue of ground conditions preventing the anchors from being driven completely in the ground or whether alternative types of anchors are available to correct this condition. Importantly, the Cay mobile home was inspected by the local building official after Respondent fixed some of the deficiencies cited by Petitioner. None of the anchors were adjusted during the repair work. The Cay home was issued a certificate of occupancy. The certificate of occupancy indicates that the Cay home met the local code requirements including mobile home installation requirements and was safe for occupancy. Therefore, Respondent is guilty of committing a technical violation by not installing the anchors according to the component manufacturer's instructions. Proper installation is important and therefore the violation is not de minimus. However, the evidence was not clear about how serious the violation is, given the fact it may have been impossible to comply with the component manufacturer's instructions and the fact that the installation was considered safe by the local building inspector. When the soil is not backfilled and tamped properly, rain will wash into the auger hole and cause settling and a hole around the anchor. However, such holes can also develop when the soil is properly backfilled and tamped in the hole around the anchor. Therefore, the Department did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the holes around the anchor were not filled and tamped properly. The manufacturer's installation instructions for the Cay mobile home provide that all slack be removed from the strapping system. When Mr. Cowfer inspected the side wall strapping on the Cay mobile home, he found that all the slack had not been pulled out of any of the straps, and that they were all very loose. Tight straps prevent the home from moving excessively under storm conditions. Clearly the loose straps were a significant violation. To fasten the halves of the home together, the manufacturer's installation instructions provide that lag screws 24 inches on center must be driven through the floor joists at a 45-degree angle. However, Respondent used another method for joining center line screws. The evidence did not show whether Respondent's method was approved by the manufacturer. Additionally, when Mr. Cowfer inspected the Cay mobile home, he found that about half of the required lag screws were not installed. Missing lag screws constitute's a violation. The manufacturer's installation instructions require that the centerline and any holes made by the lag screws be sealed with foam tape. Failure to properly seal the home can cause air and moisture infiltration and rodent infiltration. When Mr. Cowfer inspected the Cay mobile home, he found that the center line and lag screw holes had not been sealed. Failure to properly seal the mobile home constitutes a violation. When Mr. Cowfer inspected the Cay mobile home, there were no blocks under the sheer walls. Additionally, there were no blocks under the center line columns or they were improperly installed or out of place. If the mobile home is not properly blocked, it could bow, settle and go out of level, or slide to the ground. The manufacturer's installation instructions (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, D-3) for the Cay mobile home contain the following instructions for blocking the mobile home: LOCATE THE BLOCKING PLAN FOR YOUR HOME IN THE COMPLIANCE PACKAGE LOCATED IN YOUR HOME. THIS PLAN WILL SHOW WHERE I-BEAM BLOCKING AND ANCHORING IS REQUIRED, AS WELL AS ANY CENTER LINE BLOCKING AND ANCHORING REQUIREMENTS. IF THIS PLAN CANNOT BE FOUND, PLEASE CALL US AT HOMES OF MERIT. The second page of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is the floor plan for the Cay mobile home. Respondent claims that this floor plan is not a floor plan for the Cay home but merely a generic floor plan. However, Mr. Cower testified that the floor plan came out of the instruction manual "provided with this particular home." Moreover, the floor plan in question is not bound into the manual, but is a separate sheet. Finally while the manual is dated "1/97," the floor plan is dated "7/9/98," less than one month before the installation date of the mobile home. However, Homes of Merit Homes such as the Cay mobile home have tags on the home to show the installer where blocks should be placed. No testimony from the manufacturer was offered to clarify or authenticate the Cay home's blocking requirements. Therefore, the evidence is unclear as to whether the floor plan marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is in fact the floor plan for blocking the Cay mobile home. Therefore, no clear and convincing evidence was presented by the Department on the blocking of the Cay homes. This action is the first discipline imposed on Respondent. The evidence showed that Respondent or Respondent's employees had been instructed in the past on the proper installation of mobile home anchors, straps, and blocking of mobile homes. However, none of these past incidents were shown to be similar enough to the current case facts to warrant aggravation of any penalty. As indicated earlier, Respondent sent two employees to correct the alleged deficiencies on the Cay mobile home. They did not change any of the anchors on the Cay home. Subsequently, the Cay mobile home was inspected by the local building official and issued a certificate of occupancy.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles place Respondent Jamie Hewett's mobile home installer's license on probation for one year with supervision by another licensed mobile home installer in good standing and impose a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Gabrielle L. A. Taylor, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Suite A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 186 Chattachoochee, Florida 32324 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Fred O. Dickinson, III, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation of the parties and on the evidence presented at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent was issued a certified residential contractor's license to qualify Towne & County Homes, Post Office Box 11, Flagler Beach, Florida 32306, and License No. CRCO11317 was issued to qualify said entity together with License No. RG0024736. The Respondent was also issued a Class B pool contractor's license, License No. CPC023590 to qualify Mullen Pools, Inc., 2100 South Flagler Avenue, Flagler Beach, Florida 32036. The Respondent presently maintains three current licenses issued by the Petitioner, which are as follows: Registered General Contractor, License No. RG0024736 Certified Residential Contractor, License No. CRCO11317 Certified Pool Contractor, Class B, License No. CPC023590 On September 8, 1986, the Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Richard Davis to construct a single family residence in the City of Flagler Beach, Florida. The construction site was located in an area of the city zoned for single family residences only. On October 3, 1986, the Respondent submitted an application to the City of Flagler Beach to obtain a building permit, together with plans and specifications upon which a building permit was to be issued. On February 18, 1987, during an inspection, the building official, Mr. R. A. Law, observed that the Respondent had made some changes in the construction of the residence which deviated from the plans and specifications. The specific changes noticed on this occasion were (a) some rough plumbing had been stubbed in on the first floor where none was indicated on the plans, (b) an additional door had been cut into the rear of the first floor, and (c) a door on the plans between the first and second floors had not been cut in. The building official thought that the foregoing changes constituted an effort to violate the zoning law by building a two-family residence in a one-family zone. Accordingly, he issued a stop work order. After the stop work order of February 18, 1987, was posted, the Respondent removed the additional plumbing and installed a doorway between the first and second floors so that the residence complied with the approved plans and specifications. The building official removed the stop work order. On or about March 24, 1987, the building official, Mr. R. A. Law, was back on the construction site. On this occasion he observed a double electric meter can installed on the residence. This observation caused the building official to again suspect that the Respondent was attempting to violate the zoning law by building a two-family residence in a one-family zone, because he assumed that the meter can had been added to the residence since his February inspection. Actually, the double meter can had been in place since the electrical rough in was done and was simply overlooked during the February inspection. The building official wrote to the Respondent advising him that it appeared that he was "installing an extra apartment on the first floor," and ordering the Respondent to remove the double electric meter can from the house. The Respondent wrote back to the building official stating, among other things, that such was not his intent and that he did not have a contract to finish the first floor of the residence. No electrical service was ever installed to the first floor and, in any event, the power company would not have connected the second service without a second certificate of occupancy from the City. Consistent with the Respondent's contentions that he did not intend to build a two-family residence is the fact that written across the face of the plans submitted to the city were the words "Entire first floor is future area, rough in plumbing only." The Respondent's work orders to subcontractors also support his contention that he did not intend to construct a two-family dwelling. At the time of the inspections noted above, Mr. R.A. Law had only recently assumed the position of building official. There had been prior inspections by the predecessor building official at which no objection was made to the changes that Mr. Law objected to.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 18th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5040 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: All of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner have been accepted in substance, except as specifically set forth below. Paragraph 6: The portion of this paragraph that states or implies that there was an effort to convert a single family residence to a two-family residence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The building official suspected such an effort, but there was no such effort by the Respondent.) Paragraph 8: The portion of this paragraph that describes the Respondent's intent is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10: This paragraph is rejected as in part redundant and in part irrelevant, in view of the fact that the changes were minor and were not for the purpose suspected by the building official. Findings proposed by the Respondent: All of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent have been accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Lindsey & Williams, P.A. Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen P. Sapienza, Esquire P. O. Box 159 Flagler Beach, Florida 32036 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent does business under the name South Florida Construction Group. At no time relevant to this proceeding has Respondent or his business entity been registered or certified to perform electrical contracting or any other contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of North Miami. The residence owned by the homeowners (the subject property) sustained roof damage as a result of Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. The homeowners planned to replace their damaged roof after their insurance claim had been processed. In the interim, temporary repairs were made to the roof by a roofing contractor the homeowners located through a local Home Depot, Inc., store. This roofing contractor was identified only as the Home Depot roofing contractor. The homeowners were dissatisfied with the work of the Home Depot roofing contractor. In early August 2006, Mrs. Ugokwe mentioned at a beauty salon that the Home Depot roofing contractor had failed to prevent her roof from leaking. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned of the homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the Home Depot roofing contractor. On August 9, 2006, Respondent visited the subject property and told the homeowners that he was a general contractor. Respondent gave them his business card that contained Respondent’s name, address, telephone number, and fax number. In addition, the business card contained the name “South Florida Construction Group” underneath which were the words “State Certified General Contractors” and the following license number “CGC 1510133.” The business card advertised the following services: “Home Improvement & Repairs, New Building Construction, Residential & Commercial Pools, Asphalt Paving & Sealcoating [sic], Site Development & Drainage, and Notary Public Service.” The homeowners believed Respondent to be a licensed general contractor. Respondent and the homeowners discussed Respondent performing work on the damaged roof, including placing blue tarp on the roof (the tarp work) to prevent further leaks until the re-roofing could be completed. They also discussed the subsequent re-roofing of the property. Respondent estimated that the re-roofing would be between $30,000.00 and $33,000.00. After inspecting the subject property, Respondent told the homeowners, among other things, that an electrical connection to a pump on their drain field needed to be repaired. Respondent testified that the electrical connection had been damaged when he backed his truck up while attempting to remove some debris from the subject property. At the meeting on August 9, 2006, Respondent and the homeowners agreed that Respondent would perform the tarp work. On August 11, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent a down- payment of $50.00 cash for the tarp work. On August 12, 2006, Respondent’s crew completed the tarp work. On August 13, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent the sum of $659.28 for the balance of the materials and labor for the tarp work. The total amount paid for the tarp work was $709.28. On August 13, 2006, after he received payment for the tarp work, Respondent produced a building permit application, which he had Mrs. Ogokwe sign in blank. Respondent explained that he had not finished his proposal for the complete re- roofing and that he wanted her to execute a blank permit to expedite the permitting process. On August 14, 2006, Respondent presented a signed permit application to the building department of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pertaining to the re-roofing of the subject property. Ms. Ugowke’s signature had been notarized. When Respondent presented the permit application to the building department, the contractor’s name was listed as F L Construction, Inc. The qualifying contractor’s name was listed as being Charles Lennox with the contracting licensing number CGC 1510133. That was the same number listed on Respondent’s business card. The value of the work was listed as being $6,200.00. On the morning of August 15, 2006, Respondent returned to the subject property with a person Respondent told the homeowners was an electrician. Mrs. Ugokwe asked Respondent how much the repair of the electrical connection would cost before the purported electrician started to work. Respondent told her not to worry since he would add the cost of the electrical work to the cost of re-roofing the subject property. The electrical repair had been made by the time Mrs. Ugokwe returned to the subject property after work that evening. On August 16, 2006, Respondent informed the homeowners that he had secured a building permit and that he had his proposal for the re-roofing. On August 17, 2006, Respondent delivered a package to the homeowners that contained his proposal and the building permit. Respondent’s proposal for the re-roofing was in the total amount of $39,672.92. The homeowners considered this proposal to be unacceptable. On the building permit Respondent gave to the homeowners, the name of the contractor (F L Construction, Inc.) had been covered with white-out and the name South Florida Construction Group had been inserted as the name of the contractor. The building permit was not otherwise altered. On August 19, 2006, Respondent presented the homeowners with a revised contract for the total price of $33,000.00. Mrs. Ugowke confronted Respondent about the discrepancy between the revised proposal ($33,000.00) and the value of the work reflected on the building permit ($6,200.00). Mrs. Ugowke also confronted Respondent about the white-out on the building permit. The homeowners refused to sign the second proposal. Respondent became angry and demanded immediate payment of $750.00 for the repair of the drain field electrical connection. Mrs. Ugokwe counter-offered to pay $150.00, a sum she believed to be fair after her husband priced the cost of the materials used in the repair. Respondent refused to take the counter-offer. By invoices dated August 22 and September 4, 2006, Respondent billed the homeowners for work that included the electrical work. Each invoice was on South Florida Construction Group’s form invoice. Each invoice reflected the general contractor’s license number CGC 1510133, which is Mr. Lennox’s number. Both invoices included a charge of $1,209.28 for installation of “new blue top, nails and labor” although the homeowners had already paid Respondent $709.28 for the same job. The homeowners refused to pay the invoices. Respondent sued them and placed a lien on the subject property in the amount of $3,839.82. In his claim of lien, Respondent affirmed under oath that he furnished the following services to the homeowners: re-roofing, electrical, and repairs. Respondent’s civil suit was dismissed on the merits. Even after that action, Respondent refused the homeowners’ request to remove the lien from their property. On September 15, 2006, Mr. Lennox sent all his sub- contractors a letter asking them to immediately stop using his contractor license number without his express permission. Respondent signed the bottom of the letter acknowledging receipt thereof, even though Respondent was not a sub-contractor. Respondent’s business primarily consists of finding customers for contractors. He deals with a customer, but has a contractor, such as Mr. Lennox, perform the work Respondent’s company has contracted to do. Had the contract with the homeowners in this proceeding gone through, Respondent intended to obtain payment from them, by having F L Construction, Inc., do the actual work. Petitioner has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $277.52. This figure excludes any costs associated with attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and assess investigative costs against Respondent in the amount of $277.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2008.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Lamar "Marty" Campbell was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Mr. Campbell readily acknowledges that he has not had training or education in construction or contracting and has never held any licenses related to any type of construction or contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Johnston Handyman Services did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Lamar Campbell, resides in Gulf Breeze, Florida. After Hurricane Ivan, he and his roommate took in Jeff Johnston, who then resided in Mr. Campbell's home at all times material to this case. Mr. Johnston performed some handywork in Respondent's home. Mr. Johnston did not have a car, a bank account, or an ID. Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston wherever he needed to go. At some point in time, Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston to obtain a handyman's license in Santa Rosa County. Mr. Campbell did not apply for the license with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Campbell's name does not appear on this license. The license is in the name of Johnston's Handyman Services. Mr. Campbell is a neighbor of Kenneth and Tracy Cauley. In the summer of 2005, which was during the period of time when Mr. Johnston resided in Mr. Campbell's home, the Cauleys desired to have repairs done on their home to their hall bathroom, master bathroom, kitchen and laundry room. With the help of Mr. Campbell and others, Mr. Johnston prepared various lists of repairs that the Cauleys wanted performed on their home. In August 2005, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Campbell went to the Cauley's home and the proposed repairs were discussed with the Cauleys. There are documents in evidence dated August and October, 2005, which the Cauleys perceive to be contracts for the repairs to be done in their home. However, these documents are not contracts but are estimates, itemizing both materials and labor. The documents have the word "Estimate" in large bold type at the top and "Johnston Handyman Services" also at the top of the pages. The list of itemized materials includes electrical items, e.g., light fixtures and wiring. Also in evidence are documents dated August and October, 2005, with the word "Invoice" in large bold letters and "Johnston Handyman Services" at the top of the pages. Both Mr. and Mrs. Cauley acknowledge that Mr. Johnston performed the vast majority of the work on their home. However, at Mr. Johnston's request, Mr. Campbell did assist Mr. Johnston in working on the Cauley residence. Between August 5, 2005, and October 11, 2005, Mrs. Cauley wrote several checks totaling $24,861.53. Each check was written out to Marty Campbell or Lamar Campbell.1/ Mr. Campbell acknowledges endorsing these checks but asserts that he cashed them on behalf of Mr. Johnston, who did not have a bank account or identification, and turned the cash proceeds over to Mr. Johnston. Further, Mr. Campbell insists that he did not keep any of these proceeds. The undersigned finds Mr. Campbell's testimony in this regard to be credible. Work on the project ceased before it was finished and Mr. Johnston left the area. Apparently, he cannot be located. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $419.55 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-2764, and $151.25 regarding the allegations relating to case No. 06-3171, for a total of $570.80.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $500 for a violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and requiring Respondent, Lamar Campbell, to pay $570.80 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 9th day of March, 2006.
