The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
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 violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues that were presented for disposition in the above-styled cases were whether Respondent committed certain alleged violations of Chapter 489, F.S. and if so what discipline is appropriate. As stated below, the parties stipulated to the violations, leaving only the issue of discipline to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Gordon Lee Cederberg is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0051346, by the State of Florida. At all times material Respondent was the licensed qualifier for Allied American Roofing Company and was responsible in such capacity for supervising its contracting activities. Allied American Roofing Company was dissolved on November 4, 1988. Stipulated Violations By stipulation, Respondent has admitted the following allegations of the amended administrative complaint in DOAH #91-8319: 3. CASE NO. 0106373 COUNT THREE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Michael Roberts on April 4, 1988 to reroof a home located at 530 Mason Street, Apopka, Florida. The contract price was $942.80 and was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the City of Apopka Building Department. By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, Apopka, Florida, by failing to obtain a permit and inspection is as required by that municipality. 4. CASE NO. 0107766 COUNT FOUR Respondent's license was under suspension by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board between August 10, 1988, and March 3, 1989. Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Nancy Wiegner on September 22, 1988, to reroof a home located at 15 Kentucky Street, St. Cloud, Florida. The contract price was $1,600.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent commenced work under the contract but failed to obtain a permit prior to commencing such work from the City of St. Cloud, Florida, and the municipality issued a stop order on the job. Respondent further engaged in contracting in a municipality where he had not registered. By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., in that he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), F.S., in that he engaged in contracting in a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida, where he had failed to comply with the local licensing requirements for the type of work covered by his registration. COUNT FIVE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a municipality, to wit, St. Cloud, Florida by failing to secure a permit as required by that municipality. COUNT SIX By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT SEVEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting. 8. CASE NO. 0112740 COUNT EIGHT Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Emma Smith on October 3, 1988 to reroof a home at 1911 Mullet Lake Park Road, Geneva, Seminole County, Florida. The contract price was $4,100.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof which continued to leak and caused damage to the home. Respondent has failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he was requested to do so. By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that the Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT NINE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT TEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor the written warranty described in paragraph twenty-six above. COUNT ELEVEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 12. CASE NO. 89-001674 COUNT TWELVE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Thelma Beck to reroof a home at 3910 Pineland Ridge Road, Orlando, Orange County, Florida on January 26, 1989 for a price of $2,270.00. Respondent accepted a $100.00 deposit for said job; the work was not begun and the $100.00 deposit was returned to Mrs. Beck. By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT THIRTEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT FOURTEEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Morris Remmers to reroof a home at 8719 Butternut Boulevard, Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on or about February 23, 1989. The contract price was $2,870.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department. By reason of the foregoing allegation, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded in a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT FIFTEEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT SIXTEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 17. CASE NO. 89-008737 COUNT SEVENTEEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Robert Speirs to reroof a dwelling at 2467 Fieldingwood Road, Maitland, Seminole County, Florida on or about October 14, 1988. The contract price was $3,600.00. Respondent proceeded to work the job but failed to obtain a permit and secure required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly construct a water tight roof which continued to leak. Respondent failed to honor the three (3) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract although he was requested to do so. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., in that Respondent proceeded on a job without obtaining an applicable local building department permit and inspections. COUNT EIGHTEEN By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S., by engaging in contracting while license was suspended. COUNT NINETEEN By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs forty-seven above. COUNTY TWENTY By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 21. CASE NO. 109636 COUNT TWENTY-ONE Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with Daniel J. Doherty to reroof a home at 225 Dover Wood Road, Fern Park, Seminole County, Florida on October 2, 1988, for the contract price of $3,590.00 which was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to construct a watertight roof, which contributed to water damage to the interior of Mr. Doherty's home. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) year material warranty that was part of the contract, although he was requested to do so. By the reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(n), F.S., by proceeding on the job without obtaining a local building department permit and inspections. COUNT TWENTY-TWO By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(j), F.S., by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), F.S. by engaging in contracting while his license was suspended. COUNT TWENTY-THREE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing gross negligence, misconduct, and/or incompetency in the practice of contracting by failing to honor his warranty as described in paragraph fifty-six above. COUNT TWENTY-FOUR By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. COUNT TWENTY-SEVEN Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing contracted with Gloria Viruet to reroof a home at 3010 (renumbered to 3007) Northwood Blvd., Orlando, Orange County, Florida on June 7, 1988. The contract price was $3,500.00. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without receiving a permit and securing required inspections from the Orange County Building Department. The Respondent failed to properly construct a watertight roof and a leak developed after construction. Respondent failed to honor the five (5) year labor and twenty (20) material warranty that was part of the said contract, although he has been requested to do so. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a County, to wit, Orange County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that County. COUNT TWENTY-EIGHT By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting, by failing to honor his written warranty described in paragraphs seventy. COUNTY TWENTY-NINE By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. 28. CASE NO. 0108263 COUNT THIRTY Respondent d/b/a Allied American Roofing Company contracted with John E. Hultin to reroof a home located at 3610 Lakeview, Apopka, Florida on November 7, 1987. The contract price was $2,900.00 and it was paid in full. Respondent proceeded to complete the job without obtaining a permit and securing required inspections from the Seminole County Building Department. Respondent failed to properly install a roof covering, violating Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roofing Coverings adopted by Seminole County and Seminole County Ordinance Section 40.51. The contract provided for a five (5) year labor warranty and a twenty (20) year material warranty. Respondent made several attempts to correct defects but has not fulfilled his warranty as the roof continued to leak. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by failing to obtain a permit and inspections as required by that county. COUNT THIRTY-ONE By reason of the foregoing allegations, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S., in that the Respondent willfully and deliberately disregarded and violated the applicable building code of a county, to wit, Seminole County, Florida by installing the above described roof in a grossly negligent manner and in a manner which violated Section 103 of the Standard Building Code, 1985 Standard of Installation of Roof Covering, adopted by Seminole County and Seminole Ordinances Section 40.51. COUNT THIRTY-TWO By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practices of contracting by failing to honor his written warranty described above. COUNT THIRTY-THREE By reason of the aforesaid allegations, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), F.S., by committing an act or acts of gross negligence, incompetency and/or misconduct in the practice of contracting. FACTS RELATED TO RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED MITIGATION Respondent has been engaged in the practice of roofing contracting for over twenty years. Prior to moving to Florida in 1983 his company worked in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana on large commercial jobs. In 1983 he was employed by the Disney company to do commercial roofing work. After licensure in Florida, Cederberg continued with large public works and commercial jobs in Florida. Sometime around 1988, after a disastrous reversal of fortune, the company filed for bankruptcy. Although he was utterly unfamiliar with the practice of residential roof contracting, particularly the demanding supervision involved, Gordon Cederberg began doing residential work. Around this same time Cederberg's wife left him and he was given custody of three children, ages three, six, and nine. He was emotionally distraught and obtained counseling and financial and other support from his church group. Cederberg's roofing contractor's license was suspended by the Construction Industry Licensing Board from August 1, 1988 to March 1, 1989, during which time he continued to work, due to financial pressures. Warranty work was not done due to his financial and emotional straits. According to Cederberg and his witnesses, he is in the process now of turning his life around. He operates on a smaller scale and is able to handle the work. He has one employee and has been able to avoid new complaints. He is still financially unable to provide restitution to the customers previously harmed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the parties' stipulation with regard to dismissals and admissions described above be accepted by the Board and that the following penalty be imposed: a) 1000.00 fine; one year suspension, with this penalty suspended during, and removed upon successful completion of, probation with an appropriate timetable for restitution and the requirement that appropriate continuing education courses are completed; and payment of costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 31st day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 William S. Cummins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack Snow, Esquire 407 Wekiva Spings Road, Suite 229 Longwood, FL 32779
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent's contractor license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James Cooper, was at all times material to this action licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC0066905. Mr. Cooper's license is currently classified "Inactive, Issued (09/05/97)." Around March 1, 1996, Marshall Moran was contacted by Julia Jones regarding repairs to the leaky roof on her home located at 209 Cresent Drive, DeFuniak Springs Walton County, Florida. Ms. Jones' home was over one hundred years old with a steep metal roof. The roof she wished repaired was over the enclosed sleeping porch of her house. Over the last ten years, she had various contractors attempt to fix the leak in the sleeping porch roof. These attempts occurred, on average, more than one time per year. The leak always returned. Marshall Moran is an unlicensed and unregistered roofing contractor. Mr. Moran has been a roofing contractor since before the licensure requirements for contractors became law. He elected not to become licensed under those statutes. However, he did have the experience and skills necessary to repair Ms. Jones' roof. Marshall Moran discussed the job with Ms. Jones. Mr. Moran recommended the entire section of the roof be rebuilt and described the anticipated repairs. Ms. Jones would not allow the entire section of roof to be repaired. She thought only the small section where the leak was apparent needed repair. Unknown to Ms. Jones and prior to beginning the work, Mr. Moran contacted Respondent to tell him of Ms. Jones' job and to see if Respondent wanted to do the job. Respondent couldn't do the job with his crew but offered to allow Mr. Moran to "work under his license." Respondent was pursuing a large commercial roofing contract around the same time as the events at issue here. He wanted to keep Moran's crew together in order to be able to complete the large commercial job. He held the crew together by enabling Moran to do the construction at Julia Jones' residence in consideration for taking legal responsibility for the Jones' job. Respondent did not hire Mr. Moran as his employee. Respondent knew Mr. Moran was not registered or certified to practice contracting. He also knew Mr. Moran was well qualified to perform the work on the Jones' job. Respondent admits that he knew that he should not pull permits for anyone, but that he did it just this one time in order to keep the crew together. On March 15, 1996, Respondent obtained City of DeFuniak Springs, Florida, building permit number 1379 for the roof repairs to Ms. Jones' residence. On the application for said building permit, Respondent represented himself (doing business as Cooper Roofing and Repair) as the contractor of record on the aforesaid project. Respondent intended to and did eventually take legal responsibility for the Jones' job. However, he did not supervise Mr. Moran or his crew. Additionally, Ms. Jones was never informed of Respondent's involvement. More importantly, Ms. Jones never contracted with Respondent for either Respondent or his company to perform roof repairs on her home. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Moran provided an estimate for repair of the portion of Ms. Jones' roof she felt needed repair. The estimate bears the name of "AAA Metal Works" and "Marshall Moran." AAA Metal Works was Mr. Moran's company. The estimate does not reference either Respondent or his company. The estimated cost to repair Ms. Jones roof was $2,785. Based on the estimate, Ms. Jones entered into a contract with Mr. Moran and AAA Metal Works to perform the repairs to her roof discussed above. Moran and his crew substantially completed the repairs to Ms. Jones' roof in a few days. However, the roof continued to leak after Moran and his crew ended their work. The continuing leak was not due to any incompetence on the part of Respondent or Moran. Ms. Jones paid for the repairs with two checks made out to AAA Metal Works. The checks were in the amounts of $3,500 and $4,350. Respondent did not receive any of the money for the Jones' job. His only expense was the fee for the building permit. All other expenses were paid for by Mr. Moran. At no time during the formation or performance of the contract with Marshall Moran did Julia Jones have any contact with or knowledge of involvement by Respondent. In fact, Respondent only drove by the job site one time. As indicated, the roof continued to leak. Ms. Jones contacted Mr. Moran on approximately 5-6 occasions notifying him of the continued leaks. Mr. Moran would return to Ms. Jones' home and inspect the problems, but was unable to stop the leaks to Jones' satisfaction. It is not clear whether Mr. Moran kept Respondent informed of these continued service calls. Approximately one year after completion of the initial repairs on Ms. Jones' roof, Respondent received a call from Ms. Jones' tenant and friend, Sharon Jenks, who called posing as a potential new client. Ms. Jenks had gotten Respondent's name from the building permit. Ms. Jenks called Respondent because the house was still leaking approximately one year after the repair was done and intervening visits by Marshall Moran had not fixed the problem. Ms. Jenks arranged for Respondent to visit Ms. Jones' home. Respondent did not recognize the house when he arrived and drove past it. When Ms. Jenks showed Respondent the building permit bearing his name, Respondent showed surprise. He returned the next day with Mr. Moran. Respondent, Mr. Moran, Ms. Jenks and Ms. Jones all met regarding the continued leaking. Respondent and Mr. Moran told Ms. Jones that the metal on the roof was "bad" and needed to be replaced to stop the leaks on the "sleeping porch." Understandably, Ms. Jones did not want to deal any further with Mr. Moran or Respondent and would not permit them to make the recommended necessary repairs. Ms. Jones sued both Respondent and Mr. Moran in a civil action styled: Julia R. Jones v. James K. Cooper and Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0040-CC, in the County Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. Following a judge trial, a Final Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent and Mr. Moran on December 9, 1997. Mr. Moran was charged with contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127, Florida Statutes (1995), in State of Florida v. Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0549-CF, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. That charge was dismissed by Circuit Judge Lewis Lindsey on February 3, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board should find Respondent guilty of violating Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes, and impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Willams and Holz, P.A. 458 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LaDon Dewrell, Esquire 207 Florida Place, Southeast Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Roger A. Lollis was licensed as a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto, having been issued license number RC-0030088. His address of record on file with Petitioner has at all times been 912 Tuskawilla Street, Clearwater, Florida, and this is the address to which notice of the hearing was sent. The hearing notice was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the post office for any reason. Lollis has been the subject of two previous Final Orders imposing disciplinary actions by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. John P. Terranova was first licensed as a registered specialty contractor in August, 1985, having been issued license number RX-0049212 as the qualifying agent for Stretch and Seal Roofing Systems, Inc. Terranova and his wife are the only shareholders of this corporation, and he is the Chairman of its Board of Directors, as well as its President. On November 15, 1984, Mrs. Judith Fugitt executed a contract with Stretch and Seal Roofing Systems, Inc., through its authorized agent, Scott St. John, for work to be performed on her residence at 1636 Bravo Drive, Clearwater, Florida, in order to correct a problem she was having with leaks. The work to be performed was specified in the contract to include: clean and mildewcide roof surface; inspect for water damage beneath tiles that are cracked or broken; replace broken and cracked tiles as necessary; flow coat to seal chimney flashing against leaks; apply 15 year Stretch and Seal coating in color to be specified by home owner; and color to be applied approximately 2 weeks after Stretch and Seal is applied. The contract further stated that the expense of any labor or materials for work not specified in the contract, such as to replace rotten wood, would be the responsibility of the homeowner. The Fugitt contract provided a 15 year warranty and guarantee and stated, "All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices." The contract price for the work to be done on the Fugitt's house was $2500, which was to be paid $500 at commencement of the job, $1500 upon completion of the application of Stretch and Seal, and the balance upon completion of painting of the roof tiles. Although Terranova denies meeting with the Fugitts at the time this contract was executed, Mr. Elmer Fugitt testified that Terranova was present and gave his personal guarantee that the work would be done as specified in the contract and would correct the leak problem. Terranova also represented to Elmer Fugitt that he had 30 years experience in the roofing business. It is specifically found, based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, that the testimony of Elmer Fugitt concerning Terranova's personal involvement in this transaction on or about November 15, 1984, is credible, and Terranova's denial thereof is not. Shortly after November 15, 1984, work commenced on the Fugitt roof, and some rotten wood was discovered which needed to be replaced. Tim Egner, another authorized representative of Stretch and Seal Roofing Systems, Inc., then prepared another proposal for repair and replacement of the rotten wood, which Judith Fugitt also accepted. The contract price for this work was $482.50. Both St. John and Egner worked full-time for Terranova's company, with his knowledge and under his control. Terranova referred to Egner as his "operational manager" who handled customer complaints. The Fugitts paid Terranova, through Stretch and Seal Roofing Systems, Inc., a total of $2981.00 between November 27 and December 23, 1984, for work performed on their roof. This was the full amount due under the November 15, 1984 contract and also the subsequent contract for repair and replacement of rotten wood. In late December, 1984, all tiles were in place, the Stretch and Seal coating had been applied, but the tiles had not been painted. In January, 1985, the Fugitt roof continued to leak and Elmer Fugitt therefore contacted Terranova's company. After repeated contacts, Terranova arranged for Roger Lollis to inspect the roof. On March 12, 1985, Lollis obtained a permit from the Pinellas County Department of Building Inspection for roof repair on the Fugitt residence. Lollis never discussed what he was doing with the Fugitts, but was simply assigned to the job by Terranova. Mr. Fugitt saw Lollis on his roof one time. After tearing up a section of tiles and leaving a portion of the Fugitt roof exposed, Lollis walked off the job and never returned. Thereafter, Elmer Fugitt reset the tiles himself after repeated efforts by his attorney to contact Terranova had failed. The Fugitt roof has never been painted although they contracted and paid for this to be done by Terranova's company. At the hearing, Terranova denied his company either contracted for, or performed, roofing work. It was his testimony that he was only obligated to do painting, and it was Lollis' and the Fugitts' responsibility to do the roofing work. Terranova's testimony is not credible because it is contrary to the terms of the contracts the Fugitts executed with his company, and is outweighed by the convincing testimony of Elmer Fugitt. Terranova contracted for and did perform, through his company, roofing work on the Fugitt residence at a time before he was licensed as a roofing contractor. The roofing work performed by Terranova for the Fugitts would be found to be incompetent and would constitute misconduct in the practice of contracting if he had been licensed at the time. He did not repair the leaks, he accepted full payment for a job that was not completed, he avoided or failed to return repeated calls from and on behalf of the Fugitts, and he allowed their roof to be left exposed to the elements after Lollis walked off the job. Terranova failed to honor the guarantee set forth in his contract with the Fugitts. Lollis performed work on the Fugitt roof at the request and direction of Terranova in March, 1985, at a time Terranova was not a licensed roofing contractor. He did obtain a local permit, but did not call for any inspection. In fact, he walked off the job and left the Fugitt roof exposed. Lollis' actions constitute incompetence and misconduct in the practice of contracting, but there is no evidence he knew that Terranova was not licensed at the time. Lollis was not the qualifying agent for Stretch and Seal. Pinellas County building code ordinances require a permit for any roof repair that exceeds $50 and for any general construction that exceeds $500. Terranova failed to obtain any required permits for the Fugitt job. A final inspection on any roofing job for which a permit has been issued is required, but Lollis never called for one after he obtained the permit in March, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against John P. Terranova since it has not been shown that the Board has jurisdiction over him under Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, for matters occurring prior to his having been licensed. Finding that Roger A. Lollis has violated Sections 489.129(1)(d),(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, and therefore imposing a six month suspension and $1000 administrative fine against him based not only on the facts found herein concerning his actions regarding the Fugitt roof, but also the fact that this is the third disciplinary action taken against his license by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John P. Terranova 3 Birdie Lane Palm Harbour, Florida 33528 Roger A. Lollis 912 Tuskawilla Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James S. Stroz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC 0034849 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was first licensed in November, 1979, and at that time qualified under the name of Stroz Roofing. A change in status application was later filed to qualify Stroz Roofing, Inc., 13696 Exotica Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida. Although licensed as a roofing contractor, respondent's firm only performs work on wood shakes or shingles. He does not do hot roofs or flat roofs, which is another speciality in the roofing business. While working for a roofing firm in1979, Stroz became acquainted with Lacy Davis, an unlicensed individual who specialized in flat roof work. When Stroz started his own roofing company in 1983, he began contracting out the flat roof work to other licensed roofing contractors. Lacy Davis learned of this and approached Stroz offering his services on the flat roof work. Stroz knew Davis was unlicensed and would not initially hire him, but Davis gave him a business card of Henry Haywood, a licensed roofing contractor in Palm Beach County and explained he and Haywood were partners and that the work and permitting would be done under Haywood's license. In actuality, Haywood had not authorized Davis to use his business cards, or topull permits under his name. Indeed, Haywood had no knowledge of Davis' activities. Without verifying the truth of Davis' representations, and accepting them instead at face value, Stroz agreed to hire Davis to perform his flat roof work. Between January 20, 1983 and September 30, 1984, Stroz performed some twenty-one jobs using Davis for the flat roof work. At all times, Stroz was under the impression that the work was being done under Haywood's license and that his activities were lawful. Stroz made all checks for the work payable to Lacy Davis or Lacy Davis Roofing. He did this because Davis told him he frequently had difficulty reaching Haywood to cash the checks, and because the business bank account was in Davis' own name. A few of the checks carried a notation at the bottom that payment was for work by Haywood Roofing, but most made no reference to Haywood. Stroz pulled all permits on their jobs reflecting that Haywood Roofing was the licensed contractor. Of the twenty invoices given by Davis to Stroz for the twenty-one jobs, only four were on invoices printed with Haywood's name. The remainder had various other names including "Lacy Davis Roofing," "Lacy Davis" and "Lacy Davis and Benny Guy Roofing Contractors." None of these were licensed as roofing contractors by petitioner. In June, 1984, a member of Davis' crew was injured and it was discovered Davis had no insurance. Stroz's insurance paid the claim, but an investigation ultimately determined that Davis was unlicensed and had no authority to act on Haywood's behalf. This led to the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Respondent has fully cooperated with petitioner, and in fact voluntarily disclosed one job with Davis that petitioner's investigation had failed to uncover. He admits he was negligent in not checking out the representations of Davis, but he never intended to violate the law. No consumer was harmed in any way by Davis' work, and there are no complaints concerning the quality of the jobs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and that he be fined $500 to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order rendered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor and a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license numbers CC C027427 and CB C023123. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, MCI was a corporation engaged in roofing contracting, and Respondent was its qualifying agent. A re-roofing job by MCI on the shared roof of two townhouses located at 105 and 106 Woodland Road, the Village of Palm Springs, Florida (the Village), is at issue in this proceeding. These two townhouses are part of a building consisting of four townhouses. All four townhouses have a shared roof. Essentially, the work by MCI was to re-roof half of the entire roof. At the times material to this proceeding Lawrence Gauer owned the townhouse at 105 Woodland Road (Gauer townhouse) and RCM owned the townhouse at 106 Woodland Road (RCM townhouse). Both townhouses are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Village. Mr. Malt, Respondent's brother, owns RCM. Mr. Malt is a certified general contractor, developer, and real estate broker. Mr. Malt has extensive experience building townhouses, having built over 4,000 dwelling units, including the townhouses where the work at issue in this proceeding occurred. Mr. Malt also owns the company that manufactured the engineered pre-stressed concrete structural members that served as the foundation for the roof at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Malt is not a licensed roofing contractor, and his general contractor’s license does not authorize him to perform roofing work. In the fall of 1998, Mr. Malt determined that the RCM townhouse should be re-roofed. Mr. Malt contacted the owners of the other three townhouses to determine whether they wanted to re-roof their portions of the shared roof. Mr. Gauer decided to have his part of the shared roof re-roofed with Mr. Malt, but the owners of the other two townhouses declined. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent authorized Mr. Malt to act as an agent for MCI. On January 7, 1999, MCI contracted with Mr. Gauer and with RCM to perform the work at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Gauer signed the contract in his capacity as owner of his townhouse. Mr. Malt signed the contract on behalf of RCM as owner of its townhouse. Mr. Malt also signed the contract on behalf of MCI in his capacity as its agent. The total amount of the contract was $5,000, with each owner (Mr. Gauer and RCM) being responsible for payment of $2,500. The contract required each owner to pay $1,250 upon execution of the contract with the balance due within five days ". . . of completion (inspection by the Village . . .)". On or about January 7, 1999, Mr. Gauer paid $1,850 to MCI. There was no explanation as to why Mr. Gauer paid more than the contract required on that date. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract, and the contract did not contain a written statement explaining the rights of consumers under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. On January 13, 1999, Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, applied to the Village for the requisite building permits for the subject work. On January 13, 1999, the Village issued two separate permits, one for each townhouse, authorizing the re- roofing work contemplated by the subject contract. Each permit reflected that the valuation of the work was $2,500. Consistent with the applicable building code, the Village's building department issued a notice with each permit that because the roof was flat, the roof had to provide positive drainage to prevent the ponding of water or the roof had to be constructed of specific water retaining material. Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, hired the crew that performed the roofing work at issue in this proceeding. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Malt supervised the roofing crew that worked on the two townhouses. Prior to beginning work on the roof, Mr. Malt checked weather forecasts for the area. On January 13, 1999, the roofing crew removed the existing roofing material from the roof. At the end of the workday, the crew covered the exposed roof with plastic sheeting commonly referred to as Visqueen. For a flat roof, the accepted standard in the roofing industry is to remove only as much roofing material as can be replaced with finished roofing material the same day. A plastic sheeting such as Visqueen is inadequate to protect an exposed flat roof from a heavy rainfall. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof on January 13, 1999, constituted negligence. On the night of January 13, 1999, an unexpected heavy rainfall event occurred. As a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing extensive damage. The work crew spent most of January 14, 1999, cleaning up following the rain event the previous day. As of Friday, January 15, 1999, the roof was still exposed. On that date, MCI installed a base coat of hot asphalt and insulation, which was inadequate to waterproof the flat roof. At the end of the workday, the roofing crew covered the roof with Visqueen and left for the weekend. On January 16, 1999, additional heavy rains occurred. Again, as a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing additional damage to both townhouses. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof constituted negligence. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance company paid his policy limits for emergency services and repairs to his townhouse. The repairs were completed on or about February 19, 1999. Mr. Gauer subrogated his rights against MCI to his insurance company. There was a civil action pending by the insurance company against MCI at the time of the final hearing based on the subrogation rights. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance did not cover damages to his or Mr. Poitivent's personal property. The value of those losses was not established. During the week beginning January 18, 1999, MCI installed new roofing material on the roof. In doing so, the roofing crew covered the clothes dryer vent for each townhouse with roofing material. As a result, Mr. Gauer's clothes dryer did not vent properly, and he paid an independent contractor $250.00 to inspect and clean out the dryer vent. MCI promptly corrected the deficient work after Mr. Gauer told Mr. Malt that his dryer vent had been covered during the re-roofing. The accepted standard in the roofing industry is that roof vents are not to be covered over without some specific instruction to do so. MCI's failure to adhere to that standard constituted negligence. MCI asserted that it completed the roofing work in 1999. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Craig Johns was a building inspector for the Village. Mr. Johns inspected the subject roof on the following dates in 1999: June 15, July 15, August 12, and August 30. Following each inspection, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not pass inspection. Among other deficiencies, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not provide positive drainage, which was required for a flat roof covered in asphalt. 2/ As of the final hearing, MCI had not obtained a passing final inspection from the Village's building department. Mr. Malt established that Respondent had just cause to believe that MCI had completed all work on the project in 1999. Consequently, Respondent is not guilty of abandoning the work within the meaning of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997). As of June 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, totaled $794.23. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, V, and VI of the Administrative Complaint. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count I is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count II is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count V is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count VI is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay Mr. Gauer restitution in the amount of $250. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay investigative costs in the amount of $794.23. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2001, 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 5th day of November, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harry Clinton Brackin, is a licensed registered roofing contractor holding license number RC0045880. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Respondent is the owner and licensee for Brackin Roofing Company. Sometime around February 20, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Arebelle S. Hughes, an elderly woman, to re-roof her house and remodel the front porch of her home located in Vernon, Florida. In addition to the work performed pursuant to the contract, there were verbal construction agreements between Mrs. Hughes and Respondent for the remodeling of the back porch, removing and closing out windows, replacing and framing doors, placing molding in the kitchen and various other carpentry repairs. Ms. Hughes asked Respondent to perform the additional work because she was well satisfied with the roofing job done by Respondent and she was unable to find a licensed contractor willing to come to Vernon and perform the work she wanted done. Respondent, in fact, informed Ms. Hughes he was not a contractor and in his opinion she needed a contractor. However, Ms. Hughes still wanted Respondent to do the additional work for the above reasons. Later, Mrs. Hughes became very dissatisfied with the quality of Respondent's remodeling work and advised the Respondent of her complaints. However, the evidence disclosed that her complaints were not well communicated and Respondent did generally try to meet Ms. Hughes' requests. None of Respondent's work constituted a hazardous condition and no evidence was offered which indicated an actual building code violation. The Respondent has not corrected the work. Mr. Harold Benjamin, an expert in the area of general contracting, reviewed the contract, the job site, the Respondent's license, and the pertinent Florida Statutes. Mr. Benjamin's expert opinion was that the Respondent's contracting job with Mrs. Hughes definitely exceeded the scope of Respondent's roofing license. Mr. Benjamin added that the carpentry work itself demonstrated an unfitness in the area of carpentry contracting and that Respondent's work did not in some respects meet the minimum carpentry standards for the industry. However, Respondent's work was not so bad as to constitute gross negligence in the area of contracting. This is particularly true since Respondent disclosed to Ms. Hughes that he was not a contractor and that the work she wanted done should be performed by one. Respondent's duty was thereby limited to a duty to perform reasonably given his abilities. Respondent did meet that duty. Respondent was disciplined for the same type of violation in 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board impose an administrative fine of $2,500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2721 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2 and of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except as to the finding pertaining to gross negligence which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry Clinton Brackin Route 1, Box 2470 Chipley, Florida 32428 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
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.
