Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Denver Sammons, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered air conditioning contractor, Class B, and Respondent qualified Denny's Air Conditioning Service under his license. At the January 8, 1985 meeting of the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians, (Board), the Board heard a complaint by Port Distributors, a local air conditioning supplier, to the effect that Mr. Sammons had submitted two checks to that company in August, 1982, both of which were returned for insufficient funds and that neither had been redeemed. The Board decided to notify the Respondent of the complaint against him and give him an opportunity to respond at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board which was held on March 12,1985. At that Board meeting, at which Respondent was present, Mr. Julius M. Farinhouse, Jr., representative of Port Distributors, outlined its complaint against the Respondent detailing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bad checks and the need by the recipient to secure a judgment against the Respondent for the amount represented by the checks. There was evidence presented to the Board that these checks issued to Port Distributors were not the only checks written by Respondent that were not properly and promptly honored. Respondent testified before the Board regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the checks and contested the seriousness of the offense alleging that when notified of the bad checks, he had reimbursed Port Distributors for the majority of the sum covered by the two dishonored checks, but this repayment was applied toward current accounts rather than in satisfaction of the bad checks, contra to the intention of the Respondent. Having considered both the testimony presented by the complainants and the Respondent, the Board, that same date, March 12, 1985, nevertheless entered a Final Order finding that the passing of bad checks to Port Distributors by the Respondent constituted an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or lack of integrity in the operation of Respondent's contracting business; that he failed to make any effort to pay the outstanding bill owed to Port Distributors; and that this misconduct constituted a failure to comply with the standards of Section 9-7, Broward County Code. As a result, the Board ordered the Respondent's Broward County Certificate of Competency revoked that date. The Order of the Board made provision for Respondent to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Competency but no such application has ever been made. For several years prior to the issuing of the Certificate of Competency by Broward County, Respondent had, under the old procedure, held a Certificate of Competency issued by the City of Hollywood, Florida and had, each year, renewed that Certificate upon the payment of a $30.00 fee. The Certificate issued by the city was renewed effective January 1, 1985 and reflected on its face, that it was good until December 31, 1985. However, when the Broward County Board of Mechanical Technicians began to issue its county-wide Certificate of Competency, all prior city-issued certificates were declared to be null and void. As a result, though Respondent continued to hold his Hollywood certificate, it was ineffective and he should not have been allowed to renew it by the city, since he was, at that time, covered by a county Certificate of Competency. By action of the Board on March 12, 1985, Respondent's Board (County- wide) Certificate of Competency, which was the only valid certificate he held at the time, was revoked. Because of this revocation, Respondent was, thereafter, allowed to work as a journeyman for another Master Technician but could not contract in his own name or for his own business nor could he pull building permits from any county or city building office. Notwithstanding this, on or about August 12, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, with Isabel Parra. This contract was to remove her old heating and cooling system in her residence at 2207 North 46th Avenue in Hollywood and to install a new unit to consist of a three ton gas furnace with air conditioning coil and condenser. Pursuant to the contract, Respondent did, in fact, remove the old unit and install a new one. However, he did not pull a building permit with the county or city building office and on August 26, 1985, officials of the City of Hollywood issued a Notice of Violation to Mrs. Parra reflecting that Denny's Air Conditioning installed a central air conditioning unit without permit and without possessing a valid contractor's license. Mrs. Parra further contended that when she turned on the unit, the noise it made was extremely loud and not to her satisfaction. Evidence introduced by both Petitioner and Respondent, however, indicates that the Respondent installed the new unit exactly as the old unit had been installed. Mrs. Parra testified that she had not heard the old unit in its heating mode and therefore had no idea whether it made as much noise as the new unit did. In any event, she withheld some of the funds that were due Respondent until such time as he agreed to have someone come out and correct the problem. It has been several months since the parties agreed to this and Respondent still has not corrected the problem. He contends that the contractor with whom he arranged to correct Ms. Parra's problem has been unable to get with her since she works during the days and is home only in the evenings. In any event, though not charged as a violation, it would appear that Respondent has failed to follow through on his work and on his commitment to complete an acceptable installation for Mrs. Parra. Petitioner also alleges that on or about June 25, 1985, the Broward County Consumer Protection Board issued a cease and desist order to Respondent for representing that he was qualified to perform contracting work in Broward County without possessing local competency. No evidence was introduced, however, to satisfy or establish this allegation. Because of the dispute between Mrs. Parra and the Respondent, and her dissatisfaction with the quality of his installation, she filed a complaint with the Board and on December 10, 1985, the Board again met and heard her testimony and that of Mr. Sammons. As a result, on December 20, 1985, the Board found that Respondent's contract with Mrs. Parra was based on a representation to her that he was a contractor when in fact the prior action of the Board had denied him this status. The Board further found that he failed to pull a permit for the installation of the unit in Ms. Parra's home and thereafter failed to comply with the warranty given to her under the contract executed by him on August 12, 1985, nor did he provide her with the rebate promised. Based on these Findings of Fact, the Board concluded that the Respondent willfully, deliberately, or negligently disregarded or violated the provisions of the South Florida Building Code; that he contracted to act as a qualifying agent for his business when he was not certified to do so; that he contracted and did work which was not within the description of the class (journeyman) for which he had been certified by the Board; and that he abandoned without legal excuse a construction project in which he was engaged and under contract to complete. As a result, the Board ordered that his journeyman's Certificate of Competency be revoked effective that day. Once the journeyman's certificate was taken away, Respondent was not authorized to act as an air conditioning installer or contractor under any circumstances. Notwithstanding this, on February 20, 1986, Respondent again, acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, entered into a contract with Dr. Eisenstein to install a new two-ton split system in the doctor's home in Hollywood for a total price of $2,530.00. Since Dr. Eisenstein had previously dealt with Respondent on several occasions and found him to be reliable, the doctor responded to Respondent's request for an advance by giving him a $2,000.00 deposit. The contract was not actually finalized until late in March, 1986 and work was to begin in early April. However, on April 1, 1986, Respondent called Dr. Eisenstein and advised him that his truck, in which was stored the equipment for installation into the doctor's home and the money bag which contained the balance of the doctor's downpayment had been illegally repossessed by Respondent's bank the night before. As a result, Mr. Sammons indicated he would not be able to begin the project but assured the doctor that someone else would do so starting at the end of the week. In fact, no work was ever started by the Respondent or anyone else on his behalf. After several days, when Dr. Eisenstein attempted to call Respondent, he found that Respondent's phone had been disconnected and when on April 5, 1986, the date promised by Respondent, no one came to begin work on the project, the doctor began undertook an investigation which led to the ultimate contact of the doctor by the Respondent. To reach Respondent, Dr. Eisenstein had checked with Respondent's business landlord and when Respondent finally called the doctor back, he was irate that the doctor had done so. During that conversation Dr. Eisenstein advised Respondent that he should either repay the money advanced or do the work. In fact, neither was done. During the month of April, 1986, Dr. Eisenstein sent Respondent two letters by certified mail requesting that he either refund the advance payment or do the work promised under the contract. One letter was returned undelivered. The other was apparently delivered. When neither letter resulted in any satisfaction, the doctor, in early June, 1986, sent a letter of complaint to DPR outlining the situation. Respondent tells an incredible tale regarding the facts and circumstances which led up to the dispute with Dr. Eisenstein. Admitting that he was somewhat in debt to his bank, he claims that certain payments that he made to the bank with part of the money advanced by the doctor was used improperly by the bank and applied toward other obligations rather than the debt on his truck. He claims the repossession of the truck was illegal and improper because, by the payment mentioned above, if properly applied, the truck would have been paid off. This story is almost a duplicate of that regarding the excuse for the bad checks to Port Distributors. Respondent further contends that that bank thereafter engaged in a conspiracy against him to bring about his financial ruin; that the bank hired several individuals to assault him and his wife outside their church; that he has received several threats of bodily harm from the bank; and that all of this has resulted in his filing suit against the bank in local court. This story was told by the Respondent under oath. However, Respondent failed to provide any names or documentation to support this with the exception of the name of the bank allegedly involved. When asked where copies of the documentation were that would support his allegations, he responded with, "Oh, they're at home in a file." In short, it would appear that Respondent's story is a gossamer of fantasy which, while possibly believed at this point by Respondent, has very little basis in fact. Respondent also contends, for example, that Dr. Eisenstein requested that he not pull a permit for the work to be done at his house because he did not want city officials for one reason or another to know that the work was being done. This information was not brought out through Dr. Eisenstein, but rather through the testimony of the Respondent. None of these stories were backed up by any document or supporting evidence. Consequently, it is found that while Respondent may well believe what he is saying, his are in fact, incredible. Respondent was disciplined on two separate occasions by the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians and Respondent has not shown that these actions were procedurally violative of due process. Consequently, they are found to have occurred and to be valid. Respondent was not permitted to attack the circumstances leading up to the action by the board and the Hearing Officer declined to relitigate the factual propriety of the Board's two actions. Once having lost his Master Technician's license, Respondent was no longer authorized to pull building permits in Broward County and notwithstanding that, nonetheless did commence work for Mrs. Parra on a job which, under the ordinances of the county, required a permit be pulled. He also failed to live up to the terms of a warranty inherent in his contract with her. The evidence also established that subsequent to the withdrawal of his Journeyman's certificate, he nonetheless entered into a contract for the installation of a system in Dr. Eisenstein's house and accepted a substantial advance payment which he neither returned nor earned when he failed to begin any work on the project. In the opinion of the Petitioner's expert, Respondent's conduct in this instance was totally unprofessional and unethical. In fact, as a professional, if the circumstances occurred as alleged by Respondent, he should have made immediate arrangements to in some way make restitution of the funds to his client or have the work done by someone else. The evidence here shows that Respondent made no effort to make some accommodation to the client. He entered no promissory note (Respondent claims that as a gentleman, he has no need of notes as his word is sufficient); he made no attempt to let the client know what had happened; and in short, it appears that Respondent was out to make a quick buck (the expert's phrase) without attempting to in any way satisfy his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a registered air conditioning contractor be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Denver Sammons Post Office Box 7437 4614 Madison Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Ary, was a licensed air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CA CO36888. On October 20, 1987, a company named Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Lauderhill Mall, Lauderhill, Florida, to install three 3 1/2 ton air conditioning units for the sum of $7,875. Jenni Temp was to provide the three separate permits required by the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the installation. Joseph Roturra, the owner of Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., and Respondent had, prior to October 20, 1987, entered into negotiations whereby Respondent would become employed by Jenni Temp as its qualifying agent so that Jenni Temp could engage in air conditioning contracting. Those negotiations ended before any formal efforts were made to have Jenni Temp licensed with Respondent as the qualifying agent. In late 1987, before his negotiations with Jenni Temp broke down, Respondent signed three blank application forms for electrical and air conditioning permits. Respondent then gave the three signed application forms to Joseph Roturra. Respondent knew that neither Joseph Roturra nor his company was licensed for air conditioning work. Joseph Roturra completed the signed blank application forms he received from Respondent and made application with the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the three permits required for the job at Lauderhill Mall. The name of the applicant on the applications as completed by Joseph Roturra was All Star Service, Inc. Respondent served as the qualifying agent for All Star Service, Inc. The City of Lauderhill did not issue the permits for which Roturra applied using the forms signed by Respondent because permits had been previously issued to another company for the same job. Jenni Temp completed the Lauderhill Mall job without the permits required by local law and without further assistance from Respondent. Respondent did not supervise the job at Lauderhill Mall. There was no final inspection of the work as required by local law.
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 having violated Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes and which imposes an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that there not be a separate fine for the violation of Section 489.129(1) (m), Florida Statutes, because the conduct that establishes that violation is the same conduct which constitutes the violation for which the administrative fine is recommended. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Steven Ary 1217 N. E 4th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33306
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes as set out in the January 18, 1984 Administrative Complaint. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Louis P. Gilner, Peter Max Christianson, Jr., Catherine M. Edwards, John Owen Thompson, Jack W. Rainford, and Annie Gilner and had admitted in evidence Petitioner's exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Exhibit 2 is clearly hearsay and inadmissible but has be considered as a stipulation of counsel and is discussed under the Conclusions of Law as a jurisdictional argument of counsel. Neither Respondent nor Chester A. Trow, Esquire appeared for formal hearing. Petitioner filed transcript of the proceedings November 14, 1985 and proposed findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on November 18, 1985, and waived time for entry of this recommended Order. These proposals have been considered in this recommended Order and are ruled upon in the Appendix hereto.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Patton N. Roberts, is a certified general contractor, license number CG C015023 and qualifying agent for Roberts Construction and Development, Inc. Although Respondent failed to renew his license in June, 1985, and his license is now on inactive status, it can be renewed at any time before June 1988 by payment of late renewal fee. In June 1982, Respondent entered into a contract for $68,242.00 with Louis Gilner to construct home in Putnam County, Florida. The charges against Respondent arise out of the use of the funds associated with construction of this home pursuant to contract. On June 30, 1982, Respondent obtained Putnam County building permit #6107 for the construction. Respondent commenced construction and completed the home to the dry-in stage by approximately early August 1982. Mr. Gilner paid Respondent a $50.00 deposit and two "draw" payments of $20,472.00 each, making total payments to Respondent of $40,995.00. These "draws" against the total amount of $62,242.00 which was contracted-for were paid on July 20, 1982 and August 5, 1982, respectively. Approximately July 15, 1982, Respondent ordered trusses for the Gilner residence from Landmark Truss, Inc. The trusses were delivered on July 23, 1982. Respondent failed to pay for the trusses, although he had received the draw payment for the trusses. Landmark Trusses, Inc. filed a lien on the Gilner residence for $2,490.00. On July 9, 1982, Respondent ordered 16 loads of fill dirt for the Gilner residence from Chesser & Strickland Sand Co., Inc. The Respondent's failure to pay $950.00 for the dirt and the labor in spreading it resulted in a lien being filed against the Gilner property for that amount. Mr. Jack Rainford testified that Respondent subcontracted the heating and air conditioning work to A-1 Air and A-1 plumbing for $5,806.00 ($3,550 plumbing and $2,556 air conditioning); that Respondent paid A-1 Air and A-1 Plumbing the first draw on the plumbing in the amount of $1,128.00 on August 17, 1982; that the Gilners had, on January 3, 1983, paid A-1 Air and A-1 Plumbing $1,128.00 on the air and $1,183.34 on the plumbing, and that Respondent has failed to pay $1,183.34 on the plumbing and $1,128.00 on the air conditioning. No matter how these figures are worked, they do not fairly support Mr. Rainford's conclusion that Respondent only owes A-1 $1,183.34 plus $1,12800. It is more mathematically logical that the original total owed was $6,106.00; the Respondent paid $1,128.00 on August 17, 1982 reducing the remaining amount to $5,806.00; thereafter Mr. and Mrs. Gilner, on January 3, 1983, paid A-1 $1,128.00 for the air conditioning work and $1,183.34 for the plumbing package and that Respondent actually owes the Gilners $2,311.34 for their having to pay twice, and owes A-1 $3,464.66; which is the balance of A-1's bill after all payments the Respondent and the Gilners have been deducted. However, the undersigned will accept Mr. Rainford's unrefuted testimony that Respondent owes A-1 only $1,128.00 plus $1,183.34 for a total of only $2,311.34. On or about September 6, 1982, Gilner terminated Respondent for lack of progress toward completion. At that date of termination the Respondent and his crew had been absent from the premises for five to six weeks. At the time of the Respondent's termination, the project was, by Mr. Gilner's estimation, only 40 percent completed. Although the predicate for Mr. Gilner's knowledge in this regard is less than might normally be characterized as "expert" testimony, it is still credible and based on Mr. Gilner's testimony concerning his usual employment as an installer of traffic controls involving other construction projects, and in conjunction with the testimony of Mrs. Gilner, his estimation that the extent of the household construction total led only 40 percent is accepted for purposes of this finding of fact. At this stage, based on the draws paid. 60 percent of the construction should have been completed by Respondent. The Gilners both testified that they completed the home after Respondent's termination at a total cost of $82,000, or $14,000 over the contract price. There is no evidence to support the actual amount paid or what it was paid for, nor is there any evidence to establish what relationship there may have been between Respondent's behavior and the increased cost. Although Mrs. Gilner testified that there was some misinstallation of the trusswork and that rain had damaged the roof prior to Respondent's final termination, this information, without more, will not support the $14,000 figure. Approximately August 25, 1982, in a conversation with Catherine Edwards, an employee of Landmark Truss, Respondent had explained that the reason he had not paid the Landmark Truss bill was because he had elected to use the draws he had received from the Gilners to buy some lots upon which to build ""spec" (speculation) Respondent stated to Ms. Edwards that he originally intended to get the lots "subordinated" but due to the early death of an elderly man up north, he had had to use the (5) Gilner draws to buy his lots and was awaiting profit from the speculation homes to pay landmark Trusses bill. Because this conversation occurred after Landmark Trusses had served its Notice of Claim on Mrs. Gilner, the undersigned construes this conversation to be an admission against interest by Respondent and draws the inference there from that failure of Respondent to pay the other necessary owed costs from the draws received from the Gilners resulted from the same misapplication of draw funds as Respondent described to Ms. Edwards.
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order providing that Respondent's certified general contractor's license shall be suspended for a five year period with the provision that the suspension shall be lifted after one year upon the Respondent providing proof to the Construction Industry Licensing Board that he has made restitution of $2,311.34 to the Gilners, $2,490.00 to Landmark Trusses, Inc., $950.00 to Chesser & Strickland Sand Co., and $2,311.34 to A-1 Air and A-1 Plumbing. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2857 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but expanded to conform to the evidence as a whole. Accepted but expanded to conform to the evidence as a whole. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Accepted but rephrased to reflect the competent substantal evidence in the record as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chester A. Trow, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Ocala, Florida 32678 Patton N. Roberts 2442 Jackson Street Hollywood, Florida 33202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of October, 2007.
