Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Clyde S. Botner, was a registered specialty contractor having been issued license number RX 0043602 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). Respondent is now the owner of Days Aluminum Products (DAP), a construction firm located at 4404 Devonshire Road, Tampa, Florida, but was in the process of purchasing the business when the events herein occurred. He has been licensed by the State since June 29, 1983. Botner was and still is the only state licensed contractor with the firm. Debra Tackett resides at 7302 Sequoia Drive, Temple Terrace, Florida. Tackett desired to have an aluminum carport added to her house and contacted DAP for the purpose of obtaining an estimate. Respondent visited Tackett's residence in July 1987 and gave an estimate of $7,088 to complete the job. Within a few days, another DAP representative, Scott Tarbox, met with Tackett and agreed to reduce the price to $6,000. After the contract changes were initialed by Tarbox, Tackett gave Tarbox a check for $1200 as a down payment on the work. The check was deposited to the account of DAP. The contract carries the signature of Botner as the authorized agent of DAP. On or shortly after July 18, Botner made application for a building permit with local officials butt was unsuccessful since the proposed construction was three feet beyond the setback line. This meant the structure had to be moved back three feet or a variance obtained from local zoning officials. Because Tackett preferred not to modify her structure, she requested that respondent obtain a variance. By then, Botner had put up string lines, laid boards for pouring concrete and dug some trenches. The value of this work was less than $1200. Although respondent now contends he had no authority or responsibility to do so, he agreed to make application for a variance by August 26 so that the matter could be taken before the local zoning board for final decision on September 17. However, he missed the August 26 filing deadline. Around September 15 Tackett learned that the application for a variance had not been timely filed and, in any event, it would probably be denied. Therefore, she decided "it was best to terminate" the contract. She also requested that Botner return her deposit. Although respondent promised to return the money on two occasions (September 18 and 22), he did not do so. When he did not meet the second deadline of September 22, she filed an action against Botner in small claims court the same date seeking to recover her $1200. On September 29, 1987, or a week after the small claims court action had been filed, respondent purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $1264 and had an employee, Larry Blevins, carry the check to Tackett. However, before returning the deposit, Blevins asked that Tackett sign a "release" which forbade her from making any complaints against DAP. Tackett declined to sign the release and was accordingly not given her money. By letter dated October 5, 1987 Tackett received an offer of $1263 from DAP's attorney but such payment was again conditioned upon her agreeing to "not register any complaint with any governmental or non-governmental agencies regarding (DAP)." She again declined the offer. On January 5, 1988 Tackett obtained a judgment in the amount of $1263 plus interest against Clyde S. Botner d/b/a Days Aluminum Products. To date, Botner has paid only $100 of that judgment. Botner conceded the judgment is still unpaid, except for one payment of $100, but contends Tackett has damaged his firm's reputation by filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau and the Board and obtaining a judgment in small claims court. He also contends that Tackett gave conflicting and untrue versions of what occurred to the Board investigator and the Better Business Bureau. He does not believe the judgment has anything to do with DAP or his license but instead is a purely civil matter. This is because he says the work in question could have been performed in Hillsborough County in 1987 without using his state license. Finally, he contends this proceeding is unjustified because he twice attempted to repay the money in 1987 but the customer refused his offers. There was no evidence of any prior disciplinary action having been taken against respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987) and that a fine in the amount of $750 be imposed. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2693 Petitioner: 1-3. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. 7-8. Covered in finding of fact 3. 9-11. Covered in finding of fact 4. 12-13. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant to the issues. Covered in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. Clyde S. Botner 1989. 4404 Devonshire Road Tampa, Florida 33634 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the contracting license of the Respondent Konrad v. Ising should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined by the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2(a)-(g) were offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Konrad V. Ising is licensed to practice contracting in Florida, and is a licensed certified general contractor holding license number CG C009669, a license current and active from 1982 through the present. The Respondent qualified Master Craft Constructors using license number CG C009669. During 1982, the Respondent entered into an association with Carlton Mosher whereby the Respondent would use his contractor's license to obtain building permits for construction projects which Mosher had contracted. The Respondent hoped his association with Mosher would lead to a partnership and assist him in obtaining practical experience in the construction field. During his association with the Respondent, Mosher was not a licensed contractor. In December 1982, Mosher, doing business as Re-Builders, contracted with Russell Hirstins to construct a room addition on his home at 4034 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. On December 3, 1982, an application for a building permit for the job was submitted to the City of St. Petersburg and permit number 88638 was issued. The permit was obtained using the Respondent's license number and Respondent is listed as the job contractor. However, the Respondent performed no work on the Hirstins job, maintained no control over Mosher's work, failed to adequately supervise the project, and failed to qualify Re-Builders with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since becoming licensed in 1975, the Respondent has not been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings. At the final hearing, the Respondent candidly acknowledged that his association with Mosher was a regrettable mistake. The project was completed by Mosher to the apparent satisfaction to the Hirstins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board finding the Respondent Konrad V. Ising guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $250 administrative fine. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Konrad V. Ising Post Office Box 1023 Maitland, Florida 323751 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the violations alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate building contracting. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C058340 in 1996. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. McKinney owned and resided in a house (the House) in Opa Locka, Florida. Ms. McKinney’s mother, Mattie P. Mathis, also lived in the House. In 2001, Ms. McKinney solicited bids for an addition she wanted to put on the House. Ms. McKinney and her mother, Ms. Mathis, planned to pay for the addition with life insurance proceeds on the life of Ms. Mathis’s deceased daughter (Ms. McKinney’s sister). On the recommendation of a colleague at her work, Ms. McKinney asked Willie Muse, Jr., to bid on the work. Based on the bids she received, Ms. McKinney hired Mr. Muse to construct the addition to the House. Ms. McKinney told Mr. Muse that she wanted all work to comply with all applicable permitting requirements and laws. Mr. Muse represented to Ms. McKinney that he would get the necessary building permits and that the work would comply with all applicable laws. On July 18, 2001, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis entered into a written contract with Mr. Muse whereby Mr. Muse agreed to construct the addition for the sum of $45,000.00. Mr. Muse has never been licensed as a general contractor in Florida. Ms. McKinney thought Mr. Muse was a licensed contractor and would not have entered into a contract with him if she had known that he was not licensed. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis paid Mr. Muse the following amounts on the following dates: $6,000.00 on July 20, 2001; $7,500.00 on October 10, 2001; and $13,500.00 on November 2, 2001; for a total of $27,000.00. On or about August 21, 2001, Mr. Muse brought to Ms. McKinney a building permit application form for her to sign. The application form had been filled out before Mr. Muse presented it to Ms. McKinney. Respondent was not present when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Respondent’s name, signature, and contractor’s license number appeared on the application form when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Ms. McKinney signed the form on August 21, 2001. Ms. McKinney saw Respondent’s name for the first time when she read the building permit application form. Prior to that time, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had never known or heard of Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Muse was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Muse submitted the building permit application form to the Miami-Dade County Building Department (Building Department), which issued a building permit for the work on the House on October 5, 2001. Mr. Muse commenced working on the House in October 2001, but he never finished. After he received the payment in November 2001, Mr. Muse stopped working on the House for an extended period of time. During that time, Ms. McKinney attempted on several occasions to persuade Mr. Muse to resume work on the House. Prior to stopping work on the House, Mr. Muse removed a portion of the roof of the existing structure, which exposed the interior of the House to the elements. That exposure resulted in extensive damages to the House, including the collapse of the kitchen ceiling from water intrusion. By letter dated April 15, 2002, the Building Department advised Ms. McKinney that her building permit would expire in approximately 30 days. That letter prompted Ms. McKinney to contact the Building Department, where she was told that Respondent was her contractor, not Mr. Muse. Ms. McKinney secured information (from the face of the building permit) that enabled her to contact Respondent’s mother.3 That contact resulted in two meetings between Ms. McKinney and Respondent towards the end of April 2002. During the first meeting, Ms. McKinney related to Respondent the history of the project, including the amounts that had been paid to Mr. Muse. She also showed him the work that had been done and the damages that had occurred. During the second meeting, Mr. Muse was in attendance. Ms. McKinney, Ms. Mathis, and Respondent reached a verbal understanding that was not reduced to writing. They agreed that Respondent would finish the work on the House for the unpaid balance of the contract price $45,000.00 less $27,000.00 paid to Mr. Muse, which equals $18,000.00.4 The parties agreed that Respondent would pay for labor and that Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would pay material suppliers directly and receive credit toward the contract price for such payments. The parties contemplated that Mr. Muse would perform most of the labor because of the monies he had already received. On the basis of the verbal contract, Respondent resumed the work on the House. On June 12, 2002, Respondent presented a draw request for $3,500.00 for electrical, plumbing, and roofing work that had been performed. Ms. Mathis wrote Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500.00 for that work. Ms. McKinney was opposed to paying Respondent the sum of $3,500.00 because she believed he had not completed the work for which he was billing. Ms. Mathis paid that sum despite Ms. McKinney’s opposition. At some undetermined time following June 12, 2002, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Mr. Muse working on the House. Respondent then asked to be paid in advance for work to be done on the House because he would have to pay his laborers. Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would not agree to payment in advance. In July 2002, the project was not complete and Respondent’s progress on the work on the House became unsatisfactory to Ms. McKinney. On October 14, 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner, claiming, among other things, that Respondent had abandoned the project. Her complaint alleged that work ended on the project in July 2002. At some undetermined time between June and October 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, which resulted in criminal misdemeanor charges being filed against him in Miami-Dade County Court. After she filed the criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she wanted to wait to proceed with the project until she knew what was going to happen with her criminal complaint. In the criminal proceeding, the Court ordered Mr. Muse on April 11, 2003, to pay restitution to Ms. McKinney in the amount of $16,008.04, payable in monthly installments of $300.00. On March 2, 2004, the Court reduced the amount of restitution to $4,000.00, payable in monthly installments of $50.00 beginning April 1, 2004. As of the date of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Muse had paid Ms. McKinney restitution in the total amount of $750.00. As part of the criminal proceeding, Respondent was asked to give his opinion as to the value of the work completed by Mr. Muse and his estimated cost of completing the work. Respondent valued the work completed by Mr. Muse at $14,073.75 (labor and materials). Respondent estimated that it would cost $22,200.00 to complete the project. Both estimates were dated March 23, 2003. On October 1, 2003, Theodore R. Gay, Assistant General Counsel for Petitioner wrote Ms. McKinney the following letter pertaining to the complaint she had filed in October 2002: The Legal Department has evaluated your complaint against the above named contractor [Respondent]. After reviewing the evidence gathered during the investigation of the referenced matter, we have determined that in accordance with the rules and policies of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, this case is appropriately closed with the issuance of a Letter of Caution to the contractor. Because this case has been dismissed without a finding of probable cause, the file will remain confidential and exempt from the public records. On January 6, 2004, Ms. McKinney wrote Mr. Gay a letter that provided, in part, as follows: This letter is a request to re-open the case [against Respondent] because as prior conversation (sic) when I spoke to you in late August 2003 or early September 2003, I informed you that Mr. Jones told me that he would help me as much as possible to complete the construction on my property. Since your letter that stated you didn’t find any error on Mr. Jones’ behalf, I have not heard or seen him since October 2003, nor has any work been performed on my property. . . . Respondent came back to the House after October 2003 and talked to Ms. McKinney about the work. Ms. McKinney told him that she would pay up to a total of $45,000.00 for the work, but that she would not pay above that figure. Because of the estimate Respondent provided in the criminal proceeding dated March 23, 2003, Ms. McKinney believed that Respondent wanted $22,0000.00 to complete the work. However, Respondent never told her that he would not complete the work for a sum equal to $45,000.00 less the sums that had already been paid. Ms. McKinney would not pay Respondent for work until after the work was completed. After Mr. Gay’s letter dismissing the complaint that Ms. McKinney had filed, Respondent did no further work on the House, but he did have further conversations about the project. Ms. McKinney and Respondent could not agree on payment terms for Respondent to complete the project. Ms. McKinney testified that she did not fire Respondent. However, it is clear that she would not let Mr. Muse do further work on her house and she would not pay Respondent until after the work had been done. Ms. McKinney changed the terms of her verbal contract with Respondent by prohibiting Mr. Muse from working on the project. In November 2003, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had an argument over the money that had been spent on the house. Ms. McKinney talked to Respondent about his helping her obtain a mortgage on the house to pay for the balance of the work on the House. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Respondent to ask her mother for any more money. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she would use him as the contractor to complete the work if she obtained the financing. Ms. McKinney was unable to get the financing due to the condition of the House. The permits obtained by Respondent are still valid. Ms. McKinney has hired various workers on her own in an effort to complete the work on the House. As of the final hearing, the work on the House had not been completed. As of May 19, 2005, Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with attorney time, totaled $920.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Final Order: Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and impose against him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, but impose no additional administrative fine for that violation; Find Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; Order that Respondent be jointly and severally liable to Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis with Mr. Muse for restitution in the amount of $4,000.00, minus $750.00 paid by Mr. Muse; and Order Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter in the amount of $920.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 10th day of August, 2005.
