Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Harry Bradshaw, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0033812. On August 26, 1986, Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor was suspended by Petitioner. Respondent's license remained suspended at all times material to this case. On December 16, 1987, Respondent contracted with the Moose Lodge located in Hialeah, Florida, to reroof the Moose Lodge building. The proposal submitted by Respondent contained representations that Respondent was licensed as a registered roofing contractor and that he was insured. Respondent knew that his license as a registered roofing contractor was under suspension. Respondent had no insurance. The contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge provided that Respondent would perform the work and supply the materials for the sum of $6,200.00. The sum of $3,200.00 was paid to Respondent in advance of his beginning the job. Respondent used the sums advanced to purchase materials and supplies. The remaining $3,000.00 was to have been paid upon Respondent's completion of the job. During the negotiations that resulted in the contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge, Respondent represented that the job should be completed in time for the functions scheduled for New Year's Eve. While Respondent had purchased the materials needed for the job and had done a substantial amount of work on a portion of the roof, he was unable to complete the work by the New Year. Respondent was ordered to stop work on the job on January 26, 1988. Respondent did not abandon the job. Although he was slow in performing the work, a part of Respondent's delay in performance was caused by rain. There was no evidence as to what would have been a reasonable period of time for Respondent to have completed the job. On January 26, 1988, the administrator for the Moose Lodge complained to the Building Inspection Department for the City of Hialeah, Florida, because the administrator was not pleased with the progress that Respondent was making toward completion of the job. The administrator was told by a representative of the Building Inspection Department on January 26, 1988, that Respondent had no license and that the required permit had not been pulled. The administrator was told to prohibit Respondent from working on the roof. Immediately thereafter, the administrator instructed Respondent to do no further work on the roof. The members of the Noose Lodge completed the job started by Respondent for less than $3,000.00, the balance of the amount that would have been owed Respondent if he had finished the job. Respondent knew that a permit was required for this work. Respondent also knew that only a licensed roofing contractor could pull the required permit. Respondent proceeded with the job when he was unable to persuade a licensed roofing contractor to pull the permit for him. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent alleging that at the time he contracted with the Moose Lodge, Respondent's license was suspended, thus violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner and/or abandoned the job in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Respondent denied the allegations of the administrative complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed. Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and his license remained under suspension at the time of the final hearing.
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 Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the final order revoke Harry Bradshaw's license in the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Bradshaw 5590 East Seventh Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel, P.A Suite 1600 NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Kenneth E. Easley, 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
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the positions of the parties, I hereby make the following: Thomas G. Walker (herein sometimes called "Licensee" or "Respondent") is a registered residential contractor and is issued license number RR 0009839. Thomas G. Walker was initially licensed by the Board in July of 1969 as an individual and during January, 1975, he changed his registration status as an individual to qualify Insulshield Roofing as the business entity through which he would conduct his business (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1). An examination of the official records pertaining to the Licensee reveals that he does not now nor has he ever held a roofing license in the State of Florida. On February 16, 1979, the Licensee was apprehended contracting roofing without a State roofing contractor's license by the Board's representative and was issued a Notice of Violation (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). On July 26, 1977, the Licensee entered into an agreement with Jan Soderstrom, 501 Orlando Avenue, Indialantic, Florida, to remove the tile from the Florida Room of her residence and hot mop the herein-described roofing area, to replace tile as needed, to clean and coat the entire roof, and to install a cap over Ms. Soderstrom's chimney. He guaranteed the work for a period of five (5) years and charged a contracted price of $800.00. The Licensee was paid the contracted price of $800.00 by check dated August 4, 1977 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). During early February, 1978, Ms. Soderstrom detected a leak in her roof and summoned the Licensee back to her residence to repair same. During February, 1978, Respondent returned to Ms. Soderstrom's residence to repair the leak in her roof. Upon his return, he removed several roof tiles and since February, 1978, to the present, he has not returned to this project. Clyde Pirtle, a field investigator for the Board, investigated the Licensee based on complaints that he received from Ms. Soderstrom and from a Mr. Capitz. On or about February 16, 1977, Mr. Pirtle discussed a Notice of Violation with the Licensee and explained to him the necessity to register as a Roofing Contractor, if he was in the business of acting as a Roofing Contractor. Mr. Charles D. Franklin, a building official of Indian Harbor Beach, Florida, is the custodian of the records in Indian Harbor, Florida. Based on an examination of the records by Mr. Franklin, the Respondent/Licensee is not registered as a Roofing Contractor locally.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the registered residential contractor's license, number 0009839, of the Licensee, Thomas G. Walker, d/b/a Insulshield Roofing, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Thomas G. Walker d/b/a Insulshield Roofing 170 5th Street South Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and held license number CG- C016730. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Bilo Homes, Inc. (Bilo), a corporation engaged in Florida in the business of general contracting with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Huston resided at 29843 S.W. 149th court, Leisure City, Florida. On February 24, 1988, the Hustons contracted with Bilo to build an addition to their house for the sum of $20,000 pursuant to plans and specifications that had been prepared by an architect. The Hustons' existing house was valued between $30,000-$40,000. The contract called for a one-story room addition to be built on a concrete slab with stucco exterior and sheet rock interior. The addition was to have a sliding glass door and was to be connected to the existing structure by a tie beam. The roof of the existing house was to be reshingled to match the shingles on the addition. The project also involved electrical work and plumbing work. The contract was signed on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, and work began on Friday, February 26, 1988. The contract did not specify a time for the completion of the project. The following draw schedule was agreed to by the Hustons and Bilo: 20% of the contract price upon the acceptance of the contract by the Hustons; 10% of the contract price upon the pouring of the concrete slab; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the tie beam: 20% of the contract price upon the drying in of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the completion of the rough mechanical work; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the shingling of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the installation of the plumbing fixtures;; 10% of the contract price (the balance) upon completion of the job. The Hustons made payments to Bilo in the total amount of $14,000.00. These payments were broken down as follows: $4,000.00 paid on February 24, 1988, upon acceptance of the contract; $2,000.00 paid on March 22, 1988, upon the pouring of the concrete slab; $2,000.00 paid on April 5, 1988, upon the completion of the tie beam; $4,000.00 paid on April 18, 1988, upon the drying in of the roof; and $2,000.00 paid on June 25, 1988, upon the completion of the shingling of the roof. Before June 25, 1988, Respondent had asked the Hustons for the draw due upon completion of the rough mechanical work in addition to the draw due upon completion of the shingling. The Hustons refused to pay both draws because they were dissatisfied with the quality of Bilo's work. The Hustons engaged the services of a lawyer and, on June 29, 1988, presented Respondent with a list of items they wanted corrected before paying the draw for the rough mechanical work. Respondent and the Hustons disagreed as to when the items on the list should be corrected. Respondent contended that the items could have been corrected as part of the punch list prior to the final payment. The Hustons contended that the items should be corrected before Respondent received any further draws. This dispute is resolved by finding that while several of the items on the list could have been corrected as part of the final punch list, there were items on the list that should have been corrected by Respondent before he proceeded. Considering the very poor quality of work that went into this job, the Hustons were justified in their demand that Respondent make these corrections before receiving an additional draw. Respondent contends that the Hustons did not pay the draw for the rough mechanical work because they ran out of money. This contention is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. After the Hustons presented Respondent with the list and refused to pay the draw for the rough mechanical work, Bilo stopped work on the project. Bilo performed no work on the project after June 29, 1988. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired K & H Plumbing as the subcontractors to the plumbing work on the Huston job. K & H Plumbing's work failed to pass a Metro Dade County tub and water pipe inspection because the work did not meet the South Florida Building Code. K & H never completed its work on the Huston addition and no final inspection of its work was approved. K & H Plumbing filed suit against the Hustons for the unpaid portion of their contract with Bilo. In addition, K & H Plumbing failed to properly replace wood decking which it had pulled up during the course of its work on the Huston job. Respondent had received funds which1 should have been used to pay K & H. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired Tom Mentelos to perform the electrical subcontracting work on the Huston addition. The work performed, by Mentelos was substandard. His work failed to pass inspection by the Metro Dade County Building and Zoning Department on six different occasions. In addition to this substandard work, one of Mentelos' employees cracked the Huston's kitchen ceiling while working in the attic over the existing portion of the house. This crack was never corrected by Mentelos or by Bilo. Mentelos never completed his work on the Huston addition, although he was never fired by the Hustons. Mentelos filed a claim of lien against the Hustons in he amount of $2,000.00. The first claim of lien was released and Mentelos filed a second claim of lien against the Hustons in the amount of $2,623.00. Respondent had received funds which should have been used to pay Mentelos. Respondent obtained the roofing permit to build the new roof on the Huston addition and to reroof the existing roof. The roofing work involved a process commonly referred to as "hot mopping", a process which requires the services of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent exceeded the scope of his licensure by engaging in hot mopping. Bilo's employees punched two unnecessary vent pipes through the roof and placed a flat piece of PVC material around the vent holes to keep the, roof from leaking. This is an improper and unacceptable construction practice. Bilo's employees damaged the existing screen porch while working on the roof. The metal flashing which connected the existing roof to the aluminum screen porch was taken off but was never replaced. As a result, the screen porch leaked, a problem that had not been corrected as of the time of the final hearing. While Bilo's employees were working on the roof of the existing structure, a rainstorm occurred which resulted in water stains to the ceiling of the Hustons' main structure. The workmen were not supervised by Respondent and were unprepared for the rain. Other than the water stains, no damage was done to the ceiling. To repair the ceiling stains would require a chemical coating, followed by repainting of the ceiling. The cost of the repair would be approximately $75.00. Bilo engaged in poor construction practice in constructing the exterior wall by facing the poorer grade side of the exterior plywood toward the outside as opposed to inside. The better construction practice is to place the poorer grade side toward the inside where it will not be exposed to view. There is a gap in the area where the metal flashing comes down the exterior side of the end gable and meets the top of the roof. In the work performed by Bilo, the piece of sheathing was above the bottom of the sill plate which caused a gap from one inch to five inches over a distance between eight and ten feet. This gap is a source of potential leaks. Bilo attempted to cover the v-notch in the area of the gag with tar pitch in an attempt to correct this deficiency. Both the gap and the attempted repair are unacceptable construction practices. Bilo had not cut vents in the soffits at the time it stopped work on the project. Without vent holes in the soffits, the job would have not passed inspection. Bilo could have, at little expense, cut the soffit vents at a later point in the job. The end member of the frame for the partition wall between the laundry room and the masonry wall is not pressure- treated wood. The South Florida Building Code requires that the wood used for the end member of such construction be pressure treated or that there be a barrier between the end member and the adjoining wall. Here, Bilo failed to exercise either acceptable option, and, consequently performed work that failed to comport with acceptable construction practices and did not meet code. The manner in which Bilo supported the timber girder that supports the roof trusses fails to meet code because the tie beam, into which this girder is pocketed for support, is improperly supported. A hole was knocked in the cement block wall that supported the tie beam when a plumbing vent was redirected. As a result of this hole, the tie beam rests on only approximately two inches of concrete, which is inadequate to support the tie beam and the timber girder. This work fails to comport with acceptable construction practices. Bilo failed to brace the roof trusses as required by the plans and specifications of the architect. This is an unacceptable construction practiced. Bilo cut into the roof truss without authority from the truss manufacturer or from a qualified engineer. Cutting into a truss can impair its structural integrity and is a violation of code. Respondent maintained at hearing that he would have been able to get approval from the truss manufacturer for the modification of the truss caused by the cut. Respondent did not have such approval as of the time of the final hearing, and there was no evidence, other than his unilateral expectation, to support this contention. The facia board on the eaves did not join properly because Bilo's workmen did not take the time to properly cut the boards with the aid of a square. Although this is a matter that could be corrected for approximately $25.00, this work, along with the other deficiencies detailed herein, demonstrates the substandard work that went into this project and establishes that Bilo failed to provide its workmen adequate supervision or adequate training. At hearing, there was a dispute as to how much time Respondent personally spent at the Huston job site. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent was personally on the job site for at least 30 minutes on days when work was progressing. When major items were being performed on the job, he spent more time on the job site. When minor work was being done, Respondent did not go to the job site on a daily basis. Regardless of the number of minutes or hours that Respondent spent on the job site, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent failed to properly supervise his workmen in light of the low level of skill the workmen exhibited throughout the job. Respondent had the responsibility as the general contractor to properly supervise his workmen and his subcontractors. He failed to perform that responsibility. As of the final hearing, the Huston addition remained uncompleted. At the time of the work stoppage, it would have cost the Hustons more than $6,600 to complete the job, the difference between the contract price and the amount that the Hustons had paid Respondent. The evidence was clear that the Hustons had incurred damages as a result of their dealings with Respondent. The amount of those damages were not established with any degree of certainty. On or about July 15, 1988, Respondent filed a claim of lien against the Hustons' property claiming that Bilo was owed $8,350 for the work that had been done. Respondent has been a certified general contractor for fifteen years and has been certified as a general contractor in the State of Florida since 1980. Respondent's licensure had not been disciplined prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
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 the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(h), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes, which imposes administrative fines in the amount of total amount of $5,000 for such violations, and which suspends his licensure as a general contractor for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0765 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings in Section VI (A) are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made. (Section VI (A) pertains to facts established through Respondent's failure to respond to Request for Admissions.) The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 5 - 10 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made or are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraphs 11, 19, and 25 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraph 12, 26, and 27 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 20 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 19, 27, and 30 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 32, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 11 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 14, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 34 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: regory A. Victor, Esquire 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact During times material, Respondent was a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC C014700 and was the sole qualifier for Gulfstream Contractors, Incorporated (Gulfstream). Gulfstream entered into a contract with Dr. Paul J. Schwartz, a chiropractor, to repair the roof to Schwartz' office building located at 1565 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The contract between Gulfstream and Schwartz was entered into on July 22, 1985, and for a fee of $1,375.00, Gulfstream contracted to repair Schwartz' roof by tearing off the old gravel roof, install new decking and lead boots, to galvanize the roof and to remove all debris brought about as a result of the contracting activities. Gulfstream guaranteed the roof to be free of defects for a period of ten (10) years. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Gulfstream commenced the repairs to Schwartz' roof without obtaining a construction permit and failed to call for progress inspections as was required by the City of Clearwater. Within one month following Respondent's completion of Schwartz' roof, Schwartz encountered leaks to the interior of his office building resulting in stained carpet, interior walls, and furniture in several of his examining rooms. Schwartz made repeated calls to Gulfstream in an effort to get Gulfstream to honor its ten-year guarantee on the roof. Respondent initially attempted to correct (repair) the roof, although he failed to return to the project after two or three visits during the first two months following completion of the project during July 1985. Thomas Chiplinsky is an inspector for the City of Clearwater whose area of responsibility includes the inspection of roofing projects. As part of his duties, Inspector Chiplinsky inspected Schwartz' roof following a complaint received by the City of Clearwater and found that the roof was installed in July 1985 by Gulfstream and no permit was obtained or inspections called for or made by Respondent. Inspector Chiplinsky observed soft spots in the roof and noted that Respondent failed to install counter flashing. Respondent acknowledges his responsibility as qualifier for Gulfstream. Respondent admits that he neither obtained a permit to perform the roof repairs, nor did he call for inspections as required by the City of Clearwater. Within months after Respondent completed the Schwartz project, the entity, Gulfstream Contractors, was disbanded and therefore no one responded to Schwartz' request that his roof be repaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a $500 fine against Respondent, payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of its Final Order. Respondent's license number CC C014700 be suspended for a period of one (1) year within the further condition that Respondent be allowed a period of 20 days following the entry of the Final Order to revisit the Schwartz project and make the necessary repairs to correct the roof repairs and abide by the terms of his guarantee. In the event that Respondent makes the necessary repairs within 30 days of entry of the Final Order, it is further RECOMMENDED that the period of suspension be suspended. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant 500 North Tampa Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Domingo 4032 41st Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 3220
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring general contractors. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Part and parcel of the Department's duties is the sanctioning of persons who practice general contracting without a license. Respondent is an individual living in Tampa, Florida. Respondent did not appear at final hearing and has not filed any post-hearing motions concerning his failure to appear. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Department makes the following allegations: Respondent was not registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent, doing business as J.D.S. Roofing, contracted with Vivian Virgil to perform certain roofing work, specifically, to remove and replace shingles and related work to reconstruct the roof on Virgil's home. A contract between the parties dated April 21, 2006, was signed by Virgil and Respondent (or his authorized representative). Virgil made two payments to Respondent in the amounts of $2,500.00 (via check number 1037) and $1,564.46 (via check number 1040). She also made a payment of $2,860.54 to The Home Depot to pay for materials ordered by Respondent for Virgil's roofing repairs. Respondent then made the contracted-for repairs and replacement of Virgil's roof pursuant to the contract.2 Virgil, however, was not pleased with the quality of the work. She is unable to get a warranty on the roof because Respondent's work was inferior. Virgil must have another contractor re-do the roof in order to get a warranty. Neither Respondent nor his company, J.D.S. Roofing, is or has ever been licensed by the State of Florida as a contractor. However, Respondent held himself out as a general contractor in his dealings with Virgil.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, James Delaughter, is guilty of the unlicensed practice of contracting and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 8th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Jesse Bruce, Respondent herein, is a registered roofing contractor and has been issued license No. RC0022948. On September 2, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract to repair a roof at 3684 NW 29th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, for Ms. Beryl Babb for the sum of $485.00. Respondent admits that he commenced construction under the above-referenced contract without first having obtained a building permit. Respondent was paid in full under the contract by Ms. Babb on September 4, 1981. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, Respondent provided for a two-year warranty on the roof repairs. Within an approximate two-month period following the repairs by Respondent, Ms. Babb made repeated phone calls to Respondent's construction company to report complaints that she was having in that the roof and garage appeared to "leak more than it had leaked prior to the repairs." Ms. Babb made at least six telephone calls to Respondent's construction company to no avail. During November, 1981, Ms. Babb filed a civil complaint in small claims court and during January, 1982, Ms. Babb received a judgment against the Respondent for $300.00. 1/ Respondent ahs been a licensed and registered roofing contractor since October, 1974. Respondent acknowledged that he received complaints from Ms. Babb as was testified herein; however, he states that he was busy during the times in which the complaints were made, an further that he did not want to make repairs inasmuch as Ms. Babb had elected to file a civil complaint against him in small claims court. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he was obliged to return tot he Babb residence to make the repairs inasmuch as the complaints from Ms. Babb came during the two-year period in which the warranty for the roof repairs was in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jesse Bruce 721 NW 20th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging an inadequate performance in work done for a customer, Louise A. Bright. In particular, Respondent is said to have proceeded to do work for Ms. Bright without having obtained a timely permit to commence the work, in violation of local law, by his deliberate action or through improper supervision. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In addition, Respondent is accused of having done business under a name other than the name reflected on his license, as issued by Petitioner, the name which he had done business under having not been qualified with Petitioner. Again, this constitutes alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Finally, Respondent is accused of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct and/or deceit in connection with work based upon his personal activities or his failure to properly supervise, leading to a performance which did not provide a reasonably watertight roof, which roof leaked; the improper installation of window seals, resulting in water draining towards the interior; and misconduct in the competitive-bid process associated with the Bright job. The administrative complaint points out that the Respondent had previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in an unrelated case.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, has the responsibility of prosecuting administrative complaints brought by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The authority for the activities of these entities is announced in Chapters 120, 455 and 49, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules promulgated under the authority of those statutes. At times pertinent to this inquiry, Respondent has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified residential contractor. His license number is CR C0277268. The license he holds is as an individual. Respondent has not served as a qualifying agent for a company known as Stratton Construction Company. Ms. Louise A. Bright of 5143 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, was interested in having remodeling and re-roofing work done at her home at that address under the auspices of the HUD Rehabilitation Program. In this connection, she sought bids from two contractors other than Respondent. The intention of those two contractors in submission of sealed bids to Ms. Bright was to secure their contents from being disclosed to competitors, such as Respondent. Respondent contacted Ms. Bright about bidding on this project. This solicitation of Ms. Bright was not inappropriate. It was inappropriate for Respondent, once he entered into discussions with Ms. Bright at her home, to insist on Ms. Bright revealing the contents of his competitors' bids. Ms. Bright told Respondent that she did not think this was an appropriate arrangement. Respondent replied that it was done all the time. Respondent kept asking Ms. Bright about different items in one competitor's bid quotation. Eventually, Ms. Bright tired of the discussion and laid one of the two proposals on her table and Respondent examined it and began to describe how he thought he could undercut the price of his competitor. As Robert H. Adams, a certified residential contractor licensed by the State of Florida, testified in the hearing, it was an act of misconduct for Respondent to ask for the contents of the sealed bid of the competitor before submitting his own bid. In fact, Respondent did not offer his terms until he had had the opportunity to examine the position of a competitor and the terms of that competitor's bid. On May 28, 1987, Ms. Bright and Respondent entered into a contract to have the remodeling work done at her home and the roof work. The roof work was constituted of shingles in one portion and the installation of materials which approximate a built-up roof in another portion. The price of the contract was $15,140.00. Respondent entered into the contract with Ms. Bright under the name of Stratton Construction Company. Respondent commenced the work sometime around June 8 or 10, 1987. Respondent, under the name of Stratton Construction Company, obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, for purposes of the re- roofing work only. That permit was obtained on June 11, 1987, after the overall work began at the residence. Although it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a permit from the City of Jacksonville to do the remodeling portion of the work, as contemplated by requirements of the City of Jacksonville's Building Code, the remodeling permit was never obtained before commencement of the work, nor at any other time, as the record stands. As the work proceeded, several change orders were executed on May 28, 1987, June 2, 1987 and June 3, 1987. A fourth change order was not allowed. The reason for its rejection was based upon the perception of an official with HUD, Hank Pocopanni, who felt that the cost of the fourth change order was too expensive. The ultimate contract price was $15,130.00. Based upon the progress of the work, 30% and 60% payments on the contract amount were rendered based upon a 40% and 80% completion. At the time of the second draw, the roof had been installed. The roof in question, although needing repair, had not been leaking prior to the work that was done on it. The roofing work was done at the residence by Bailey's Roofing of 2922 West 6th Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32205. The inspections on the quality of the roof work which were done by the HUD and the City of Jacksonville were not detailed inspections. The inspections by the City of Jacksonville were merely to see that the roof had been installed. The more complete inspection of the roof which would have been done by HUD was to be performed at the time of the final inspection. That final inspection never occurred because Ms. Bright and Respondent terminated their relationship as owner and contractor under the contract. Respondent has also placed a claim of lien against Ms. Bright for the balance of the contract money not disbursed. The roof has leaked in a bedroom in the home, as well as in the breakfast room and around one of the chimneys, running down rafters from the chimney. In addition, as Mr. Adams pointed out in his expert opinion testimony, which is accepted, the prefab chimney structure, which had heavy asphalt cement placed upon the top of the cap, was an inappropriate installation because chimneys produce heat and one should not put asphalt cement next to them. Respondent has sufficient expertise to understand the inappropriateness of this form of installation. It is not necessary for him to be a roofing contractor to understand that this was an incorrect choice. Nor does he need to be a roofing contractor to understand, as Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified that the shingles on the roof were improperly installed and the fact that the shingles had been improperly cut because they did not cover the eaves drip completely. A certified residential contractor, such as Respondent, has the necessary expertise to understand the re-roofing by use of shingles. Respondent is also capable of understanding that the installation of flashing material around the chimney at the home was unsightly and improper, as identified by Mr. Adams, whose expertise is accepted and opinion is credited. Mr. Adams also identified the fact of a 48-inch overhang at the rear of the house without vertical support columns or beams and some concern about the stability of that situation. On balance, his opinion does not seem to state with certainty that this, indeed, is a problem. Likewise, his opinion about the part of the roof which is, by nature, more akin to a built-up roof and its potential for physical damage because of problems with its membrane is not credited because he is not found to be an expert in those types of roofs. According to Mr. Adams, the problems with the roof and window seals were representative of incompetence and lack of proper supervision on the part of Respondent. This opinion of Mr. Adams is accepted. Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified the fact that the window seals, which had been installed in this project, did not have an appropriate slope to allow them to divert water away from the windows, resulting in the possibility of water intrusion into the house. This refers to rainwater. His opinion is accepted. Although a copy of a punchlist dated August 25, 1987, which Respondent had and is shown as Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, makes reference to repairs of a roof leak in bedroom 1, on February 2, 1988, Ms. Bright was still having problems with the roof as evidenced by correspondence directed to Stratton Construction Company on that date. Respondent has been disciplined in the past by the imposition of a $100.00 fine in DOAH Case No. 87-2699. This pertained to a contract of August 14, 1986 with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street, Jacksonville, Florida. It was the finding in that case that prior to that situation, Respondent had only built new homes in Florida and was unaware of the necessity to obtain a permit to affect repairs to the interior of the home other than the permit he had obtained. The facts went on to describe how Respondent was aware of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room but only applied for that permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed and he was in dispute with the homeowners. As a consequence, Respondent was found in violation of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and the fine imposed.
Recommendation In accordance with Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, having in mind Respondent's disciplinary history, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which imposes an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2164 Petitioner's facts are responded to as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found, except its suggestion of problems other than those associated with the roof and the window seals, which other problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to problems other than with the roof and the window seals, which problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to comments by Mr. Adams related to the roofing membrane, which is found to be beyond his expertise. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Stuart Stratton 3365 Silver Palm Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32250
The Issue Whether Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license should he revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on charges that he violated Ch. 455, Florida Statutes (1979), by (1) abandoning a construction project; making a misleading, deceptive or untrue representation in the practice of his profession; (3) violating local building codes in two instances; and (4) engaging in the business of contracting in a county or municipality without first complying with local licensing requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held registered roofing contractor's license, number RC 0033215, issued by the State of Florida. The license has been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Between October 1, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respondent held an occupational license issued by the County of Indian River, Florida, which enabled him to engage in the business of roofing contracting in that county. However, this occupational license expired on September 30, 1980. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9). In February, 1981, respondent entered into a verbal agreement with Ezra Grant to repair, for compensation, all leaks in the front and rear sections of the roof on Grant's home, which was located in Sebastian, Florida. (Testimony of Grant). When respondent and Grant entered into this verbal agreement, respondent gave Grant one of his calling cards. On the face of the calling card, in the lower right corner, was written "licensed and insured." (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Testimony of Grant). At all time material hereto, respondent was not licensed to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Pursuant to the agreement, respondent performed roof repairs on Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent failed to obtain a permit to perform such roof repairs in violation of Section 105.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8a and b). On February 19, 1981, respondent submitted a bill in the amount of $800.00 to Grant for the roof repairs. The bill described the work performed and stated that the "work is guaranteed for 1 year." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Testimony of Grant). On February 20, 1981, Grant paid respondent, in full, for the described roof repairs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Approximately two weeks after respondent performed the roof repairs, the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home began to leak, again, in the area where it was repaired. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent returned to Grant's home, on two occasions1 after the discovery of continuing leakage in the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home. However, respondent did not perform roof repairs on either occasion. On the first occasion, he merely removed equipment which he had left at Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). After Grant complained to petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, respondent returned a second time. He inspected the rear portion of Grant's roof, removed two layers of slate from the roof, and tested it by pouring water over it. Although this test revealed that Grant's roof still leaked, Grant made no effort to repair the leakage. (Testimony of Grant). Arthur Mayer, then the Building Official for the City of Sebastian, observed respondent removing the slate from the roof. He instructed respondent that, upon finishing the work, he should go to the Sebastian City Hall and apply for a roofer's license and a permit for the roof repairs already performed on Grant's home. Respondent promised to comply. (Testimony of Mayer). But, despite his promise, he failed to apply for and obtain a license to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. He also failed to apply for and obtain a roof permit, and pay the proper late fees, as required by Section 107.2, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida, in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Testimony of Mayer; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 8a and c). Grant, eventually, had his roof repaired by another contractor at a cost of $150.00. (Testimony of Grant).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry E. Smith Route 1, Box 111B Fellsmere, Florida 32948 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
