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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed negligence in the practice of engineering as alleged in the amended administrative complaint filed by Petitioner and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was duly licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0023976. In September, 1992, Dade County passed and adopted an emergency ordinance amending the South Florida Building Code to handle the processing of construction permits and inspections created by the devastation of Hurricane Andrew. Section 6(e) of the Emergency Ordinance addressed roof repairs and required a minimum of six nails to be used for each shingle. By early 1993, Dade County Roofing Inspectors were severely overtaxed by the volume of work occasioned by Hurricane Andrew. To ensure more timely inspections, Dade County Officials approved the use of private practice architects and engineers to assist the county in making inspections and affirming code compliance. At all times pertinent to this case, Robert Brombach (the "Owner") was the owner of a residence (the "House") located at 8050 SW 92nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. In March 1993, the Owner hired Hytek Roofing to re-roof his residence because of damage from Hurricane Andrew. The re-roofing job was to begin on March 8, 1993 and was to be completed by March 23, 1993. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by All State Engineering & Testing Consultants, Inc. Hytek Roofing hired Respondent in his capacity as a special inspector for Dade County to perform the shingle inspection/final inspection for the re- roofing of the House. The roof of the House had two separate systems. The front and back of the roof were pitched sufficient to hold shingles. There was also a flat deck portion of the roof that had very little pitch. Prior to the repair work at issue in this case, this flat portion was hot mopped and tarred. Pursuant to the 1988 South Florida Building Code which was in effect at the time of this re-roofing job, composition shingles were not to be applied to roofs having an incline of less than 2 1/2 inches per foot. After it completed re-roofing the shingled section of the roof, Hytek contacted Respondent to do an inspection. On March 23, 1993, Respondent conducted a "shingle inspection/final inspection" of the roof and prepared a Daily Field Inspection Form (the "Inspection Form".) Respondent's Inspection Form states, "JOB DESCRIPTION: The entire roof completed as per the codes and specifications...INSPECTION RESULTS: Placement of shingles comply [sic] with the New South Florida Building Codes [sic] and Requirement." Respondent submitted his Inspection Form to the Metropolitan Dade County Building & Zoning Department. Subsequent to Respondent's inspection, Hytek Roofing applied shingles to the flat deck portion of the roof. After applying the shingles on the flat roof, Hytek contacted Dade County building officials to conduct a roof inspection. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Manuel Jimenez was a Metropolitan Dade County Building & Zoning Department Roofing Inspector. On March 31, 1993, Jimenez conducted an inspection of the House's roof. During his inspection, Inspector Jimenez performed a spot check of the roof on the front part of the House. All of the 20-30 shingles he examined in the selected area did not comply with the six nail Dade County code requirement. In fact, all of them were found to contain only three (3) nails a piece. In addition, some of the nails were above the tar strip. Jimenez also noted that the back of the roof did not appear to be properly laid. The back roof shingles were not laid in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations nor were they straight. After spot checking the front and back of the roof, Inspector Jimenez noticed the shingles on the flat portion at the rear of the House. Using a level, Inspector Jimenez measured the "pitch" on the flat roof as "one and one- quarter to twelve" instead of the code required minimum of "two and one-half to twelve." He concluded that the roof was in violation of the code because shingles were used on the flat roof which did not have an adequate pitch. On April 1, 1993, Jimenez issued a Summons to Hytek Roofing noting the above violations and requiring corrections including the re-nailing of shingles below the tar strip with six (6) nails per shingle, and the removal of the shingles from the flat roof. The county also required that the back of the roof be replaced. The Metro Dade Building & Zoning Roofing Inspections Checklist requires a shingle inspection to include an inspection of the tie-in to any flat roof. Because the flat deck portion of this roof was in the back, Respondent should have looked at the back of the roof in order to inspect the tie-in to the flat deck. Respondent introduced a number of form documents which reflect language used in the industry by Special Inspectors when certifying the completion of construction work. The standard language on those documents provides that by filling in the designated blanks, the Special Inspector asserts that the work, to the best of his knowledge or belief and professional judgment, is in substantial accordance with the approved plans and the South Florida Building Code. Respondent's Daily Field Inspection report was prepared on his company's letterhead, not a form document and contained Respondent's statement that the entire roof had been completed as per the codes and specifications. Respondent's report did not contain the qualifying language set forth on the forms presented at the hearing. In other words, Respondent did not qualify his statement or state the extent of his investigation leading to that statement. After considering all the evidence, it is concluded that Respondent's inspection was insufficient and that the conclusions set forth in his report were inaccurate. Moreover, at least some of the Code Violations cited by the county should have been detected by a reasonable inspection. Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent failed to utilize due care in the performance of his engineering duties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding Alberto Ramirez guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violation, impose an administrative fine of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, issue a reprimand, and place the license of Alberto Ramirez on probation for a period of two (2) years with such reasonable terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4312 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 8. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 7. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 6. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 13. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 9. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 21. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 21. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 22. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 22. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 23. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 24. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 25 and in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 25. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 3. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 8. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 5. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 10. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 11 and 12. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 12. Subordinate to findings of fact 25. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 14. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 15. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 16 and 17. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 18. Subordinate to findings of fact 19. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 20. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 20. Adopted in pertinent part in findings of fact 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Dept of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe St, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Dept of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff Chief Attorney Dept of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Reydel (Sonny) Santos, Esq. Inter-American Law Center 10753 SW 104th Street Miami, FL 33176-8842
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
Findings Of Fact James Wells is a registered building contractor having been issued license number RB 0008753. In June, 1985, Christiane J. Guignard hired James Wells to do repairing and rebuilding on parts of her home, including roofing work. The roofing work consisted of building a roof extension with hot tar and gravel roofing and a shingle roof. Guignard maintains that Wells agreed to guarantee his roof work against leaks for five years. Wells maintains that there was no explicit warranty, but he understood that he was responsible for "about a year" for leaks in his work. Wells did the work agreed on and completed it at the end of July, 1985. Guignard paid Wells a total of $4,575 for all of the work he had done. Prior to Wells' roofing work, Guignard had three leaks in her roof. Wells' work eliminated those leaks. According to Guignard, she had five leaks after Wells completed his work: 3 leaks around chimneys, 1 leak in a valley, and 1 leak in the overhang roof. Guignard called Wells and he came to perform repairs at the end of August, 1985. He applied silicon in the valley, around the chimneys and around a picture window, and he inserted extra shingles in the valley. According to Guignard, none of the leaks stopped. According to Guignard, she called Wells incessantly from the end of August, 1985, to March, 1987, regarding the leaks. Wells came back several times to inspect the roof for leaks. Wells determined that one leak was the result of an electrician who put a hole and two nails in the roof. Wells repaired this leak even though it was not the result of his work. Wells flashed two chimneys. In June or July, 1985, Wells replaced the shingles in the valley. Wells repaired all the leaks except the one in the overhang. Wells never found any evidence of a leak in that area. Guignard believes that area is leaking because the siding has become discolored and because she saw rain water running around the siding when she stood under the overhang in a heavy rain. Wells says that he told Guignard that the possibility existed that excess rain water from a heavy rain could run down the siding because of the slant of the roof. He saw the discoloration of the siding and says it results from the tree buds of a nearby tree falling on the roof, mixing with rain water, and running over the siding. Wells told Guignard that she needed to treat the siding with a water sealer to seal the wood. Sealing the wood was not part of his job and Guignard said she would do it, but never has. No independent or expert testimony was offered to show that a leak exists in the overhang or that any leak which is alleged to exist is the result of Wells' work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against James Wells. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5603 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Wells Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted as a Conclusion of Law. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9-11 are rejected as being unnecessary for the resolution of this matter. Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 695 Quincy, Florida 32351 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction findings Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating licenses for roofing contractors in the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, Respondent held two licenses; he was a certified roofing contractor, license no. CC CO55580, and a registered roofing contractor, license no. RC 0060386. Respondent filed an application to qualify the company, D.S.S. & Sons, Inc., as a licensed roofing contractor; however, he failed to complete all documents necessary for licensure, and his application was closed for lack of response effective August 3, 1993. Respondent's address of record with the Department is 821 SW Dwyer Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983. D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. is not now, nor has it ever been, licensed to perform roofing construction by the State of Florida. Facts common to all consumers On or about August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County, Florida, resulting in damage to hundreds of roofs. Roof repair or total replacement following the storm was not uncommon. Due to the large amount of damage, and the demand for roofing materials created by the volume of work to be performed, some contractors had difficulty obtaining roofing supplies. Additionally, some contractors had difficulty hiring qualified labor to perform the extensive roofing that was in great demand. The problems with obtaining materials and labor, however, were short term in that most roofing contractors made arrangements to bring in supplies and staff from other areas. In fact, by the time the work was to be performed in connection with these cases, the problems which had plagued the Dade County contractors were subsiding. Additionally, at all times material to these cases, the weather would not have been a factor to justify the delays complained of by these consumers. Rainy weather did not cause any prolonged work delays after the storm. Findings as to Helmly Charles Helmly resides at 11985 SW 98th Lane, Miami, Florida. His home was damaged by Hurricane Andrew and required roof replacement. Mr. Helmly contracted with Respondent to re-roof his home for the sum of $17,940.00. The contract was signed by Respondent's salesman, Felix Fowler, and identified D.S.S. & Sons, Inc. doing business as Darryl Saibic, Roofing Contractor as the licensed entity. Mr. Helmly paid an initial deposit of $5,382.00 in order for the Respondent to begin work on the project. The next payment, an additional $5,382.00, was to be due at the "dry in" stage of the job, with the final payment (the balance) due on completion. One of the contract provisions Mr. Helmly insisted upon was a completion deadline to be stated in the contract. He was expecting visitors and he was anxious to have the home re-roofed before their arrival. He insisted that a guaranteed completion date of March 7, 1993 be noted on the face of the contract. Mr. Helmly complied with all requirements of the payment schedule outlined by the contract. In fact, he remitted $10,764.00 even though the roof had not been at the "dry in" stage. Between January and February, 1993, the Respondent removed the old roof, installed a base sheet, and nailed a single ply roof membrane to the roof. After February, 1993, the Respondent failed to timely complete the Helmly roof. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Helmly roof was no more than $3,588.00. The Respondent did not respond to numerous telephone calls and letters from Helmly, and threatened to place a lien on the Helmly property when Mr. Helmly attempted to cancel the contract in May, 1993. Mr. Helmly went to the Dade County Building Department and complained about roof leaks in June, 1993 (Respondent had still not done any further work). On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Helmly property to repair the roof. The repairs caused the roof to leak more. Respondent did not refund Mr. Helmly's money, did not complete the roof, and showed a gross indifference to the plight which resulted when he failed to timely complete the project. In July, 1993, desperate to have his roof completed, Mr. Helmly offered to purchase the tiles himself if Respondent would have a crew come install the new roof. Respondent agreed to have a crew install the tile within ten days of its arrival. On September 17, 1993, Mr. Helmly took delivery of the new tile, paid for it in full (a cost of $4,803.00) and notified the Respondent so that the installation could begin. Respondent never returned to complete the re-roofing. He failed to honor his verbal agreement to install the tiles. By letter dated October 1, 1993, Respondent offered to reimburse Helmly for the overage if he would hire another contractor to complete the job. On October 19, 1993, Mr. Helmly hired a new contractor who completed the installation of the new roof in early November, 1993. Approximately eight months after the deadline on Respondent's contract, Mr. Helmly had his new roof. Extra expenses totalling $2,936.21 were paid by Mr. Helmly as a result of the Respondent's abandonment of this job. Findings as to Gurdian On January 14, 1993, the Gurdians contracted with Respondent through his agent, Ed Comstock, to repair the roof on their home located at 13301 SW 110 Terrace, Miami, Florida. The contract was executed as D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. d/b/a Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor and called for a total payment of $7,725.00 for the work to be done. The Gurdians made a deposit of $2,300.00 on January 14, 1993 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received a partial release of lien. On February 8, 1993, the Respondent pulled a permit for the Gurdian home but never called for inspections on this project. In February, 1993, all the tiles were removed from the roof and roofing paper was installed. On March 1, 1993, the Gurdians made a second payment of $2,300.00 by check made payable to D.S.S. and Sons, Inc. and received another partial release of lien. The Respondent did not timely complete the Gurdian roof. From June through November, 1993, Respondent sent the Gurdians unsigned notices claiming he would return to their job but did not do so. Numerous excuses were offered as to why the project was not completed; however, none of these had merit. The Gurdians waited until April, 1994 hoping the Respondent would return and complete the work. They drove to Respondent's office and left a message seeking assistance. Finally, Respondent recommended a company called CTI to complete the roof work for the Gurdians. When contacted, CTI told the Gurdians it would cost $7,600.00 to complete their job for which they, not Respondent, would be responsible. The Gurdians then attempted to notify the Respondent at his address of record by certified mail of their continuing problems but the letter was returned to them unopened. In June, 1994, the Gurdians hired another company to finish their roof which was finally complete and passed inspections on July 26, 1994. The Gurdians were required to pay a total of $13,475.00 to have their roof replaced because the Respondent failed to perform under the original contract. Due to the Respondent's abandonment and indifference in connection with this project, the Gurdians were damaged in an amount not less than $4,200.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Gurdians' roof did not exceed $1,545.00. Respondent has not refunded any of the funds paid by the Gurdians. Findings of fact as to Vila Marta Vila resides at 11116 SW 133 Place, Miami, Florida 33186. Like the others discussed above, the Vila home was damaged and required a new roof. On January 13, 1993, Vila signed a contract with Ed Comstock acting on behalf of D.S.S. and Sons, Inc., doing business as Darryl S. Saibic, Roofing Contractor, to have her roof repaired for a total contract price of $7,200.00. A down payment of $2,160.00 made payable to the company was made at that time. On February 8, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to re-roof the Vila home. On February 15, 1993, Vila paid an additional $2,160.00 to Respondent. At that time Respondent removed the tiles from the Vila roof and installed one layer of roofing paper over the roof decking. Despite representations from Respondent that new tiles would be delivered in approximately three to four weeks, the Respondent did not install a new roof on the Vila home. In February and March, 1993, the roof was patched three times to stop leaks but no substantive work was performed to install new tiles. Respondent did not return to the Vila home despite numerous requests from the homeowner for the work to be completed. In June, 1993, Respondent represented that the Vila job might be completed if the tiles were sent out COD. When Vila attempted to verify that information, she was told she had paid enough to not have that concern. However, no tiles were ever delivered to her home. In August, 1993, Vila, after Respondent failed to return telephone calls, wrote to Respondent and demanded a refund. She has not received one. Vila ended up paying $7,754.00 to another contractor to have her roof replaced. The value of the work performed by Respondent on the Vila project did not exceed $1,440.00 yet he has failed or otherwise refused to refund the difference between that amount and what she paid. Vila has suffered monetary damages in an amount not less than $4,800.00 as a result of Respondent's abandonment of this project. Findings of fact as to Bermudez Mr. and Mrs. Bermudez reside at 8335 SW 147th Place, Miami, Florida. On November 30, 1992, they signed a contract with Respondent in the amount of $6,400.00 to correct extensive leakage on both floors of the Bermudez home. Mrs. Bermudez gave a deposit in the amount of $1,860.00 and was told that the repairs would begin in two weeks and be completed in approximately five weeks. In December 1992, and January, 1993, the Respondent performed some minor patching but no significant work was undertaken to repair the Bermudez home. In January, 1993, Respondent pulled a permit to replace the Bermudez roof. Within a week of the permit, Respondent sent an unsigned form letter to the Bermudez advising them that there would be delays. In February and March, 1993, the Respondent's crew stripped the old tile off the Bermudez home and installed batten and roofing paper over the decking. Mrs. Bermudez made deposits totalling $3,720.00 to Respondent in connection with this contract. Despite numerous requests from Mrs. Bermudez, Respondent did not complete the roof. In July, 1993, Respondent sent a crew to the Bermudez home in connection with a leak but the repair did not resolve the problems and did not substantively finish the roof. As with the other cases, between July and November, 1993, Respondent sent numerous unsigned form letters to Mrs. Bermudez offering false or ridiculous excuses for why the project had not been completed. In January, 1994, Mrs. Bermudez filed a formal complaint against Respondent but he never completed the job nor refunded the deposits. Between March and July, 1994, Respondent represented he would complete the Bermudez job but did not do so. The Bermudez roof was not completed until December 13, 1994. As a result of Respondent's incompetence, inability, or refusal to complete the Bermudez roof, the family lived with a leaking roof for approximately two years and incurred unnecessary expenses. Respondent showed a gross indifference to the plight of the Bermudez family. Respondent could not have timely completed the projects described above during the period July, 1993 to July, 1994, as his workers compensation had expired. The numerous promises to perform the contracts as originally agreed were meaningless.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's licenses, requiring Respondent to make full restitution to the consumers in these cases before being entitled to seek new licensure, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution of these cases as set forth in the affidavits filed in this cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 25th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-1079, 95-1080, 95-1081, 95-1082 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 155 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Masters Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Darryl Saibic 821 S.W. Dwyer Road Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0020923. On may 27, 1982, the Respondent, doing business as T & T Roofing Company, contracted with Jessie Reid, 1021 Abeline Drive, Deltona, Florida, to replace an existing shingle roof for a total contract price of $2,406.20. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as qualifying agency for A. L. Roofing Specialists. At no time has the Respondent qualified T & T Roofing Company. On August 26, 1982, when the Respondent completed work on Jessie Reid's roof, he was paid $2,406.20 which was the entire contract price for this job. The Respondent was to return to the job site to inspect the roof and correct minor remaining problems. However, when the Respondent would not return to the job, even after repeated calls, it was determined that there is a difference in shingle thickness at points on the roof, and the rain runs down over the gutters instead of into them. Further, the hip and ridge caps are of a different material than the major portion of the shingled roof; there are exposed nails; and the gutters are filled with roofing debris. The Respondent has not been responsive to communications and he has refused to make the necessary corrections to Jessie Reid's roof. The Respondent never obtained a permit for the reroofing work done for Jessie Reid at 1021 Abeline Drive, in Deltona. A permit is required to do reroofing work in Deltona, which is within the jurisdiction of Volusia County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Registered Roofing Contractor's license number RC 0020923 held by the Respondent, John W. Thorn, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 30th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John W. Thorn Post Office Box 1897 Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue Whether the Respondent aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor by obtaining a permit for a roofing job performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether the work on the job failed to fully comply with the local building codes; Whether the Respondent gave a guarantee on the job and thereafter failed to reasonably honor the guarantee; and Whether Respondent failed to properly supervise the job site activity.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor, holding License No. RC0030450. Carol Kilgore is the daughter of Beula Relihan, who owns a rental home located at 207 East Selma in Tampa, Florida. Mrs. Relihan is 86 years old, and for several years Mrs. Kilgore has been managing the property. In early 1987, Mrs. Kilgore was involved in obtaining estimates to replace the roof at the rental home. After obtaining estimates from contractors listed in the yellow pages, which Mrs. Kilgore felt to be high, Mrs. Kilgore responded to an advertisement for roofing work located in the Money Saver. She called the number listed in the advertiser, talked to Leroy Rison, and asked him to come to the house and give her an estimate. On or about February 26, 1987, Leroy Rison and his nephew, Gary Terrell, visited Mrs. Kilgore after looking at the job site, and wrote out an estimate for replacing the roof of $1,650.00. Mr. Terrell wrote the proposal which reflected the work to be done, the price, and the proposed beginning and finishing date. However, before any contract was entered into, Mrs. Kilgore discovered that neither Rison or Terrell were licensed contractors. She explained that she wanted only a licensed contractor who could pull the permit to perform the work. Although Mr. Terrell and Mr. Rison are willing to work for a homeowner if the homeowner will obtain the permit, Mrs. Kilgore insisted that she wanted a licensed contractor. Therefore, Mr. Rison recommended the Respondent, and later called the Respondent to advise him of the job. The next day, February 27, 1987, Respondent met Mrs. Kilgore and wrote a contract proposal on a form with a printed heading "MacDill Roofing", to which in handwriting was added "& Services." Respondent operates under the name of, and is the qualifying agent for, MacDill Services. The contract prepared by the Respondent merely copied the proposal submitted by Terrell and Rison, including the same price and the same misspelled words. The contract was accepted and signed by Ms. Kilgore's mother. Mrs. Kilgore paid Respondent $650.00, with the balance to be paid upon successful completion of the contract. Work was scheduled to begin the following day, Saturday, February 28, 1987 and be completed by Monday, March 2, 1987. The following Saturday work began. Respondent obtained the permit for the job, and apparently purchased the materials and had them delivered. Leroy Rison worked on the job and hired the laborers. Gary Terrell also worked on the job. One of the men Rison hired, Earl, worked for a roofing company during the week but did not have a license. Mr. Rison could not remember the name of any of the other men who worked on the job. Leroy Rison was not an employee of MacDill Roofing or MacDill Services, but he had worked for Respondent on other occasions. Although Respondent contends that he went by the job site on three or four occasions, staying at the job site between 1 and 2 hours on each occasion, his testimony is not credible. Charles Doty, who was the tenant in the rental home, had received a leg injury which forced him to stay home during this entire period of time. The only time Mr. Doty was gone was for an hour and half on Saturday to attend a therapy session. Mr. Doty never saw Respondent on the job site, although he had heard Respondent's name mentioned by Mr. Rison. Mrs. Kilgore also visited the job site on several occasions and she never saw the Respondent at the job site. Respondent simply did not supervise the job site activities. On March 3, 1987, the roof was scheduled for final inspection by the building department. Mrs. Kilgore went to the house to wait for the building inspector. After several hours, she left to get a soft drink. She was gone only five minutes, but when she returned, she discovered that the building inspector had come and gone, and a "green tag", indicating that the house had passed inspection, had been left on the porch. Mrs. Kilgore was very upset because she felt that the roofing work had not been done properly. She went to the building supervisor at City Hall and asked him if he could send the inspector back to the house so that she could point out the problems. The building supervisor agreed to send the inspector back to the house. The building department inspector was Terry Scott. On March 3, 1987, Mr. Scott had approximately 20 or 25 inspections to do. When he first went to the house he just looked around quickly and left a green tag. He admitted that a thorough inspection was only done if a homeowner complained. When Mr. Scott returned to the house on March 3, 1987, he still did not do a thorough inspection. However, he did issue a "red tag" which listed certain deficiencies that would have to be corrected before the roof could pass inspection. The red tag required that the contractor "replace bad wood where needed and install drip-edge where needed." Normally, when a red tag is issued, the contractor corrects the deficiency and calls for another inspection. That did not occur in this case. On April 9, 1987, Inspector Scott met Mr. Park at the job-site to discuss problems with the roof. On that day, a more thorough inspection was performed. Another red tag was issued and the following deficiencies were noted: "Bad wood not replaced--Wall flashing not properly installed. Flashing around chimney not proper--Felt under drip-edge." Respondent did not correct these deficiencies and never called for another inspection. The permit expired without the roof being approved by final inspection. Although not all the deficiencies noted in the inspection constitute code violations, the Tampa Building Code does require that rotten wood be replaced and the contract specified that the rotten decking would be replaced. Nevertheless, after Respondent completed the job, rotten wood remained in place. The replacement of the rotten wood was noted in both red tags. Respondent never attempted to correct this deficiency. On the day the property initially passed inspection, March 3, 1987, Respondent called Mrs. Kilgore and requested the remaining $1,000 owed on the contract price. Mrs. Kilgore refused to pay the Respondent since she was dissatisfied with the work and the first red tag had issued. At some point, apparently after the red tag issued in April, Respondent decided that he was not going to get any more money from Mrs. Kilgore. Other than asking for the money on March 3, 1987, Respondent has not attempted to collect the remainder of the money from Ms. Kilgore; however, he has also not attempted to correct the code violations and other deficiencies. Since Respondent did not collect the remainder of the money owed, Respondent did not pay Leroy Rison, and Mr. Rison did not pay the laborers who performed the work. As the contractor on this job, Respondent had full responsibility for ensuring that the work was done properly and that the roof passed final inspection. Respondent failed to supervise the work on the job, and the re- roofing was not done in a workmanlike manner. In essence, Respondent abdicated his responsibilities as the contractor on the job, and allowed the work to be performed by unsupervised unlicensed persons. The roofing material used was supposed to be fiberglass shingle guaranteed for 20 years. There was no evidence presented that something other than the material specified was used or that the shingles were not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. The roof did not leak after the work was completed. No evidence relating to a guarantee, other than the guarantee related to the shingles, was presented. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 10, 1986, a 61 paragraph Administrative Complaint was filed against Respondent which alleged, among other things, willful violation of local law; failure to qualify a firm through which he was operating; gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud, or deceit in the practice of contracting; failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent; and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489. On March 26, 1987, Respondent signed a stipulated settlement with the Department of Professional Regulation admitting to all the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The stipulated disposition was that Respondent's licensure would be suspended for two years and indefinitely thereafter until an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 was paid. The stipulation was adopted by Final Order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board rendered June 9, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revocation of Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 25th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted, generally except the date of February 26, 1987 appears to be the appropriate date, rather than February 7, 1987, in that the estimate from Larry Rison was obtained one day before the contract was entered into with Respondent. Accepted, generally. Accepted as true, but unnecessary and irrelevant, since Rison and Terrell did not enter into a contract for the job. 7.-14. Accepted. 15. Accepted as true; however, the last two sentences were considered unnecessary. 16.-19. Accepted, generally. First sentence accepted, sentences two and three rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Rejected as redundant and for the reasons set forth under Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6. First sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence, second sentence accepted, except as to Respondent's intent. Third and fourth sentences accepted in general. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Francis A. Park 6109 South MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida 33611 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
