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 At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, having been issued license number CC CO24406. Respondent contracted with Michael Cirulnick on or about June 21, 1986, to replace his flat tar and gravel roof. The contract was for $900 and provided a five year guarantee against leaks. The City of Sunrise required a permit for this job, having adopted by local ordinance sections 301 et seg. of the South Florida Building Code. Prior to contracting with Respondent, Cirulnick had obtained a bid from Code Three Roofing Company. He did not sign a contract with Code Three and did not know that Code Three had applied for a permit. Cirulnick did not tell Respondent that he already had a permit on the job. Respondent performed the job without obtaining a building permit or inspections. Approximately two weeks after the job was finished, at the first hard rain, the roof began to leak in new areas. After the job, leaks developed twenty-four feet from the valley of the adjoining sloped roof to the right and twelve feet to the left, corresponding to the kitchen sliding door and the dining room sliding door. Cirulnick called Respondent for 6 to 8 weeks before finally reaching him in response to the leaks, at which time Respondent promised to repair them. Respondent claimed that he was contacted approximately two weeks after the job was completed. He blamed the new leaks on the sloped shingle roof and refused to repair them under his guarantee. Cirulnick contacted the City of Sunrise after repeated unfulfilled promises from Respondent that he would attend to the problem. When Cirulnick learned that no permit or inspections had been obtained, he contacted the Department of Professional Regulation. In 1987, in response to Cirulnick's complaints, Respondent sent Walter Harris, who told Cirulnick he was with "American Roofing". He told Cirulnick that the problem was with the way the flat roof was tied into the sloped roof, and called the job "terrible." He made repairs to the tie-in where the flat tar and gravel roof connected to the sloped shingle roof, which repairs stopped the leaks over the living and dining room sliding doors, but not the leak by the kitchen doorway beneath the area where the valley of the sloped roof ties in with the flat roof. Respondent obtained a permit and final inspection based upon his affidavit filed with the City of Sunrise in December of 1987, 1-1/2 years after he completed the Cirulnick job. Eugene Gardner, Building Official for the City of Sunrise, had inspected the Cirulnick roof when the shingle roof had been installed. This was shortly before Cirulnick purchased the property. When Gardner was there, there was no black roof cement in the valley of the sloped shingle roof. Cirulnick examined the roof both before and after Respondent worked on the roof. The black substance over the shingles was put there by Respondent. The leaks which developed after Respondent finished the job related directly to the areas where the flat roof joins or ties into the sloped shingle roof. Leaks developed in both the kitchen and dining eating areas, by the sliding glass doors. These are situated where the flat and sloped roofs meet. The leaks continued from June of 1986 until Walter Harris was sent out to do repairs, approximately February of 1987. His repairs stopped these leaks but not the leak in the kitchen doorway, situated under the area where the valley in the sloped roof joins the corner of the flat roof. That leak still exists. Petitioner called Robert Hilson as its expert. Respondent called Kirk Keuter. Both experts examined the roof in May of 1988. Keuter found the work to be within professional standards and blamed the leaks on the shingle roof valley. He was unable to explain the cause of the leaks. He testified that "As near as I can ascertain" the base sheet of the flat roof was properly tucked under the existing old material on the sloped shingle roof. He admitted that the leaks complained of by Cirulnick were coming from the valley which tied into the flat roof, but claimed that the leaks were above the tie-in. Although Walter Harris admitted making repairs well after the original job was done, Keuter claimed that had repairs been made after a couple of months from the original work, he would have been able to detect them. Yet, Keuter failed to see the repairs made by Walter Harris in approximately February of 1987. The testimony of Hilson was persuasive. In comparison with Keuter's eight years of experience, Hilson has been in the roofing business for 25 years and has been the chairman of various technical and roofing code committees. He was able to determine that the shingle roof had been applied over the original shingle roof, a fact which came out at the hearing during the testimony of the Sunrise Building Official, Eugene Gardner. He was also able to explain why the roof leaked after Respondent replaced the flat roof. The flat roof was not properly tied into the sloped roof, allowing water to run under the roofing material where the two roofs joined. Additionally, the black cement Respondent had placed above the shingles in the valley of the sloped roof in the corner where the flat roof joined the sloped roof was trapping water, causing water pockets to form, from which leaks developed. This explanation is consistent with the history of the leaks. They developed only after the flat roof was replaced. The leaks coming from the tie- in stopped when Walter Harris made his repairs. The leaks originating from the valley came from the black cement which was improperly applied above the shingles in the valley. Wayne Roper was called by Respondent to testify that he saw areas of leak damage in the kitchen and back porch. He hesitantly remembered damage in the dining area as well. However, this testimony had little meaning since the entire shingle roof had been replaced shortly before Cirulnick purchased the property. There was no evidence as to the cause of or age of the interior damage described by Roper. Respondent failed to respond to the complaints of the homeowner until the Department of Professional Regulation and the City of Sunrise got involved. Cirulnick had been calling Respondent for over a month and a half. When (and if) Respondent did look at the job, he blamed the new leaks on the shingle roof and refused to repair any of them under his guarantee. Although he sent Walter Harris out to make repairs in approximately February of 1987, he did not repair the leaks associated with the water pocketing in the valley of the sloped roof where he had placed the black roof cement. Despite Respondent's contractual guarantee, the leaks in the kitchen emanating from the area where the valley ties into the flat roof, were not repaired. Respondent entered into a contract with Rolden W. Jones in April of 1986 to repair several leaks at his house and recover the breezeway between the house and garage for $750. The Jones house was located in Delray Beach. In Delray Beach, any roofing contractor must hold an occupational license. Respondent did not hold an occupational license in Delray Beach under his own name or "American Roofing". A permit was required for this job under the applicable building code and ordinances then in effect. Respondent did not obtain a permit or call for inspections for the Jones job. Respondent told Jones that Respondent held a "tri- county license" and was authorized to work and pull permits in the City of Delray Beach. Respondent operated under the name "American Roofing", which appears prominently on his contract with Jones. Respondent never placed "American Roofing" on his license or otherwise qualified said company. Before Respondent commenced work on the residence, and pursuant to the agreement between Jones and Respondent, Jones took off the existing tar paper but did not remove the nearby tile. Respondent began the job by tearing off the garage roof tile by the breezeway and putting down new tar paper. He did not repair the leak at the northeast corner of the house or by the front door. The leaks persisted with the rain since they had not been repaired. In response to Jones' calls Respondent did come out one time to place some compound on the roof to help stop the leaks, but thereafter failed to return to finish the job. Jones paid Respondent $500 the day Respondent commenced working. Jones never paid Respondent the additional $250 called for by their contract since Respondent failed to return to complete the job and failed to return Jones' phone calls or to claim the registered letter Jones sent to him. Respondent admitted that he did not finish the job, stating: "Because it was not real high priority, undoubtedly, I didn't give it priority." E. J. Brodbeck & Sons, Inc., finished the work on Jones' roof for a cost of $1077.65. Michael Brodbeck, who performed the work, found that the only area which had been worked on was the breezeway. He found the job incomplete. On September 25, 1986, Andrew Jackson, an unlicensed contractor doing business as Jackson Renovation Enterprises, entered into a contract with a company known as Madco. The contract was for $7,000 to install a new roof system on the roof of a commercial building owned by the company. Respondent knew that Jackson was not a licensed roofing contractor. Jackson had previously made an arrangement with Respondent whereby Jackson would pay the cost of permits and 10% of the contract price to Respondent in return for having his company qualified by Respondent and having Respondent pull the necessary permits. Respondent's only duty was to pull the permit. Pursuant to this arrangement Jackson contacted Respondent and, in Respondent's words, told him "I got a $7,000 contract and let's go ahead and do it." Respondent obtained the building permit. He listed the owner as "Jackson" and the job as "roof repairs & coating" for $6,500. On one occasion Respondent went to the job site. While he was there, he took a photograph of Jackson installing Madco's new roofing system. Respondent did not supervise or in any way participate in installing Madco's roofing system. The president of Madco, Samuel Weiss, dealt only with Andrew Jackson. Until a few months prior to the final hearing he had no knowledge of Respondent, never having met with or heard of him. After the roof was installed by Andrew Jackson it consistently leaked, in one instance causing a fire and major damage. In accordance with the understanding between Respondent and Jackson, Jackson paid Respondent the cost of the permit fee plus 10% i.e., $700.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's roofing contractor's license number CC C024406. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1989, at Tallahassee, F1orida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4392, 87-4393, 87-4398 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2- 19, 23-30, and 37-43 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 44 has been rejected as being subordinate. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 20-22, 31-36, and 45-47 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. Respondent's first, second, ninth, eleventh, twelfth, fifteenth, and sixteenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's third and fourth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as being subordinate. Respondent's fifth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth and seventeenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's eighth, tenth, fourteenth, and eighteenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 517 Southwest First Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Office of the General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John C. Moppert, Esquire 7491 West Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 207 Lauderhill, Florida 33319
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Charles J. Eckert, was a registered roofing contractor in Florida. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, (Department), and the Construction Industry Licensing Board, (CILB), were and are the state agencies responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in this state. On August 7, 1987, James F. Gordon, an individual with a reported building and real estate business background, contracted with the Respondent to install the roof on the house he was building and which he had designed. Mr. Gordon chose the roofer himself rather than using the general contractor's roofer because that individual was not familiar with the type of tile to be installed. Respondent had installed a roof of this type tile on the condominium apartment in which Mr. Gordon was living at the time, and appeared to have done a good job, so Mr. Gordon chose him to do the house roof. The contract was negotiated between Mr. Gordon and the Respondent and his partner who took the plans to study before submitting their proposal to install the tile and base which, upon acceptance, became the contract for the job. Mr. Gordon was to pay for the tile ordered by Respondent. The Respondent ordered 9400 square feet of tile plus caps which came to between $8500 and $8800. The contract between Gordon and Respondent, for installation Of the tile and base, called for a payment of $9800. The original agreement between the parties was executed in July, 1987. Work was to start about three months later, after the permit for house construction had been pulled, based on an estimate of how construction would progress. As the house was erected, Mr. Gordon would notify the Respondent of the progress so he could have some idea as to when his work was to begin. The actual roof work began sometime in October, 1988. Respondent's men came timely and did the hot tar and felting during which time, Mr. Gordon often went up on the roof with the Respondent to see how things were going. The original plans called for Anderson skylights in the roof and Respondent's personnel did not want to use the flashings supplied with them. Mr. Gordon agreed to the change. The tile was custom ordered for this job and took some time to arrive. When it did, it was installed by a subcontractor under arrangement with the Respondent. Respondent never came to inspect or supervise the work of the installers, who he was paying by the piece, after his last visit when the mopping of the tar and felt was completed. Mr. Gordon was there every day and never saw Respondent during the entire installation. Respondent admits that paying by the piece for work of this kind may not be the best way to do it. The actual installation of the tile took approximately three weeks or more during which time the installers frequently complained about the way the roof was cut. The tile manufacturer sent a representative out to examine it. This individual indicated the roof was OK. When the installation was complete, there were 16 yards of tile debris left on the ground around the house. When no effort was made by the roofers to clean it up, Mr. Gordon repeatedly called Respondent's office to complain, and it took approximately two weeks before anyone came out to pick it up. Even then, the debris was merely placed in one large pile in the front yard and neither Respondent nor his subcontractor ever came back to remove it. Mr. Gordon had it removed at his own expense. The contract between Mr. Gordon and Respondent did not specifically provide for debris removal and Respondent claims this work is generally accomplished by the general contractor. No evidence to contradict this claim was presented by Petitioner. It was also noted that the installers mixed the colored cement used in the roofing in the garage and got it all over that area. No effort was made to clean it up before departure. Other deficiencies in installation included uneven installation of tile on the West side of the house. The tiles ran zigzag in their rows. Colored cement was splashed on the soffits; the color of the caps was irregular due to improper mixing of oxide for the cement; and the cap tiles were raised. Several months after installation, holes were discovered under tiles which were lifting up, and there was a leak in the roof near a skylight. Because he was dissatisfied with the roofing job he got, prior to closing, Mr. Gordon notified the bank financing the project that he was withholding $1,000 from the amount due the Respondent. He paid Respondent the balance. Because of personal problems unrelated to this matter, Mr. Gordon wad unable to take any further action for several months, during which time he heard nothing from the Respondent. He was, however, still dissatisfied with the roofing job and ultimately called Respondent to come fix a leak which had developed around a skylight. He received no response to that call and Respondent never showed up. Somewhat later, Mr. Gordon received a letter from a collection agency demanding the thousand dollars he had withheld. Mr. Gordon responded with pictures of the roofing job done by the Respondent and didn't hear anything further about it from either the agency or Respondent. Thereafter, Mr. Gordon filed a complaint with the Department and after that, Mr. Byer, hired by Respondent, came out to the Gordon house to fix the leak and to attempt to fix the discoloration. Mr. Byer removed the loose tiles and re-cemented the caps. Instead of replacing the cement, he painted with a substance which matched the color, but which will last only eight years. The roof is now sound and water tight, but due to the holes in some tiles, the mismatching of colors, and the zigzag courses, it is, to Mr. Gordon, esthetically unsatisfactory. Mr. Gordon has called in another roofer who indicated that the existing problems cannot be fixed. To correct the problem would require reroofing. Respondent's job was also considered unsatisfactory by Mr. Hurlston, the Department inspector who looked at the job in mid February, 1988. In his opinion, the work was sloppy, the tile has been "stretched", the lines are not straight, there are holes between the tiles, the "mud" around the roof ridge is not nesting properly, and some field tile are also raised and not nesting properly. Taken together, the workmanship is poor. It might be acceptable in a project home but not in a custom home as this is. In Mr. Hurlston's opinion, the failure to continuously supervise and correct errors as they occurred shows indifference to the job and constitutes gross negligence. In his opinion, the defects in the finished job are directly attributable to a lack of supervision by the Respondent, and it is so found. Respondent contends the job was done according to the installation specifications supplied by the manufacturer. He claims that the irregularity problem starts with the first three rows of tile and once they are down, the course is set. Correcting problems every couple of rows results in irregular lines and since every 5th line is nailed, if it is not in straight, it's too late to change without removing the whole roof. Assuming, arguendo, this is so, removal may well be the only appropriate course of action open if the installation is not right, and Respondent should have done it if necessary. Mr. Eckert also claims that the loose tiles discovered by Mr. Hurlston were, for the most part, caused by people walking around on the roof. A 10% loose tile rate, as evidenced here, is considered acceptable by the manufacturer. Mr. Hurlston agrees and it is so found. Respondent claims no knowledge of any problem with Mr. Gordon except for the fact that Gordon owes him $1,000. In light of Mr. Gordon's testimony that he called Respondent repeatedly to get him to come out, this is not likely. He has a policy that if a client owes him money, he won't correct any problems with the job until he is paid in full. Nonetheless, he sent Mr. Byer to make any corrections necessary in this case with the instructions to "do anything necessary to make him [Gordon] happy." Byer worked on the Gordon house for about three weeks during which time he replaced the V ridges by re-mortaring it and straightening crooked tiles. As the work progressed, Mr. Gordon seemed happy and indicated the work looked better. At no time did Gordon tell Byer to hurry or to abandon the job. When it was complete, however, Gordon told Byer that though he liked what Byer had done, Respondent would either reimburse him or he'd have his license. In light of his relationship with Gordon, the fact that Gordon has indicated he wants the roof replaced, and Gordon's alleged comment that he'd either be reimbursed or have Respondent's license, Respondent does not believe anything he could do short of replacing the roof, something he will not do, would satisfy Gordon. Other than sending Mr. Byer out to make corrections, he did nothing. It is obvious, however, that the only way to correct the problem of appearance is to remove the tile and start again. Respondent is unwilling to do this. By Final Order dated February 4, 1987, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed a fine of 1,000.00 on Respondent for gross negligence and incompetence demonstrated on a roofing job accomplished by him and his firm in 1980 and 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Charles J. Eckert's registration as a roofer be suspended for three months but that the suspension not be implemented and he be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe; that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of December, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Craig Myrick, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles J. Eckert 2515 16th Avenue Drive East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director CILB Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent's contractor license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, James Cooper, was at all times material to this action licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC0066905. Mr. Cooper's license is currently classified "Inactive, Issued (09/05/97)." Around March 1, 1996, Marshall Moran was contacted by Julia Jones regarding repairs to the leaky roof on her home located at 209 Cresent Drive, DeFuniak Springs Walton County, Florida. Ms. Jones' home was over one hundred years old with a steep metal roof. The roof she wished repaired was over the enclosed sleeping porch of her house. Over the last ten years, she had various contractors attempt to fix the leak in the sleeping porch roof. These attempts occurred, on average, more than one time per year. The leak always returned. Marshall Moran is an unlicensed and unregistered roofing contractor. Mr. Moran has been a roofing contractor since before the licensure requirements for contractors became law. He elected not to become licensed under those statutes. However, he did have the experience and skills necessary to repair Ms. Jones' roof. Marshall Moran discussed the job with Ms. Jones. Mr. Moran recommended the entire section of the roof be rebuilt and described the anticipated repairs. Ms. Jones would not allow the entire section of roof to be repaired. She thought only the small section where the leak was apparent needed repair. Unknown to Ms. Jones and prior to beginning the work, Mr. Moran contacted Respondent to tell him of Ms. Jones' job and to see if Respondent wanted to do the job. Respondent couldn't do the job with his crew but offered to allow Mr. Moran to "work under his license." Respondent was pursuing a large commercial roofing contract around the same time as the events at issue here. He wanted to keep Moran's crew together in order to be able to complete the large commercial job. He held the crew together by enabling Moran to do the construction at Julia Jones' residence in consideration for taking legal responsibility for the Jones' job. Respondent did not hire Mr. Moran as his employee. Respondent knew Mr. Moran was not registered or certified to practice contracting. He also knew Mr. Moran was well qualified to perform the work on the Jones' job. Respondent admits that he knew that he should not pull permits for anyone, but that he did it just this one time in order to keep the crew together. On March 15, 1996, Respondent obtained City of DeFuniak Springs, Florida, building permit number 1379 for the roof repairs to Ms. Jones' residence. On the application for said building permit, Respondent represented himself (doing business as Cooper Roofing and Repair) as the contractor of record on the aforesaid project. Respondent intended to and did eventually take legal responsibility for the Jones' job. However, he did not supervise Mr. Moran or his crew. Additionally, Ms. Jones was never informed of Respondent's involvement. More importantly, Ms. Jones never contracted with Respondent for either Respondent or his company to perform roof repairs on her home. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Moran provided an estimate for repair of the portion of Ms. Jones' roof she felt needed repair. The estimate bears the name of "AAA Metal Works" and "Marshall Moran." AAA Metal Works was Mr. Moran's company. The estimate does not reference either Respondent or his company. The estimated cost to repair Ms. Jones roof was $2,785. Based on the estimate, Ms. Jones entered into a contract with Mr. Moran and AAA Metal Works to perform the repairs to her roof discussed above. Moran and his crew substantially completed the repairs to Ms. Jones' roof in a few days. However, the roof continued to leak after Moran and his crew ended their work. The continuing leak was not due to any incompetence on the part of Respondent or Moran. Ms. Jones paid for the repairs with two checks made out to AAA Metal Works. The checks were in the amounts of $3,500 and $4,350. Respondent did not receive any of the money for the Jones' job. His only expense was the fee for the building permit. All other expenses were paid for by Mr. Moran. At no time during the formation or performance of the contract with Marshall Moran did Julia Jones have any contact with or knowledge of involvement by Respondent. In fact, Respondent only drove by the job site one time. As indicated, the roof continued to leak. Ms. Jones contacted Mr. Moran on approximately 5-6 occasions notifying him of the continued leaks. Mr. Moran would return to Ms. Jones' home and inspect the problems, but was unable to stop the leaks to Jones' satisfaction. It is not clear whether Mr. Moran kept Respondent informed of these continued service calls. Approximately one year after completion of the initial repairs on Ms. Jones' roof, Respondent received a call from Ms. Jones' tenant and friend, Sharon Jenks, who called posing as a potential new client. Ms. Jenks had gotten Respondent's name from the building permit. Ms. Jenks called Respondent because the house was still leaking approximately one year after the repair was done and intervening visits by Marshall Moran had not fixed the problem. Ms. Jenks arranged for Respondent to visit Ms. Jones' home. Respondent did not recognize the house when he arrived and drove past it. When Ms. Jenks showed Respondent the building permit bearing his name, Respondent showed surprise. He returned the next day with Mr. Moran. Respondent, Mr. Moran, Ms. Jenks and Ms. Jones all met regarding the continued leaking. Respondent and Mr. Moran told Ms. Jones that the metal on the roof was "bad" and needed to be replaced to stop the leaks on the "sleeping porch." Understandably, Ms. Jones did not want to deal any further with Mr. Moran or Respondent and would not permit them to make the recommended necessary repairs. Ms. Jones sued both Respondent and Mr. Moran in a civil action styled: Julia R. Jones v. James K. Cooper and Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0040-CC, in the County Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. Following a judge trial, a Final Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent and Mr. Moran on December 9, 1997. Mr. Moran was charged with contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127, Florida Statutes (1995), in State of Florida v. Marshall Moran, Case Number 97-0549-CF, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. That charge was dismissed by Circuit Judge Lewis Lindsey on February 3, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board should find Respondent guilty of violating Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes, and impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Willams and Holz, P.A. 458 West Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LaDon Dewrell, Esquire 207 Florida Place, Southeast Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
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
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.
