The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-licensed roofing contractor and general contractor. He received his roofing contractor's license on August 10, 2004, and his general contractor's license on October 13, 2005. At all times material to the instant case, GGC has held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been the primary qualifying agent for GGC. On January 5, 2007, GGC, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Assad and Millicent Thompson, agreeing, for $37,135.00, to construct a rear porch lanai addition to the Thompsons' single family home in Royal Palm Beach, Florida (Project). The Thompsons paid GGC (by check) $11,140.50 at the time they entered into the contract. They made three subsequent payments to GGC (by check) totaling $21,232.50. The last of these payments was made on or about April 17, 2007. On January 9, 2007, GGC, through Respondent, applied for a permit from the Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Building Department to perform the work it had agreed to do on the Thompsons' home. The permit was subsequently issued. In or around March of 2007, GGC began work on the Project. Dissatisfied with the progress GGC was making on the Project, the Thompsons, on June 5, 2007, sent the following letter to Respondent: With reference to the delay in completing the above construction, we are writing to request your immediate attention. We would like to know specifically: The reason for the delay[.] Your intention in writing as to your estimated time of completion of [the] specified project. Please note we have not physically seen you since April 19, 2007. We understand that inspection of the roof on May 10th resulted in certain violations and as per your conversation with Assad [Mr. Thompson] (when he called you on May 20th), you had problems contacting the Engineer. Please note that his name, telephone and fax are clearly indicated on the plan[s]. Per telephone conversation with him, he has not heard from you recently. You have indicated impatience and anxiety on our part, quite frankly the patience of JOB would have run out long ago. The pile of rubbish is a breeding room for all kinds of creatures and has been a disgusting sight not only for us, but for our neighbors. The open roof has created a vulnerable situation for us and can only deteriorate as we are now in hurricane season. We urge you to contact us urgently with your plan of action. Not having received a written response from Respondent, the Thompsons, on June 25, 2007, sent a follow-up letter to Respondent, which read as follows We note that you have ignored our previous letter of June 5th and you have also failed to honor your telephone promises of June 8th and June 19th to proceed with stucco/electric/rubbish removal etc. In fact absolutely nothing has been done on this job since May 18th. This is totally unacceptable. We have arrangements in place for use of the patio July 14th, cancellation of which will result in serious inconvenience for us. Please be advised that if no progress is made by June 30, 2007, we will be forced to seek all measures at our disposal to have the patio satisfactorily completed. We once again request your urgent co-operation in this matter. The next day, June 26, 2007, the Thompsons received a letter from Respondent (sent by facsimile transmission) acknowledging his receipt of the Thompsons' June 25, 2007, letter. In his letter, Respondent explained that he was "in a bad situation financially" due to circumstances "out of [his] control" related to another project, and he asked the Thompsons to "help [him] resolve[] this matter" by paying the "stucco man" $1,000.00 for materials and an additional $1,000.00 "when [the stucco work] was completed," as well as paying $400.00 for a dumpster to be brought to the Project site (which payments would go towards the monies the Thompsons had to pay for the Project under their contract with GGC). The Thompsons wrote back to Respondent that same day (June 26, 2007), advising him that they would pay for the materials for the stucco work "upon presentation of the invoice, then pay $1,000 for the job on completion as [Respondent had] requested," and that they also would "pay the dumpster charges on completion of the clean-up." Ernest Joseph was the "stucco man" that GGC sent to the Thompsons' home to work on the Project. He last worked on the Project in mid-July 2007. The Thompsons paid Mr. Joseph (by check) a total of $2,000.00 for labor and materials. They also paid Onyx Waste Services (by check) $416.91 to have a dumpster brought to the Project site. Neither GGC, nor anyone acting on its behalf, did any work on the Project after Mr. Joseph left the site in mid-July 2007. The Project was incomplete when the work ceased.2 GGC provided the Thompsons no explanation for the stoppage. In fact, the Thompsons did not hear from GGC at all. The Thompsons were anxious for the Project to be completed, and they did nothing to prevent GGC from accomplishing this objective. After more than 90 consecutive days had passed without any work having been done on the Project, the Thompsons hired another contractor to finish the Project. The Project was ultimately completed. The Thompsons paid $17,540.00 for the additional work that was necessary to complete the Project. The total amount that the Thompsons paid for the Project was $52,329.91 ($32,373 to GGC; $2,000 to Mr. Joseph; $416.91 to Onyx Waste Services; and $17,540.00 to finish the work GGC had failed to do). This was $15,194.91 more than the contract price. Petitioner has incurred a total of $182.90 in investigative and prosecutorial costs in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), as alleged in Counts II and IV, respectively, of the Administrative Complaint; (2) suspending his license for a period of two years; (3) fining him $7,500.00; (4) requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $15,194.91 to the Thompsons; (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department $182.90 for investigative and prosecutorial costs; and (5) dismissing Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner was licensed as a general contractor in Florida, holding license number CG CO20660, under which license he had qualified Custom Retail Contractors, Inc., and the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. On February 12, 1986, the Board entered a Final Order in its case number 0058164 in which it suspended Respondent's license to practice contracting for five years. This action was based on a finding that Respondent had violated several sections of the Standard Building Code in a contract to build several commercial buildings in Largo, Florida, and also had exhibited gross negligence or incompetency in several aspects of the job. Respondent was first made aware of the action of the Board in late March or early April, 1986 when his attorney, Mr. Gordon, told him he had received a copy of the Final Order. At that point, Respondent did not know there had been a hearing on his case, though he knew an action had been filed. Correspondence extracted from the files of DPR relating to Respondent, indicates that between March 11, 1986 and June 25, 1986, several phone calls and letters were exchanged between DPR legal personnel and Respondent's counsel regarding whether Respondent had been given notice that the initial Administrative Complaint against him had been filed. The complaint had been served by an investigator with DPR on Mr. Gordon who declined to accept service since he was counsel for Respondent's corporation and not Respondent, individually. The evidence further indicates that subsequent pleadings in that case were misdirected and misaddressed due to faulty addresses used by the Department which included erroneous street addresses and erroneous ZIP codes. The upshot of all this was that Respondent failed to submit an Election of Rights regarding the initial Administrative Complaint, and, after numerous attempts at communication by DPR, which included the posting of a notice of the Board hearing in the Clearwater, Florida newspaper, the Board ultimately held Respondent in default and entered the Final Order suspending his license as described above. In the Spring of 1986, however, while the communication and correspondence between DPR and Mr. Gordon was going on, Respondent was led to believe, he contends, that the Final Order was not dispositive of his status, that the status of his license was still undecided, and that he could continue to practice his profession. His reliance on advice of counsel was misplaced and works to his detriment here as it does not excuse his improprieties. Consistent with that understanding, on May 1, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Clarence P. Foster, owner of Clarence's, a lounge, restaurant and package store located in Clearwater, Florida, to remodel a patio outside the facility. Work was to include pouring a concrete slab in the drive- thru, constructing a block wall around the patio, installing lattice panels on top of the block wall, and placing planter boxes on two of the walls. The total contract price was $4,730.00 and on May 15, 1986, the manager of Clarence's issued a check in the amount of $1,730.00 payable to Tom Morgan, Respondent's associate. At the time of Respondent's negotiations with Mr. Foster, Mr. Foster indicated he was utilizing a contractor for the complete remodeling of his facility who did not want to do the patio work, and Respondent agreed to do it. After their contract was signed, Respondent dealt with Mr. Foster's manager who showed him the plans for the entire remodeling which, according to Respondent, included the patio. They were stamped by the contractor and had a permit number on them. Respondent contends he asked if that indicated permit included the entire project and claims he was told it did. Respondent also claims he advised Foster's manager that there was some problem with his contractor's license but was assured that the master permit already issued would cover any work done by him under the terms of the individual contract. After receiving the down payment from the manager, Respondent purchased the required materials, paying cash therefore, and started work. Respondent relates that at the very beginning, a violation was written by building inspectors for the failure of the electrical contractor to procure a permit for his portion of the work. When this was done, the contractor immediately got the required permit after the fact and continued with his work. This concerned the Respondent, however, and he requested the manager to bring the existing permit for the remodeling around to the area where Respondent was working where he posted it and covered it with cellophane. When the inspector subsequently came by to check Respondent's work, he asked where the permit for that portion of the construction was and Respondent pointed to the master permit. The inspector then indicated that that permit was only for exterior siding and when Respondent protested that decision, called his office and verified that fact. Upon being advised of this development, Respondent then took the plans he had been furnished and a copy of the permit to the building office and asked the clerk on duty what he had to do. According to Respondent, he was advised that he needed to get more plans prepared with a certificate that the work already done had been done to code. Respondent relates that in response to these instructions, he procured an architect to come and look at the job as it then stood. The architect reportedly thereafter drew up plans and certified the quality of the work already accomplished by Respondent and Respondent allegedly took this information to the building department where, on June 25, 1986, he applied for a building permit to do the work. At that time, according to Respondent, he advised the clerk he had a problem with his license and that all he wanted was a supplemental permit to finish the job. Approximately two weeks later, when passing the County building, Respondent stopped in at the building department office to check on the status of his permit. It was at this point that he first discussed the matter with Mr. Palmer, the plans examiner, who told him that his license had been suspended and that he could not receive a permit to do the work requested. Respondent returned to Mr. Foster and explained the situation to him. Mr. Foster turned the matter over to his manager who arranged for someone else to get the permit and complete the job. Respondent contends he was not trying to trick anyone or to contract without a license. He claims that at the time he entered into the agreement with Mr. Foster, he was unsure of the status of his license and he thought he had made that clear to everyone, including Mr. Foster and the people at the building office. Respondent contends that in his dealings with Foster he was attempting to deal as a subcontractor and not as a general contractor. The fact is, however, that the contract he entered into was a separate contract with Mr. Foster and failed to indicate any reference to subcontractor status. The agreement called for Respondent to be paid directly by Foster and not by the general contractor and his claim is, therefore, not believed. Respondent's protestations in this regard are without merit. Further, his story regarding the permit status is equally as unbelievable. As a qualified contractor, Respondent knew, or should have checked on, the limits of the permit issued and whether it would cover the work he was to do. Reliance on the representations of the non-contractor manager of Mr. Foster's facility as to the status of the permit was unreasonable and constituted gross negligence. Consequently, he was thereafter operating in violation of the local law which required a permit for this work. As a result of the ongoing negotiations between Respondent's counsel and counsel for the Board, on July 10, 1986, after the contract between Mr. Foster and Respondent had been entered into, Respondent and the Board entered into a Settlement Stipulation which called for amendment of the Final Order entered in the prior case and which provided for the payment of a fine of $1,000.00 within 30 days with the further stipulation that when the fine was paid, the previously imposed five year suspension would be set aside. In the event the fine was not paid, however, then the Respondent's license was to be relinquished to the Board. The Amended Final Order was sent by certified mail to the Respondent but was unclaimed because the address used by the Department was, again, incorrect. It must also be noted, however, that at the time the Board agreed to the settlement stipulation, it had available to it the report of investigation relating to the current Administrative Complaint. The Board either failed to consider it or chose to ignore it when it agreed upon a settlement to the former Administrative Complaint. It is also noted that the Board was aware of the difficulties involving service of process as early as August, 1986. At that time, Respondent received a certified letter from the Board Attorney indicating that final action on his license would be taken by the Board at its September, 1986 meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Respondent attended that meeting where, after discussion, counsel for the Board convinced the Board to reopen the case due to the questions involving proper service of its former actions. A year later, in July, 1987, Respondent was advised that the reopened case would again be considered at the Board's meeting in Tampa, and at the 1987 meeting of the Board, it entered its Amended Final Order. Though regrettable, these factors are not controlling and do not affect this current action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a general contractor in Florida be suspended for two years. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1999 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 10 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Palmer refused to issue the permit because Respondent's license had been suspended. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected that Respondent willfully violated local building code. Evidence shows more of gross negligence than willfulness. Accepted. For the Respondent: No submittal. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0758 Fred H. Moore 12687 - 97th Street, North Largo, Florida 34643 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent allowed an uncertified and unregistered person to engage in prohibited contracting in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e), (f), and (m), Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, with the responsibility for prosecuting the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding pursuant to chapters 455 and 489, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In September, 1980, license number CG C015802 was issued to Respondent, Thomas J. Freese, as the qualifying agent for Tracy Industries, 728 St. Lucie Crest, Stuart, Florida 33494 ("Tracy"). Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Tracy Industries at all times material to this proceeding. At no time material to this proceeding was Robert Sherno licensed by Petitioner as a contractor. On or about May 30, 1988, Mr. Sherno contracted with William F. Meinking to construct a home for Mr. Meinking. The contract price was not to exceed $64,000.00. A building permit was issued for the construction of Mr. Meinking's home on June 8, 1988. The permit was obtained by Mr. Sherno as agent for Respondent. A notice of commencement was filed by Mr. Meinking on June 20, 1988, listing Respondent as the contractor, and listing Mr. Sherno as the person designated by the owner for service of notice and other documents. Respondent authorized Mr. Sherno to obtain the building permit by letter to the local building department dated June 21, 1988 ("authorization letter"). The authorization letter was requested by Robert Nelson who was Tracy's president. Mr. Nelson was personally acquainted with Mr. Sherno and dealt directly but separately with Mr. Sherno and Respondent. Mr. Sherno paid $200.00 to Mr. Nelson at the time of the authorization letter. Mr. Nelson told Respondent that the permit was for the construction of Mr. Meinking's home. Respondent initially questioned the need for a contractor to pull the permit when the owner could build his own house under an owner's permit. Respondent was told that Mr. Meinking and Mr. Sherno were going to develop a number of homes in the area Not only would the number of homes not qualify for an owner's permit, but it was anticipated by Mr. Nelson that the development plan proposed by Mr. Sherno and Mr. Meinking had excellent profit potential for all concerned. Based on that information from Mr. Nelson, Respondent signed the authorization letter. Respondent knew Mr. Sherno and knew that Mr. Sherno was not a licensed contractor. Neither Respondent nor any qualified person supervised the construction of Mr. Meinking's home. One person employed by Tracy in an administrative or clerical capacity visited the construction site occasionally. Respondent inquired of Mr. Nelson from time to time at the offices of Tracy as to the status of construction. Respondent drove by the construction site from time to time, but did not personally supervise construction in any capacity. Respondent did not inspect the progress of construction, provide insurance, discuss the progress of construction with Mr. Meinking, Mr. Sherno, or anyone at Tracy. Respondent assumed that construction was proceeding according to schedule and in a satisfactory manner as long as there were no complaints. Mr. Meinking paid Mr. Sherno the entire $64,000.00 pursuant to the terms of the contract. During the latter stages of construction in the first or second week of November, Mr. Meinking began receiving calls from subcontractors stating that they had not been paid. Mr. Meinking terminated his contractual relationship with Mr. Sherno on or about November 17, 1988. Mr. Meinking paid approximately $16,500.00 to eight subcontractors and an additional $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 to finish construction of his home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(e), (f), and (m), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent be fined $2,000.00 which represents the aggregate amount of the minimum fine for each violation. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of August, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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, 1990.
