Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In February 1989, petitioner, Dennis John Hujar, was an examinee on the certified residential contractor examination The test is prepared under the direction of and administered by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department or Board). Petitioner later received written advice from the Department that he had made a grade of 68 on the examination. According to agency rules, a score of at least 69.1 is required for passing. Petitioner then filed an appeal of his grade contending that question 19 was ambiguous. That prompted this proceeding. The examination in question was prepared by the National Assessment Institute and contains three specific areas of testing, including business and financial management. The latter section includes questions on business law. Each item or question is drafted by a committee made up of representatives of the Department, Board and construction industry. After being drafted, the question is reviewed by the Department and Board for accuracy and content. However, the business law questions are not reviewed by attorneys prior to their use. Question 19 was a business law question having a value of two points on an examinee's overall score. The parties agree that if Hujar had received two additional points he would have passed the examination. Question 19 was designed to ascertain if the candidate could differentiate between a licensed and unlicensed contractor, the significance of that distinction, and the circumstances under which the recovery of profit and supervisory costs would be allowed. The question contained four possible answers, (a), (b), (c) and (d), one of which was a "good detractor" for the examinees. The correct solution was based on reference material contained in section 2.10 of the Florida Construction Law Manual, a copy of which has been received in evidence as hearing officer exhibit 2. As is pertinent here, that section provided as follows: Where a contractor or subcontractor has no license and enters into a contract, the contract is void for illegality. (citation omitted) The unlicensed contractor is not permitted to recover for lost profit. However, where work has already been done, the courts have allowed recovery on the basis of quantum meruit, but still deny recover of lost profit and cost of supervision. (citation omitted) In a case where the principal of a corporation was licensed as a general contractor for 17 years, but the corporation owned by the principal was not so licensed, a California court held that there was substantial compliance with licensing so as not to deny recovery of sums due. (citation omitted) Any person who is not licensed may not be considered as a lienor and may not have a mechanic's lien. (citation omitted) Because of security and confidentiality constraints, the challenged question cannot be repeated verbatim herein. It is suffice to say that the problem posed a hypothetical situation involving a state licensed general contractor who utilized an out-of-state (or unlicensed) subcontractor for site work on a Florida project. After the subcontractor completed site work of a specified value, the initial draw request was submitted to the owner for reimbursement of that cost and a reasonable profit. A second invoice for site work was then submitted to the Florida contractor but not the owner. At the same time, the owner learned of the subcontractor's unlicensed status and halted work on the project. The question asked the amount of money that the owner would "most likely (be) liable for at the time of the due date for the initial draw." According to the answer sheet received in evidence as hearing officer exhibit 1, the owner was liable for the initial draw request at that time, including allowable overhead, but did not owe for the cost of the second invoice not yet submitted to him by the contractor. This response was consistent with the cited reference material. Through his representative, petitioner claimed that the word "liable" most logically should be construed to mean the amount of money that the owner was ultimately liable to pay on the project although not necessarily at that point in time. Under this theory, the owner would have been responsible for a dollar amount at least equal to the contractors's cost in the initial draw plus the second but not yet submitted invoice for completion of the site work. If such an interpretation of the question was valid, petitioner's answer would have been correct. In this regard, it is noted that although there is no testimony as to the response given by Hujar on this question, it may be reasonably inferred that his answer was the same as that suggested by his representative. Koning contended further that in order to make correct the Board's response, the question should have asked for the owner's liability "at that time", thereby denoting that the ultimate liability was not in issue. It is noted that petitioner's representative is a licensed general, plumbing, roofing and underground utilities contractor and teaches the law manual as a preparatory course for the state examination. Petitioner is a former student. Respondent's consultant, George Bruton, who is a licensed general contractor and assists in the preparation of examination questions, considered the question to be clear and unambiguous. According to Bruton, the question required a student to recognize that 100% of a subcontractor's invoice plus allowable overhead are due and payable in full at the time of the first draw. However, because the owner had not yet been invoiced for the remaining amount of site work, he would not be liable for that amount. Bruton discounted petitioner's suggested answer as being nonresponsive on the grounds the words "ultimate liability" did not appear in the question, and petitioner was assuming a condition not called for in the question. Since the question did not use the words "ultimate liability", and petitioner's interpretation is not the most reasonable one, it is found that the question was not so "substantially misleading and insufficient" as to warrant the invalidation of the question or to justify a different response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on the examination. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4313 Petitioner: 1-2. Used in finding of fact 2. Used in findings of fact 2 and 4. Used in preliminary statement and conclusions of law. Used in preliminary statement and finding of fact 8. Used in finding of fact 7. Rejected since it can be inferred that petitioner's response was choice c. Respondent: Respondent's "summary of facts" has been treated as conclusions of law and therefore specific rulings have not been made. The document attached to the summary of facts is not of record and has accordingly been disregarded. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Koning 8301 Joliet Street Hudson, Florida 34667 Mr. Dennis J. Hujar 1511 Brooker Road Brandon, Florida 33511 E. Harper Field, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered general contractor having been issued license No. RG 0019051. (Stipulation.) At all times pertinent to the charges, respondent engaged in the business of contracting under the name of Atlas Associates, Inc., of which he was the president. (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) Atlas Associates, Inc., however, was not qualified, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes (1977), to engage in the business of contracting. (Stipulation.) Respondent's registration authorized him to engage in the business of contracting only in Hillsborough County. He was not qualified to contract in any other county. He knew that he was not authorized to pull building permits in Pasco County. (Tr. 5, 171-172.) (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) II. Atlas Associates, Inc., entered into a contract with Darryl R. Sutphin and his wife to construct a residence in Pasco County at 631 North Shore Drive, Lake Padgett, Florida. Respondent executed and performed under this contract as president of Atlas Associates, Inc. (Stipulation.) Respondent obtained the assistance of his brother-in-law, James Weinman, president of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., which was authorized to engage in contracting and pull building permits in Pasco County. At Mr. Weinman's request, John Weinman, an employee of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., pulled the building permits for the Sutphin job in the name of Masterpiece Homes, Inc. However, neither Salvatore Carollo, its licensed contractor, nor any other licensee employed by Masterpiece Homes, Inc., was involved in or supervised the subsequent construction of the Sutphin residence. (Tr. 71.) (Testimony of Weinman, Robinson, Carollo, Sutphin.) Construction of the Sutphin residence was financed by Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Fidelity Federal"). An agreement was entered into between Fidelity Federal, the Sutphins, and Atlas Associates, Inc., whereby Fidelity Federal was to disburse the loan proceeds to Atlas Associates, Inc., in four draws. In conjunction with the payment of each draw, Fidelity Federal required respondent, on behalf of Atlas Associates, Inc., to execute standard no-lien affidavits certifying the following: All the persons, firms, and corporations who have furnished any labor, services and/or materials in connection with the construction or improvements on the real estate [in question]. . .have been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit. . .The undersigned owner further certifies that he has received no notices of unpaid bills or claims affecting the foregoing real estate except as are shown above. (P-5, P-6, P-7.) (Testimony of Hager; P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7.) Atlas Associates, Inc., contracted with Nu-Air Manufacturing Company ("Nu-Air") to install windows and screens at the Sutphin residence. On October 16 and 22, 1979, Nu-Air installed the windows and, except for installing the screens, provided all the services and materials required under the contract. In November, 1979, Nu-Air mailed invoices totaling $700.56 to Atlas Associates, Inc. When the invoices were not paid, Nu-Air's credit manager sought payment by directly contacting a representative of Atlas Associates, Inc. No payment has been made, and the $700.56 remains unpaid. A claim of lien was subsequently filed on January 14, 1980. Yet, on October 19, 1979, and February 14, 1980, respondent executed Fidelity Federal's standard affidavits certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms who furnished labor or materials in connection with the Sutphin job had "been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit." As a result, Nu- Air suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Boyles; P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10.) On October 24, 1979, another subcontractor, Nuccio Heating and Air Conditioning ("Nuccio"), contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to furnish and install central heating and air conditioning units at the Sutphin job. Nuccio completed installing the units required by the contract on November 4, 1979. An invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., by November 6, 1979. When it was not timely paid, Nuccio contacted respondent in December, 1979. Nuccio was never paid for its labor and materials; on July 22, 1980, it filed a claim of lien for a total of $2,927. Since Nuccio subsequently repossessed the condensing units, the amount that is now due and remains unpaid is $1,462. Yet, on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal the required affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and material for the Sutphin job had been fully paid. As a result, Nuccio suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Nuccio; P-7, P-8, P-9, P-12.) On January 2, 1980, another subcontractor, W. W. Drywall, contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to install drywall for the Sutphin job. The drywall work was completed in early January, 1980, and an invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., on or about January 12, 1980, for $2,591.06. On February 14, 1980, W. W. Drywall received a partial payment of $1,000, but the balance of $1,591.06 remains due and unpaid. W. W. Drywall subsequently filed a claim of lien for this amount. Yet on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal a standard affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and materials for the Sutphin job had been paid. As a result, W. W. Drywall has suffered financial loss. (Testimony of West; P-7, P-13, P-14.) III. Respondent admits that when he executed the first October 19, 1979, affidavit, he knew that there were subcontractors which had not been paid. (Tr. 182-183.) He explains that he intended to pay them with the money he received from the draw. By the time he signed the February 14, 1980, affidavit, subcontractors had begun submitting bills directly to the loan officer of Fidelity Federal. He assumed, without checking or inquiring, that the subcontractors had been paid. (Testimony of Robinson.) Respondent was unaware of the Construction Industry Licensing Law requirement that registered contractors must register the corporate names under which they are doing business. Thus, his failure to qualify Atlas Associates, Inc., was not a willful or intentional violation of the Construction Industry Licensing Law. (Testimony of Robinson.) Between October, 1979, and February, 1980, respondent's working relationship with Mr. Sutphin began to deteriorate for reasons not material here. As a result, Mr. Sutphin began to actively participate in the project and deal directly with the various subcontractors. (Testimony of Robinson, Sutphin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Harrison's response to question 8 on the General Contractor's Examination given on October 3, 1985 was incorrectly graded. If Mr. Harrison were given credit for his answer to that question, he would pass the examination. The examination was correctly graded, however, and the petition filed by Mr. Harrison should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. William D. Harrison took the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board's General Contractor's Examination on October 3, 1985. According to his grade report his grade was 68.65. A total grade of 69.01 is necessary to pass the examination. Rule 21E-16.05, Florida Administrative Code. If he were given credit for the answer he gave to question number 8 on the portion of the examination given the afternoon of October 3, 1985, he would pass the examination. The question at issue sought an estimate of the amount of concrete necessary to construct entrance steps for a hypothetical building. The Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services had prepared drawings for a building consisting of 14 different sheets showing various elevations, aspects or other details of the building. These drawings were used in answering the examination questions. Question 8 read: The total volume of concrete to place the concrete entrance steps (only) is cubic yards. Select the closest answer. (A) 4.7 (B) 5.9 (C) 6.5 (D) 7.0 Mr. Harrison chose answer (A). The correct answer is answer (D). Sheet 4 of 14 of the drawings shows the first floor plan for the building. There are a total of four 11'6" spans of concrete entrance steps to the covered entry on the north and south sides of the building. The detail of the steps on sheet 4 of 14 shows that they generally have a 6" rise and are 1' in depth. According to the same sheet of the drawings, there are also other concrete steps to be constructed on the east and west sides of the building of 11' spans. In the northwest and southeast corners of the building there are enclosed stairwells serving the four floors of the building. The steps in these stairwells also contain concrete as an element in their construction. Mr. Harrison contends that the question is phrased in a misleading manner. In his view only the north and south entrance steps should be included in the calculation of the amount of concrete needed for "entrance steps (only) ." According to his calculations, placing those entrance steps would require 4.889 cubic yards of concrete. The closest answer available is 4.7, answer (A), which he gave. By reference to a dictionary of construction terms, Mr. Harrison argues that a building's area excludes uncovered entrances, terraces and steps. He believes he correctly excluded the covered steps on the east and west sides of the building from the calculation of "entrance steps," treating them as part of the building area, not entrances. The Departments contends that the question is specifically constructed to test the level of detail with which examinees read the drawings. On sheet 4 of 14 the symbol "A/4" appears, with a line cutting perpendicularly through the western steps. That symbol points out to examinees that a detailed drawing for the construction of the concrete entrance steps appears on that sheet. That perpendicular line through the western steps demonstrates that the eastern and western steps are "entrance steps" in the plans, and must be included in the calculation required in question 8. Answer (A), chosen by Mr. Harrison, is a distractor specifically designed to determine whether examinees have included the east and west steps in their calculation. If excluded, the calculation yields an answer of exactly 4.7 cubic yards of concrete (Mr. Harrison's calculation of 4.889 is slightly off). If all four spans of entrance steps are included, the correct answer of 7.0 cubic yards is obtained. The phrase "entrance steps (only)" appears in question 8 to make clear to examinees that the concrete allocable to the steps of the enclosed northwest and southeast stairwells is not part of the calculation. After an examination is graded, but before the grade reports are distributed, the Department does a statistical analysis of the patterns of responses to all examination questions to determine whether those patterns reveal a problem such as a general misreading of any questions. If a question performs badly, it can be deleted from the grading process before the grade reports are distributed to examinees. The analysis done on the answers to question 8 shows that of the 887 examinees, 180 of those who ultimately scored in the upper 27 percent of the examination overall answered the question correctly with answer (D); of those scoring in the middle 46 percent on the overall examination, 148 gave the correct answer; of those examinees scoring in the lower 27 percent overall, only 69 gave the correct answer. Among those choosing answer (A), as Mr. Harrison did, 36 of those who scored in the upper 27 percent overall gave that answer, 116 of those in the middle 46 percent chose the answer, and 102 of those scoring in the lower 27 percent chose that answer. Statistically, the question performed well. The evidence shows that answer (A) acts as the distractor which it was designed to be. Those who do not read the drawings carefully select the answer which would be correct if only the north and south steps are included in the calculation. Given the specificity of the drawing showing the east and west steps as entrance steps, however, Mr. Harrison's objection to the grading of his answer to question 8 is not well founded. Mr. Harrison had also raised, in his letter challenging his grade, an objection to another test question. At the hearing, however, he abandoned that challenge.
Recommendation It is recommended that the petition for regrading of the General Contractor's Examination given in October 1985 by the Construction Industry Licensing Board be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William D. Harrison 3490 Artesian Drive Lantana, Florida 33462
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the Respondent violated Subsections 455.227(1)(h) and 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), as alleged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building contractors pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes (2004). Joshua Woodruff is a Florida Specialty Structure Contractor who holds license number SC C131149603. He owns a business called Simply Aluminum. His last known residence is in Winter Springs, Florida. On June 19, 2003, Mr. Woodruff submitted an application for the Specialty Structure Contractor license he now holds. On page 6 of the application form, question 1 under "BACKGROUND INFORMATION" asked the applicant whether he or she has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal charge. At the end of the question, in larger print, is the following statement: THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. Mr. Woodruff checked the "Yes" box for this question. The application form directed any person answering, "Yes," to complete form 0050-1. Form 0050-1 is included as page 14 of the license application. In the space on the form with the heading, "Offense," Mr. Woodruff wrote "Sale and Delivery." In the space with the heading, "Penalty/Disposition," Mr. Woodruff wrote, "2 months county jail, 6 months @ Bridge Program." On page 13 of the license application, question number 3 under "FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY/BACKGROUND QUESTIONS," asks the applicant whether he or she has ever: Undertaken construction contracts or work which resulted in liens, suits or judgments being filed? (If yes, you must attach a copy of the Notice of Lien and any payment agreement, satisfaction, Release of Lien or other proof of payment.) Mr. Woodruff answered this question, "No." The Department contends that Mr. Woodruff's responses on the license application form constituted misrepresentations because Mr. Woodruff failed to disclose that he had been adjudicated guilty in Orange County for possession of drug paraphernalia, and failed to disclose that he had filed a claim of lien on a construction project. Criminal History There is no dispute with regard to Mr. Woodruff's disclosure of the felony of "sale and delivery" (of a controlled substance) that he noted in his license application. Mr. Woodruff entered a plea of guilty to this offense on January 13, 2000, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The official records of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for Orange County indicate that Mr. Woodruff was adjudicated guilty on July 25, 2002, of possession of paraphernalia, a first degree misdemeanor under Subsection 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (2002). The Respondent argues that his sentence on the conviction for possession of paraphernalia (two days in jail, fines and court costs of $371, 180 days probation) was not rendered until July 23, 2004, more than a year after he submitted his license application to the Department. However, the application form clearly requested Mr. Woodruff to describe whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal charge. With regard to Mr. Woodruff's misdemeanor, all of these events occurred approximately one year before he submitted the license application. Claim of Lien On or about June 11, 2003, Mr. Woodruff filed a Claim of Lien against Itzhak and Ayala Stark for $5,600 for work commenced in March 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: finding that Joshua Woodruff violated Subsection 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2003), by failing to disclose a misdemeanor conviction and a claim of lien on his license application, and imposing a fine against Mr. Woodruff of $4000, and suspending his license for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Jeffery T. Kipi, Esquire 100 West Citrus Street Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Bobby D. Patton, was a certified general contractor, qualifying Bellavia Construction, Inc. (sometimes referred to as Bellavia) and has been issued license number CGC011543. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material hereto, John Bellavia (Bellavia) was not licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, as a contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material hereto, Allstate Interiors, Inc., was not qualified with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On October 12, 1982, Bellavia Construction contracted with Mrs. Mei Lin Eisen to construct a fast food restaurant within the confines of Aventura Mall for a cost of $37,000.00. Bellavia executed the contract on behalf of Bellavia Construction as it's president. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On October 15, 1982, Mrs. Eisen gave to Bellavia Construction a down payment of $7,400.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Bellavia Construction was to complete the construction within four weeks after the issuance of the building permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Mrs. Eisen emphasized to Bellavia that the construction phase of the restaurant had to be completed within the stated period in order that her business could be operating at the time of the Mall's grand opening. Mrs. Eisen also advised Bellavia that if she did not have her business operational at the time of the grand opening, she would be assessed a daily penalty by the Mall's owner for every day she was not in business beyond the grand opening. (TR 21, 35). On October 15, 1982, a building permit was issued to Respondent for the construction improvement work by Bellavia Construction on the Eisen job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR43). For the three week period following the issuance of the building permit (October 15, 1982), there was virtually no progress on the job with the exception of the drilling of three holes for plumbing and the placement of metal studs; which holes were incorrectly drilled and had to be relocated because they did not comport with the schematic drawings as depicted in the plans. During the three week period following the issuance of the permit, Bellavia was observed performing construction at another business in the mall. During that time, Mrs. Eisen inquired of Bellavia as to the lack of progress on her job and was told that there was no money to be made on the project. At the conclusion of the three week period subsequent to October 15, 1982, Bellavia quit Mrs. Eisen's project and did not return the deposit monies. Mrs. Eisen therefore had to obtain the services of another contractor to complete the job. As a result of this delay, her business was not open at the time of the mall's grand opening. (TR 22, 36). Mrs. Eisen was assessed a civil penalty of $16,800.00, payable over a seven year period at $200.00 a month. (TR 23) Neither during the negotiation of the contract nor during the performance of the contract did Mrs. Eisen or her architect have any knowledge of Respondent. Their entire contractual dealings were with Bellavia. (TR 23, 24, 38 and 39). Bellavia was also the president of Allstate Interiors, Inc., which attained corporate status on May 2, 1983. On May 4, 1983, a building permit for construction work by Bellavia Construction for Aventura Travel was issued to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). On May 11, 1983, a building permit for construction work by Bellavia Construction for Dentaland was issued to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). During February, 1983, Respondent moved from his address of record with the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, which was 8698 S.W. 50th Street, Cooper City, Florida. In July, 1983, the Department became aware of Respondent's move from the above location during the investigation of the instant case. (TR 50, 53/54, 56/58). Respondent, during the license renewal process period for 1985/1987, notified the Department of his address change to 1005 N.E. 143rd Street, North Miami, Florida, which became his address of record. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). As stated in the background, Respondent did not appear at the hearing except through counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Bobby D. Patton, license number CGC 011543, be suspended for a period of one (1 year. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Erroll Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven M. Rosen, Esquire 5601 Building 5601 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137
