Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard McDougal, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0050466. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for D & R Roofing Co., at all times pertinent to these proceedings. On July 31, 1989, Arla Jackson signed and accepted Respondent's written proposal to re-roof a house belonging to Jackson, located in Washington County, Florida. Prior to engaging Respondent to re-roof the house, Jackson had only a minimal amount of leakage in a couple of corners inside the house. Under the terms of the written proposal provided by Respondent to Jackson, Respondent agreed to remove the old roof covering from the structure; install a new three ply fiberglass felt covering; install new eave metal around the roof perimeter; extend the roof a short distance at one end; and top coat a utility building on the premises. Further, Respondent agreed to haul away debris resulting from the job. Completion of the roofing project by Respondent and receipt of payment from Jackson in the amount of $3,000 occurred on August 9, 1989. $2,900 of this amount was payment to Respondent for replacing the old roof while the remainder satisfied charges by Respondent for additional work required to extend the roof. Shortly after Respondent's completion of the roof replacement, Jackson began to telephone Respondent, requesting that he come and repair holes in the roof that were leaking water as the result of rain. Respondent came to Jackson's house on at least three occasions to attempt to stop leaks in the roof. He eventually determined that he had stopped the leaks and told Jackson that, as far as he was concerned, there was no roof leakage problem. Jackson's flat roof continued to leak. Eventually, Gus Lee, an unlicensed roofing assistant to H.M. Strickland, a local licensed contractor, agreed to repair her roof and eliminate the leakage problem. Strickland's signature appears with Lee's on written documentation bearing the date of October 1, 1989, and promising a "fine roof with no leaks; and I will stand behind it." Jackson accepted the Strickland offer. Jackson paid approximately $1,925.00 to Lee for work in connection with replacing the roof and painting the interior ceiling of the house. She paid an additional $653.79 for building supplies in connection with the project. Overall, Jackson paid approximately $2,578.79 for labor and materials to re-roof her house and repair the interior ceiling damage resulting from the leakage. This amount was in addition to the amount previously paid to Respondent. On October 20, 1989, Lee, the unlicensed assistant to Strickland and the person who actually undertook the task of re-roofing Jackson's house, removed the previous roofing material placed on Jackson's house by Respondent. Lee observed no fiber glass felt covering material on Jackson's roof at the time he re-roofed the house. Lee's testimony at hearing was credible, candid and direct. Although unlicensed as a contractor, Lee's attested experience supports his testimony regarding what he observed and establishes that Respondent failed to comply with his agreement to Jackson to provide fiber glass felt during the initial roofing of the house and instead used a less expensive material. Lee's testimony, coupled with that of Jackson and Lee's son, also establishs that significant damage had occurred to the interior ceiling of Jackson's house as the result of leakage after completion of work by Respondent. After Lee completed the re-roofing of Jackson's home, inclusive of use of a six ply felt covering on the roof accompanied by pea gravel and sealant, the roof's leakage stopped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $1500 upon Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-4. Adopted, though not verbatim. 5.-8. Subordinate to Hearing Officer's Conclusions. 9.-11. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard McDougal Box 10277 Panama City, FL 32404 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, the Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as follows: License No(s): RC 0021957 Licensed as: Registered roofing contractor Address of record is in: New Port Richey, Florida A certain contracting job was undertaken as follows: Customer: Stella Domas Approximate contract date: 6-85 Approximate price: $600 Job location: New Port Richey, Florida Job generally consisted of: Repair roof of Customer's house Said job was undertaken by the contracting business Respondent was associated with and responsible for in his capacity as a licensee. Respondent proceeded without a timely permit having been issued, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j) 489.119; and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent proceeded without timely obtaining all required inspections, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j); 489.119; 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent gave a guarantee on said job to the Customer, and thereafter failed to reasonably honor said guarantee, in violation of 489.129(1)(m), (j); 489.119; 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent performed said work in a substantially deficient manner, therefore, violating 489.129(1)(m). Respondent previously has been disciplined by the State Construction Board. STIPULATED DISPOSITION Based on the Stipulated Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, the parties agree to the following disposition of the Amended Administrative Complaint: The Respondent shall pay a $1500 fine, payable within 60 days from entry of a final order approving this stipulated disposition; and The Respondent's registered roofing contractor license number RC 0021957 shall be suspended for 60 days, beginning 60 days from the entry of a final order approving this stipulated disposition.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order approving and incorporating the settlement stipulation between the parties. RECOMMENDED 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Lee Ellen Acevedo, Esquire 7716 Massachusetts Avenue New Port Richey, Florida 34653 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Richard K. Willis, a registered roofing contractor licensed by Petitioner and holding license RC-0041275 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. His address of record is Winter Haven, Florida. Respondent and Jeffrey Smith entered into a contract in July of 1986. Under terms of the agreement, Smith, a chiropractor, agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $2,200 to re-roof the facility which served as Smith's home and office. The agreement signed by the parties contains a written guarantee that materials to be used in the project would meet specifications set forth in the document. Further, the guarantee stated that work would be completed in "a workmanlike manner according to standard practices." The project was completed by Respondent and Smith paid him the agreed upon amount of $2,200 in July of 1986. About three weeks after completion of the job, Smith noticed a leak in the roof and telephoned Respondent. Two or three weeks later and after several more telephone calls from Smith, Respondent returned to the job site. By that time, interior damage to the ceiling tiles had been sustained. The tiles became discolored by leaking water and started to collapse. Respondent proceeded to patch the leaking roof with tar. In June of 1987, Smith's facility developed a second leak in the roof over the back portion of the house. Respondent returned, reviewed the problem and agreed to tear off the leaking section of the roof and replace it. As a result of this action by Respondent, the leakage increased. More extensive damage was caused by water leaking down door frames and across the ceiling of the house. Respondent had also promised that he would put a "tarp" over Smith's roof to temporarily stop the leakage until repairs could be effected, but such covering never materialized. After Respondent's second attempt to fix the roof, Smith advised him that the leakage was continuing. Smith then tried several times without success to communicate with Respondent and get him to return to the job site. Finally, after Smith contacted local government building officials, Respondent returned and stopped the leakage. The repairs came too late to prevent ceiling damage which cost Smith $400 to repair. When a third leak developed in the roof in February of 1989, Smith hired another contractor to fix the leak for the sum of $60. Petitioner provided expert testimony which establishes that Respondent demonstrated incompetence in the practice of roof contracting. Further, the work performed by Respondent did not meet the terms of the guarantee he gave to Smith. These conclusions are based on the fact that workmanship provided by Respondent failed to meet standard practices of the industry. Such failure is demonstrated by the irregularity with which surface material was applied to the roof; the lack of sufficient gravel; the lack of uniform distribution of that gravel; missing metal flashing and lifted or separated flashing at the vertical surfaces of the roof; and improper installation of flashing around the plumbing vent exiting through the roof. Respondent's previous disciplinary history with Petitioner consists of an administrative fine of $250 on June 19, 1985, and letter of guidance issued on August 14, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, (1988) and revoking his license as a roofing contractor in accordance with provisions of Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-17. Addressed in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard K. Willis 2106 Winter Lake Road Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and held license number CG- C016730. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Bilo Homes, Inc. (Bilo), a corporation engaged in Florida in the business of general contracting with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Huston resided at 29843 S.W. 149th court, Leisure City, Florida. On February 24, 1988, the Hustons contracted with Bilo to build an addition to their house for the sum of $20,000 pursuant to plans and specifications that had been prepared by an architect. The Hustons' existing house was valued between $30,000-$40,000. The contract called for a one-story room addition to be built on a concrete slab with stucco exterior and sheet rock interior. The addition was to have a sliding glass door and was to be connected to the existing structure by a tie beam. The roof of the existing house was to be reshingled to match the shingles on the addition. The project also involved electrical work and plumbing work. The contract was signed on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, and work began on Friday, February 26, 1988. The contract did not specify a time for the completion of the project. The following draw schedule was agreed to by the Hustons and Bilo: 20% of the contract price upon the acceptance of the contract by the Hustons; 10% of the contract price upon the pouring of the concrete slab; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the tie beam: 20% of the contract price upon the drying in of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the completion of the rough mechanical work; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the shingling of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the installation of the plumbing fixtures;; 10% of the contract price (the balance) upon completion of the job. The Hustons made payments to Bilo in the total amount of $14,000.00. These payments were broken down as follows: $4,000.00 paid on February 24, 1988, upon acceptance of the contract; $2,000.00 paid on March 22, 1988, upon the pouring of the concrete slab; $2,000.00 paid on April 5, 1988, upon the completion of the tie beam; $4,000.00 paid on April 18, 1988, upon the drying in of the roof; and $2,000.00 paid on June 25, 1988, upon the completion of the shingling of the roof. Before June 25, 1988, Respondent had asked the Hustons for the draw due upon completion of the rough mechanical work in addition to the draw due upon completion of the shingling. The Hustons refused to pay both draws because they were dissatisfied with the quality of Bilo's work. The Hustons engaged the services of a lawyer and, on June 29, 1988, presented Respondent with a list of items they wanted corrected before paying the draw for the rough mechanical work. Respondent and the Hustons disagreed as to when the items on the list should be corrected. Respondent contended that the items could have been corrected as part of the punch list prior to the final payment. The Hustons contended that the items should be corrected before Respondent received any further draws. This dispute is resolved by finding that while several of the items on the list could have been corrected as part of the final punch list, there were items on the list that should have been corrected by Respondent before he proceeded. Considering the very poor quality of work that went into this job, the Hustons were justified in their demand that Respondent make these corrections before receiving an additional draw. Respondent contends that the Hustons did not pay the draw for the rough mechanical work because they ran out of money. This contention is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. After the Hustons presented Respondent with the list and refused to pay the draw for the rough mechanical work, Bilo stopped work on the project. Bilo performed no work on the project after June 29, 1988. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired K & H Plumbing as the subcontractors to the plumbing work on the Huston job. K & H Plumbing's work failed to pass a Metro Dade County tub and water pipe inspection because the work did not meet the South Florida Building Code. K & H never completed its work on the Huston addition and no final inspection of its work was approved. K & H Plumbing filed suit against the Hustons for the unpaid portion of their contract with Bilo. In addition, K & H Plumbing failed to properly replace wood decking which it had pulled up during the course of its work on the Huston job. Respondent had received funds which1 should have been used to pay K & H. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired Tom Mentelos to perform the electrical subcontracting work on the Huston addition. The work performed, by Mentelos was substandard. His work failed to pass inspection by the Metro Dade County Building and Zoning Department on six different occasions. In addition to this substandard work, one of Mentelos' employees cracked the Huston's kitchen ceiling while working in the attic over the existing portion of the house. This crack was never corrected by Mentelos or by Bilo. Mentelos never completed his work on the Huston addition, although he was never fired by the Hustons. Mentelos filed a claim of lien against the Hustons in he amount of $2,000.00. The first claim of lien was released and Mentelos filed a second claim of lien against the Hustons in the amount of $2,623.00. Respondent had received funds which should have been used to pay Mentelos. Respondent obtained the roofing permit to build the new roof on the Huston addition and to reroof the existing roof. The roofing work involved a process commonly referred to as "hot mopping", a process which requires the services of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent exceeded the scope of his licensure by engaging in hot mopping. Bilo's employees punched two unnecessary vent pipes through the roof and placed a flat piece of PVC material around the vent holes to keep the, roof from leaking. This is an improper and unacceptable construction practice. Bilo's employees damaged the existing screen porch while working on the roof. The metal flashing which connected the existing roof to the aluminum screen porch was taken off but was never replaced. As a result, the screen porch leaked, a problem that had not been corrected as of the time of the final hearing. While Bilo's employees were working on the roof of the existing structure, a rainstorm occurred which resulted in water stains to the ceiling of the Hustons' main structure. The workmen were not supervised by Respondent and were unprepared for the rain. Other than the water stains, no damage was done to the ceiling. To repair the ceiling stains would require a chemical coating, followed by repainting of the ceiling. The cost of the repair would be approximately $75.00. Bilo engaged in poor construction practice in constructing the exterior wall by facing the poorer grade side of the exterior plywood toward the outside as opposed to inside. The better construction practice is to place the poorer grade side toward the inside where it will not be exposed to view. There is a gap in the area where the metal flashing comes down the exterior side of the end gable and meets the top of the roof. In the work performed by Bilo, the piece of sheathing was above the bottom of the sill plate which caused a gap from one inch to five inches over a distance between eight and ten feet. This gap is a source of potential leaks. Bilo attempted to cover the v-notch in the area of the gag with tar pitch in an attempt to correct this deficiency. Both the gap and the attempted repair are unacceptable construction practices. Bilo had not cut vents in the soffits at the time it stopped work on the project. Without vent holes in the soffits, the job would have not passed inspection. Bilo could have, at little expense, cut the soffit vents at a later point in the job. The end member of the frame for the partition wall between the laundry room and the masonry wall is not pressure- treated wood. The South Florida Building Code requires that the wood used for the end member of such construction be pressure treated or that there be a barrier between the end member and the adjoining wall. Here, Bilo failed to exercise either acceptable option, and, consequently performed work that failed to comport with acceptable construction practices and did not meet code. The manner in which Bilo supported the timber girder that supports the roof trusses fails to meet code because the tie beam, into which this girder is pocketed for support, is improperly supported. A hole was knocked in the cement block wall that supported the tie beam when a plumbing vent was redirected. As a result of this hole, the tie beam rests on only approximately two inches of concrete, which is inadequate to support the tie beam and the timber girder. This work fails to comport with acceptable construction practices. Bilo failed to brace the roof trusses as required by the plans and specifications of the architect. This is an unacceptable construction practiced. Bilo cut into the roof truss without authority from the truss manufacturer or from a qualified engineer. Cutting into a truss can impair its structural integrity and is a violation of code. Respondent maintained at hearing that he would have been able to get approval from the truss manufacturer for the modification of the truss caused by the cut. Respondent did not have such approval as of the time of the final hearing, and there was no evidence, other than his unilateral expectation, to support this contention. The facia board on the eaves did not join properly because Bilo's workmen did not take the time to properly cut the boards with the aid of a square. Although this is a matter that could be corrected for approximately $25.00, this work, along with the other deficiencies detailed herein, demonstrates the substandard work that went into this project and establishes that Bilo failed to provide its workmen adequate supervision or adequate training. At hearing, there was a dispute as to how much time Respondent personally spent at the Huston job site. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent was personally on the job site for at least 30 minutes on days when work was progressing. When major items were being performed on the job, he spent more time on the job site. When minor work was being done, Respondent did not go to the job site on a daily basis. Regardless of the number of minutes or hours that Respondent spent on the job site, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent failed to properly supervise his workmen in light of the low level of skill the workmen exhibited throughout the job. Respondent had the responsibility as the general contractor to properly supervise his workmen and his subcontractors. He failed to perform that responsibility. As of the final hearing, the Huston addition remained uncompleted. At the time of the work stoppage, it would have cost the Hustons more than $6,600 to complete the job, the difference between the contract price and the amount that the Hustons had paid Respondent. The evidence was clear that the Hustons had incurred damages as a result of their dealings with Respondent. The amount of those damages were not established with any degree of certainty. On or about July 15, 1988, Respondent filed a claim of lien against the Hustons' property claiming that Bilo was owed $8,350 for the work that had been done. Respondent has been a certified general contractor for fifteen years and has been certified as a general contractor in the State of Florida since 1980. Respondent's licensure had not been disciplined prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(h), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes, which imposes administrative fines in the amount of total amount of $5,000 for such violations, and which suspends his licensure as a general contractor for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0765 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings in Section VI (A) are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made. (Section VI (A) pertains to facts established through Respondent's failure to respond to Request for Admissions.) The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 5 - 10 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made or are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraphs 11, 19, and 25 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraph 12, 26, and 27 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 20 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 19, 27, and 30 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 32, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 11 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 14, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 34 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: regory A. Victor, Esquire 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue 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
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's contractor license number CG C022926, issued by the State of Florida, based upon the violations of Section 489.105(4), 489.113(3), 489.117(2), 489.115(1)(b), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), alleged in three administrative complaints filed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Richard Lee Melvin, was a licensed contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C022926, by the State of Florida. The Armstrong Job On or about February 26, 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong entered into a contract with Sunshine State Homes to do certain siding work and roofing work on two mobile homes owned by the Armstrongs located at 4605 and 4607 Orange Drive in Holiday, Florida. The cost of the repairs under the contract was $6,400. Although the Respondent did not sign that contract, his name and license number appeared on it, he applied for and was granted the necessary Pasco County permit for Sunshine State Homes using his licensure. At the time he applied for the permit, the Respondent knew that Sunshine State Homes was not licensed since he was considering qualifying that company. The permit that the Respondent received from Pasco County required, among other things, that all the Respondent's work conform with the requirements of state and county codes and regulations. The Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor for Sunshine State Homes even though his certificate did not contain the name Sunshine State Homes. After the signing of the contract, work began on both structures. The roof was replaced on the main structure, and the Armstrongs were informed that the Rainbow Roof System contracted for could not be installed. After work began, it rained and because of improper construction techniques, both mobile homes flooded. Representatives of Sunshine State Homes attempted to correct the problems, but when it rained again, there was substantial leaking in both mobile homes. A rug from the main mobile home had to be removed. Another attempt was made to correct the leaks at the rental unit by re-coating the roof with sealant. Again, it rained, and both mobile homes flooded. Both mobile homes had leaks where, prior to construction beginning, they did not have leaks. Insurance covered $1,200 of the damage to the main mobile home. There also was damage that was not covered by insurance. The type of roof put on the main coach resulted in leaks all along the seam between the roof over the main coach and the roof over the addition to the main structure. The water leaked through the walls of the mobile home, causing water damage. On or about April 7, 1987, the roofs supposedly were finished, and the contractor wanted the rest of his money. The Armstrongs refused to give the balance of the money until another heavy rain was experienced. After representatives from Sunshine State Homes made various threats, the owners paid Sunshine State all but $900 of the contract price. The $900 was withheld to cover the water damage sustained as a result of the leaks. The work that was done was required to be inspected by Pasco County. The work had not been inspected because neither the Respondent nor anyone else from Sunshine State had called for inspections. The work that was done deteriorated over the summer months. On October 14, 1987, the homeowners contracted with Holiday Aluminum to replace the two mobile home roofs in accordance with the contract previously entered into between the homeowners and Sunshine State Homes. It cost the homeowners $4,300 to have the two new roofs installed. They have not experienced any problems with the roofs installed by Holiday Aluminum. The work Sunshine State did under the Respondent's licensure was done in a grossly negligent or incompetent manner. The Respondent and Tropical Exteriors The Respondent was contacted by Jeff Gaston, in mid-November, 1986. Gaston wanted the Respondent to qualify Gaston's company, Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc. The Respondent met with Gaston and Gaston's attorney, and the Respondent understood that it would take time for all of the paperwork to be concluded. Towards the end of March, 1987, the Respondent started having concerns about his business relationship with Gaston and Tropical. However, the Respondent took no action to terminate that relationship or otherwise advise any governmental agencies involved or homeowners that he was not associated with Tropical until May 13, 1987. There was a continuous business relationship between the Respondent and Tropical for the period November, 1986, through May 13, 1987. The Respondent never qualified Tropical. The Respondent knew that Tropical was using his name in connection with its business after November, 1986. He also thought he would be given notice of any contracts Tropical entered into. But Tropical entered into contracts with the Clems and the Warzyboks and began work without telling the Respondent. The homeowners relied on Tropical's representations regarding the Respondent's association with the business. The Clem Job In November, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Clem knew that they needed a new roof on their residence located 10511 - 53rd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, because the shingles were curling. However, they did not have any leaks in the roof. In November, 1986, the Clems were contacted by Millie Morris regarding the roof repairs. Morris stated that she worked for Tropical and was representing U.S. Steel. She advised the Clems that she would like to use the Clem home in an advertising campaign. The Clems did not have the cash money to pay for the repairs and needed financing. As part of that financing, Morris stated that she would give the Clems a $300 rebate on contracting resulting from any leads the Clems gave her. The Clems were able to obtain a second mortgage on their home which provided for the financing of the needed improvements. On or about February 9, 1987, the Clems entered into a contract with Tropical. At the time of the signing of the contract, Morris again reaffirmed to the Clems that any leads the Clems gave Morris that resulted in a contract would result in the Clems being paid the sum of $300. The Clems put $1,000 down at the time of signing the contract and were to pay $1,500 during the course of the job and $2,500 on completion of the job. Before entering into the contract, the Clems relied on the information on the contract letterhead which contained the Respondent's name, type of state certificate, license number, number of years of experience and a representation that the Respondent was insured. Additionally, the Clems called the Better Business Bureau and checked on Tropical to see if any complaints had been filed. The contract provided for, among other things, the removal of the old roof, installation of a new roof, the installation of soffit and facia, the installation of doors and windows and a guaranty on all the work. Shortly after the contract was signed and work was started on the roof, the Clems told Morris the people across the street from them needed repairs. Those people signed a contract with Tropical to have their roof replaced. The work was done, but the Clems received nothing for giving Tropical the customer lead. After the work was done, the Clems dealt with Morris and Gaston. Several times after the job was started, the Clems tried to get Gaston on the job site because the roof was leaking, there was no flashing around the drain pipes and vents, the aluminum edging was bent in many places and the siding had fallen on the ground. Several times when a representative of Tropical was on the job site, Mrs. Clem pointed out to them that the aluminum was bent in places, the seams were cut crooked, there were unnecessary splices in the aluminum, there were bad cuts around certain pipes, there was an electric light left hanging, the wrong weather stripping had been installed around the door, other weather stripping was not put up right, the windows were not sealed, the roof leaked, there was unnecessary tar on the shingles and there were aluminum overlaps facing the street, among other things. From that point forward, representatives of Tropical assured the Clems on many occasions that those problems would be corrected by a date certain, but the deadline was missed in every base. During the construction, the Clems agreed to pay Tropical the $1,500 due during the construction and $2,000 of the $2,500 that was due at the end of construction because a representative of Tropical explained to them that the job was near completion, Tropical needed the money to cover expenses and that Tropical would put in a bedroom window in the Clems residence at no charge. After many telephone conversations and on-site inspections by Tropical, all to no avail, Tropical agreed to finish the job if the Clems would pay him the remaining $500 and if the Clems would pay him an additional $150 for the bedroom window Otherwise, Tropical threatened to forfeit the $500 and not complete the job. The Clems agreed because they knew that it would cost them more than $500 to have the job completed by someone else. The job still was not competed, and the complaints were not corrected. The Clems called another siding contractor, who told the Clems that he would charge $750 just to correct the siding problems, that no permits had been pulled for the job and that the Clems should not allow any further work to be done until the permits had been pulled for the siding and the roof. When the building department received the siding contractor's inquiry regarding the permits, it contacted Tropical. The Clems had several conversations with their attorney, who advised the Clems that it would be cheaper to attempt to solve the problem with Tropical than to get a new contractor. Several attempts were made to have Tropical complete the job, but Tropical continuously failed to honor its agreements. The last time anyone from Tropical was on the job site was April 17, 1987. As of the hearing date, the complaints had not been corrected, and the work had not been completed in accordance with the contract. On or about March 13, 1987, the Respondent obtained a building permit from Pinellas County, Florida, for the installation of the aluminum soffit and facia work, only. Later, after the Respondent had terminated his relationship with Tropical, the job was inspected by the Department of Building Inspections of Pinellas County and was cited for violations of the applicable local codes which never were corrected. The work that was done was done in a grossly negligent or incompetent manner. The Warzybok Case On or about January 14, 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Warzybok, entered into a contract with Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc., for the removal and replacement of the Warzyboks flat roof at their residence located at 6088 - 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. Before entering into the contract, the Warzyboks relied on the information on the contract letterhead which contained the Respondent's name, type of state certificate, license number, number of years of experience and the representation that the Respondent was insured. Additionally, the Warzyboks called the Better Business Bureau and checked on Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc., to see if any complaints had been filed. Before entering into the contract, the Warzyboks' old flat roof was leaking on the outside of an exterior wall but was not leaking inside. Shortly after the contract was signed, Tropical tore off the old roof, mopped one coat of tar over it, and after it started to rain, put some visqueen over the roof and left. Sometime during the following week, representatives of Tropical finished mopping, put some roof paper down and did some other miscellaneous work. Approximately one week later, Warzybok had the tile roof over the main house pressure cleaned (this roof was connected to the flat roof). When the water from the pressure cleaning came off the tile roof onto the flat roof, the water flooded the room underneath the flat roof. The Warzyboks also discovered that there were broken tiles on the roof over the main house. The flat roof was now leaking inside as well as outside. The Warzyboks attempted on numerous occasions to contact Tropical and have Tropical correct the problems and finish the work. Numerous appointments were made to finish the work and correct the problems, most of which were not kept. Whatever work was done by Tropical did not complete the job or correct the problems. At one point, Tropical sent out a new roofer, Bill Vance, who told the Warzyboks that the roof needed to be totally redone. Several months after the job was started, the homeowners called the City to get an inspection and determined that no permit had been obtained for the job. The City of St. Petersburg Building Department went to the Warzybok property and determined that there had been no permit issued and that the persons who were working on the premises were not licensed roofers. The building department placed a stop order on the work and told the Warzyboks that they needed a licensed roofer to complete the job. The job still has not been completed, and the problems have not been corrected. As of the hearing date, the Warzyboks have problem with leaking skylights, skylights covered with tar, a leaking fireplace, plaster being separated from the sheetrock because of water damage, roofing tiles that were not replaced after they were broken by Tropical and tar on the bottom of the roof, among other things. The Warzyboks got an estimate of $275 just to replace one piece of plaster adjacent to the fireplace only. Tropical started the roof as a three-ply roof and then changed the roof to a one-ply roof. There has been leaking at the chimney and at the skylights, which were not properly installed Some of the tile removed from the main roof at the point of tie-in with the flat roof has not been replaced properly and, in some places, has not been replaced at all. The Respondent, under whose license the work was done, did not know of, and did not properly supervise, the installation of the roof. The roof was installed in an incompetent manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board find the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.105(4), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and (m) , Florida Statutes, and that, as punishment, impose on the Respondent a fine of $5000, suspend the Respondent's license for three years and place the Respondent on probation for one year after termination of the suspension conditioned on completion of continuing education designated by the Board and on such other terms that the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-5197, 88-5198 and 88-5199 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Sixth sentence, rejected because it was additional sealant, not fiberglass, that was put on the rental unit. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the "high ridge" rejected as not supported by the evidence but otherwise accepted and incorporated. Rejected that the owners held back $1,400 (they held back $900) but otherwise accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the owners' telephone calls to the inspection department and the inspection results rejected as not supported by the evidence. First and penultimate sentences, accepted and incorporated. 10.-11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Subordinate and unnecessary. 13.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-33. Accepted and incorporated. 34. Proposed findings that the permit was pulled after the work for purposes of correcting the work rejected as not proven by the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 35.-45. Accepted and incorporated. The estimate was for plaster, not "plastic." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not supported by the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (These rulings relate to the unnumbered paragraphs in the Respondent's March 23, 1989, letter, starting with the third paragraph. They are assigned consecutive paragraph numbers for purposes of these rulings.) Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. First and last sentences, accepted and incorporated. Second and third sentences, rejected as contrary to facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as unclear. Accepted. First sentence, incorporated; second sentence unnecessary. First and third sentences, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; second sentence, accepted but unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated (although the unlicensed companies using the Respondent's name also did work and assumed responsibility for the jobs over which the Respondent exercised no control at all.) Second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Lee Melvin 12737 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Rex Alaniz, held a registered roofing contractors license, Number RC 0042021, issued by the State of Florida, Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter "the Board"). The Respondent's registered address with the Board was initially 1813 Ocean Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, then changed to 23 Seatrout, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The Respondent's license reflected that he was doing business as "Rex Alaniz Roofing and Remodeling Company." During June 1984, the Respondent was doing business as Alaniz & Sons Roofing Company," a name unregistered and unqualified with the Board. Ms. Audrey Kelly met the Respondent through an as placed in the "Westside Shopper," and advertising newspaper in Jacksonville. The ad stated in part as follows: "Raindrops falling on your head? . . . labor guaranteed . . . State Licensed. . . Alaniz & Sons Roofing Company. Rex Alaniz 246-0265 if you have a leak and cannot sleep, check the rest and then get the best for less. . ." Ms. Kelly called the number listed in the advertisement and met with Buddy Clark on June 5, 1984. Mr. Clark stated that he represented Alaniz & Sons Roofing Company. After Mr. Clark looked at Ms. Kelly's roof, Ms. Kelly signed a contract for the repairs to be completed. The contract provided in part that Alaniz and Sons Roofing Company would repair and seal all exposed areas in the roof and that a one year guarantee on workmanship was included. The total contract price was $735. Ms. Kelly paid Clark $200 as an initial payment on the contract. On June 7, 1984, Respondent went to Ms. Kelly's home to repair the roof. After working approximately two and one-half hours, Respondent told Ms. Kelly that he had repaired the roof. Kelly then paid Respondent the balance of $535 which remained on the contract. On June 19, 1984, a light rain fell on Jacksonville and Ms. Kelly's roof leaked again. Ms. Kelly contacted Respondent and Respondent told her that she should wait until it rained harder so that any additional leaks could be repaired at one time. About three weeks later, a heavy rain fell and the roof leaked a lot. After the heavy rain, the Respondent went out and looked at the roof but did not perform any work on it. Respondent told Kelly that the problem was wind damage and suggested that Kelly contact her insurance company. An inspection by Ms. Kelly's insurance company revealed no wind damage to the roof. Therefore, Kelly repeatedly called Respondent, reaching his answering service, but Respondent did not return her calls. The roof continued to leak until Kelly hired another roofer who replaced the entire roof. Ms. Kelly complained to the State Attorney's office about Respondent's failure to honor the warranty on the contract. In April 1984, Mr. Otis McCray, Jr. discovered three leaks in the roof of his home and called Rex Alaniz. The Respondent went out and looked at the roof and informed Mr. McCray that he could fix it. On April 28, 1984, Mr. McCray entered into a contract with Respondent to repair the three leaks in the roof for a price of $500. A one year guarantee was included in the contract. Approximately one week after the contract was signed, Respondent told McCray that the roof had been repaired. McCray then paid Respondent the full contract price of $500. After a rainfall which occurred during the week following the completion of the repair work, McCray noticed that all three of the areas were leaking again. Thereafter, McCray called the Respondent's office approximately 5 or 6 times, leaving messages with either the receptionist or Respondent's answering service concerning the leaks. McCray also had his wife telephone the Respondent, thinking that perhaps the Respondent would respond to "a woman's voice." The Respondent failed to return any of McCray's calls and failed to return to fix the roof. Mr. McCray ultimately hired someone else to put a new roof on his home. In February 1986, the Respondent entered a negotiated plea to the offense of schemes to defraud in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida. The failure to properly perform the repairs and honor the promised warranties in the Kelly and McCray projects were included as a part of the offenses charged. The Respondent was ordered to pay restitution to Ms. Kelly and Mr. McCray. As of the date of the hearing, the Respondent had not made restitution to either Mr. McCray or Ms. Kelly. Douglas Vanderbilt, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, attempted to serve papers upon the Respondent in November of 1985. During such attempt to serve the Respondent, Mr. Vanderbilt discovered that Respondent was no longer living at 23 Seatrout Street in Ponte Vedra Beach and had moved from that address approximately two years prior to November of 1985. At no time material hereto, did Respondent report to the Board a change of address from 23 Seatrout Street, Ponte Vedra Beach. The Respondent has been disciplined by the Board for misconduct twice in the recent past. On November 15, 1984 final action was taken by the Board to suspend Respondent's license for one year, effective January 2, 1985. On November 7, 1985, final action was taken by the Board to suspend Respondent's license for ninety days, consecutive to the one year suspension effective January 2, 1985.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be issued requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspending Respondent's license for a period of five (5) years from the date of the Final Order in this case. Provided, however, that said suspension will be terminated early without further action by the Board, at any time that Respondent shall both pay said fine and provide written proof satisfactory to the Board's Executive Director of having paid restitution of $500 to Otis C. McCray, Jr. and $735.00 to Audrey L. Kelly. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lagran Saunders, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex Alaniz 1612-5th Street, South Jacksonville, Florida 32250 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 321301 APPENDIX 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. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None submitted) ================================================================ =
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
