The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of various specified provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes. The allegations are set forth in a seven count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C046419, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in an individual capacity and thereby responsible for all his contracting activities. On June 6, 1993, Respondent, doing business as Universal General Contractors, entered into a construction contract with the Fagnanis for the remodeling of a bathroom in their residence located at 3440 Northeast 170th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. The contracted price was three thousand eight hundred dollars ($3,800,00). The Fagnanis paid at least two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700.00) to the Respondent as payment toward the contracted work. The written contract between the Respondent and the Fagnanis did not include the Respondent's contractor's license number. That written contract had printed on it the business name "Universal General Contractors." When they entered into the contract, the Fagnanis thought they were doing business with a company named "Universal General Contractors." At no time material hereto was Respondent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as the licensed qualifier for Universal General Contractors. Construction commenced on or about August 20, 1993. Respondent failed to obtain a building permit or inspections for the Fagnani project. Shortly after commencing the project, Respondent informed the Fagnanis he had to go to Boca Raton for an estimate, but would return to finish the project. Respondent failed to return to finish the Fagnani project. Respondent abandoned the Fagnani's project without just cause or notification to the Fagnanis. Respondent did not respond to any attempts by the Fagnanis to contact him concerning the completion of their project. At the time Respondent abandoned the project the work was not complete. At the time of abandonment, the percentage of work completed was substantially less than the percentage of the contract price paid by the Fagnanis. On December 28, 1993, as a result of Respondent's failure to complete the project, the Fagnanis filed a civil suit against Respondent in Case Number 93-16225 SP23(03), County Court in and for Dade County, Civil Division. On January 11, 1994, Respondent was properly served with notice of the civil suit. On January 27, 1994, a Default Final Judgment was entered against Respondent in favor of the Fagnanis. The Default Final Judgment entered against Respondent in the case was in the principal amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) and costs of one hundred nine dollars ($109.00) for a total amount of two thousand six hundred nine dollars ($2,609.00), and bore interest at the rate of 12 percent per year. The Default Final Judgment is related to Respondent's practice of contracting. To date, Respondent has failed to satisfy the terms of the Default Final Judgment. Respondent failed to satisfy the terms of the Default Final Judgment within a reasonable time. Respondent's incompetence and misconduct in overseeing the contracting and financial activities of his construction practice has resulted in a two thousand six hundred nine dollar ($2,609.,00) loss to the Fagnanis. The Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In two prior cases (DBPR Case Nos. 93-12155 and 94-04871) the Board has issued final orders finding the Respondent guilty of several provisions of the statutes regulating contractors. Several of the prior violations are of the same type as the violations at issue in this case.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case to the following effect: Adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in all seven counts of the Administrative Complaint; Revoking the Respondent's license; Ordering the Respondent to pay administrative fines in the total amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00); Ordering the Respondent to pay restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Fagnani in the amount of two thousand six hundred nine dollars ($2,609.00); and Ordering the Respondent to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this proceeding in an amount to be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, license number CC C057275, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a certified contractor, having been issued license number CC C057275 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material, Respondent was registered or certified with the Construction Licensing Industry Board doing business as Comtec Coatings Company (Comtec). At no time material hereto did Respondent apply for or obtain a certificate of authority for Comtec. Respondent has previously been disciplined for violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in Department of Business and Professional Regulation Case Number 2001-03759, including the failure to honor a warranty. On or about March 29, 1996, Respondent, doing business as Comtec Coatings Company, contracted with Kopp to re-roof her home located at 1010 Terry Drive, Melbourne, Florida, for the contract price of $8,600. Respondent's contract contained a five year warranty. Respondent was paid-in-full on or about April 6, 1996. Shortly after Respondent performed the roofing work, the roof experienced significant problems including excessive leakage and material deterioration. Eventually, the roof lost its ability to repel water and large portions rotted. Immediately, Respondent was advised of the problems yet failed to repair them. Kopp, along with her concerned friends and neighbors, expended hundreds of labor hours and at least $896.61 above the original contract price to mitigate the damage to her roof and home as a result of Respondent's workmanship. An independent roofing contractor estimated that it would cost $3,000 to temporarily repair the leaks and approximately $33,000 to replace it and completely correct the problem. As of the date of the administrative hearing, the roof has not been repaired, remains in poor condition and continues to leak. Kopp is legitimately concerned that her home may be condemned. The total investigative costs of this case to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding costs associated with counsel's time, are $399.30.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, for failing to file for a certificate of authority as required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, for incompetency and misconduct as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000, revoking all licensure under the auspices of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(g)(3), Florida Statutes, for having Kopp pay significantly more than the roofing repair contract price, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000, revoking all licensure under the auspices of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, and ordering Respondent to pay financial restitution to consumer Judith Kopp in the amount of $33,896.61 for consumer harm suffered. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $399.30, which excludes costs associated with any attorney's time. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 31st day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Larry S. Olson 3451 Riva Ridge Place Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Robert Crabill, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Joseph W. Miklavic was licensed as a certified building contractor in the state of Florida, holding license number CB C006615, qualifying Security Home d/b/a Security Homes of Clearwater (Security). Since March, 1989 the Respondent's license has been on active status qualifying, Individual. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a salaried employee of Security. Ronald MacLaren was president of Security and also sole owner and president of Yankee Construction Inc. d/b/a Olympic Homes of Citrus County (Olympic). In accordance with a management agreement between Security and Olympic, the Respondent was assigned by Ronald MacLaren to oversee the operation of Olympic. Olympic was licensed to engage in construction having been qualified by Wilmon Ray Stevenson through license number RB A035005 which was in effect from June, 1987 until October, 1988 when Stevenson filed a change of status application with the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) requesting license number RB A035005 be changed to inactive status qualifying, Individual. While this application was not acted upon until February, 1989, the Board considered license number RB A035005 in effect as qualifying Olympic only until October, 1988. Effective September 26, 1988, the name of Yankee Construction, Inc. was changed to Rivercoast Homes, Inc. (Rivercoast) which apparently ceased doing business under the fictitious name of Olympic Homes of Citrus County. On September 19, 1988 Wilmon Ray Stevenson advised the Citrus County Building Department that he was no longer the "qualifier for Olympic Homes". Around this same time, the Respondent, Ronald MacLaren and the management of Olympic became aware that Stevenson would no longer be the qualifying agent for Olympic. There was no evidence that Rivercoast Homes, Inc. a/k/a Yankee Construction Inc. ever advised the Board of the name change or the termination of Stevenson as its only qualifying agent affiliation in accordance with Section 489.119(2)(3), Florida Statutes. Nor was there any evidence that Rivercoast was ever qualified by another qualifying agent pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes. In accordance with the agreement between Security and Olympic, referred to in Finding of Fact 4, the Respondent continued to oversee the Rivercoast operations until sometime around December 1988 when all of MacLaren's operations in Florida, including Security, closed down. Under Security's agreement with both Olympic and Rivercoast, Respondent's duties included working with management and subcontractors to develop construction schedules and to advise Ron MacLaren of the financial aspect of the company so that MacLaren could make funds available to pay subcontractors, etc. Respondent did not have any control over the finances of either Olympic or Rivercoast such as receiving, depositing or disbursing funds. Either in late September or early October of 1988, Respondent approached Larry Vitt, Citrus County Building Department, as to whether the Respondent could pull permits under his license for Olympic or Rivercoast. Vitt advised Respondent that unless he qualified the company he could not pull permits for that company under his license. Respondent advised MacLaren that Rivercoast would have to have a qualifying contractor in order to engage in contracting. MacLaren did not get Rivercoast qualified to engage in contracting at anytime. Respondent did not qualify Rivercoast under his contractor's license at anytime. Sometime around the last of September or the first part of October of 1988, Respondent became aware that Rivercoast a/k/a Yankee Construction, Inc. was no longer qualified under Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, and therefore, not authorized under law to engage in contracting. On August 16, 1988 Ernest and Marjorie Ellison met with Ken Smith and Gloria Stevenson of Olympic to discuss Olympic building the Ellisons a home. The Ellisons picked out a floor plan at this time and gave Olympic a $100.00 deposit to hold the price until a contract could be executed. On October 1, 1988 the Ellisons met again with Ken Smith and was introduced to the Respondent who gave them a brief run down on the status of the company and advised them that the company was in "good shape". At this meeting, Ken Smith advised the Ellisons of certain things that were required of them before construction began, including a survey. On October 31, 1988 the Ellisons signed a contract with Rivercoast to construct their home. In his capacity as a representative of Security, under the agreement between Security and Rivercoast, the Respondent signed this contract on the line designated Contractor/Representative. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent intended to sign the contract as contractor of record as the term contractor is defined in Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), and thereby impose upon himself the responsibility for the entire project. The contract price was $44,634.00. On November 1, 1977 the Ellisons delivered to Rivercoast a check for $4,363.40 which along with the $100.00 deposit paid in August represented a total down payment of $4,463.40. Respondent did not personally receive any funds from the Ellisons for Rivercoast or receive any funds for himself from the Ellisons under this contract. No permit was ever pulled or any work performed by Rivercoast under the aforementioned contract. Ernest Ellison met with Respondent on November 21, 1988 and requested that the contract be cancelled. Under the authority granted Respondent through the agreement between Security and Rivercoast, the Respondent and Ernest Ellison signed the contract as being cancelled on November 21, 1988. Although the Ellisons were offered an opportunity by the Respondent to transfer their deposit of $4,463.40 to Security and enter into a contract with Security to build their house, they declined and contracted with another contractor. On the date the contract was cancelled, Respondent advised Ernest Ellison that the down payment of $4,463.40 would be reimbursed. Although Respondent attempted to obtain a refund for the Ellisons from MacLaren and was advised by MacLaren that a refund was forthcoming, no refund of the Ellison's down payment was ever made by Rivercoast, Ronald MacLaren, the Respondent or anyone else. Respondent was aware during the negotiation and at the time the Ellison's contract was executed, that Rivercoast was not authorized by law to engage in contracting. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent ever advised the Ellisons that he would be the contractor responsible for building their home under the contract with Rivercoast or that he would be the contractor to pull the necessary permits for construction of their home. There is no evidence that Respondent had any financial interest or owned any stock or held any office in Rivercoast a/k/a Yankee Construction, Inc. Around October 1, 1988, after Stevenson had withdrawn as qualifying agent for Olympic, Rivercoast was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of contracting since it had not been qualified by another qualifying agent in accordance with Section 489.119, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the demeanor of the witnesses and the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21E- 17, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation it is recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $1,000.00. It is further recommended that Counts I, II, IV and V be dismissed DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 November, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-2046 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Not necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, and 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 14 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. - 2. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 8. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. - 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. - 16. Not material or relevant. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 13, 14 and 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but modified. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified to show license effective until October, 1988 rather than February, 1989. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 20. - 26. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified to show from June, 1987 until October, 1988. - 29. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 13. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 4. - 32. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8 and 9 but modified. Not material or relevant. - 36. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, and 9 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Not material or relevant. - 40. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, and 17, respectively. Rejected as there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to show any other contract than the one Respondent signed on October 31, 1988. Not material or relevant. Not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 9. - 50. Not necessary to the conclusion reached since this matter was covered in the Preliminary Statement wherein the motion was denied. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Geoffrey Vining, P.A. 2212 South Florida Avenue Suite 300 Lakeland, FL 33803 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent James W. Geary presently holds certified general contractor's license number CG C005775. Respondent Geary apparently entered into a contract with Phillip Smith to add a screened porch to the Smith residence. Neither the contract nor the testimony of Mr. Smith were made available to the undersigned Hearing Officer. Respondent had difficulty obtaining a roofer and completion of the project was therefore delayed. During the interim, the interior of the Smith's living room suffered water damage. After receiving a complaint from the Smiths, Mr. Robert Jahn, Chief Building Official for the City of Tamarac, personally inspected the Smith project. He found that the water damage was caused by the uncompleted work of respondent and certain violations of the Southern Florida Building Code. Jahn did not know how long the project had not been worked on, but Smith told him he had tried for about one month to get respondent to return to correct the situation. Respondent testified that when he sent a man to the Smith residence to install the roof columns, Smith chased the man off the job. Upon the delivery of certain supplies for his projects, respondent Geary, d/b/a First Triangle Corporation, wrote two checks in the total amount of $391.41 payable to Rinker Materials. (Exhibit 1) These checks were offered for payment by Rinker, and were returned due to insufficient funds. The former credit manager of Rinker Materials did not know whether anyone from Rinker had contacted respondent about the checks. Respondent testified that no one from Rinker had informed him that the checks were dishonored. However, respondent did receive notice from his bank that the checks had been returned. He was changing banks about the same time and felt that the bank had made mistakes in the past. He felt that the checks were good when issued and he therefore did not put much reliance upon the notices received from the bank. Respondent testified that he is ready, willing and able to honor the checks written to Rinker Materials. Respondent Geary apparently entered into a contract with Richard Decker for the addition of a five by eleven foot bathroom to the Decker's residence. Neither the contract, the plans or specifications nor the testimony of Mr. Decker were offered into evidence at the Hearing. Respondent felt there were no deviations between the finished product and the job specifications, and that, even if there had been, there was no way he could put a five foot vanity into the project without violating the applicable building code. The field investigator for petitioner's District No. 10 found deviations from the plans with regard to the size of the vanity, the bathroom door and the illumination. He found that the Deckers had not indicated their approval of such deviations by placing their initials on the plans or specification. The South Florida Building Code (302.2(b)) provides that when the cost of a job is over $5,000.00, the permit applicant must present plans signed and sealed by a registered architect or engineer. A larger permit fee is also required for jobs costing over $5,000.00. On or about April 9, 1976, respondent Geary applied to the City of Tamarac for two building permits. (Exhibit 2). While blueprints were submitted, no plans signed and sealed by a registered architect Or engineer were submitted. From the square footages contained on the right hand column of the application, Chief Building Official Jahn determined that the value of the two projects were $7,300.00 and $6,620.00. The contract prices for these projects were approximately $8,000.00 and $10,000.00. There was no conclusive testimony as to who supplied the footage information on these applications, It was respondent's opinion that the actual costs of these projects did not exceed $5,000.00. Respondent apparently entered into a contract with Daniel Salzman for some project, and then entered into a second contract for the construction and installation of a fence and a trellis. For this second project, respondent received a deposit of $825.00. The first job was never completed by respondent and respondent never began work on the fence and trellis project. Respondent admitted that some $500.00 was due Mr. Salzman as a refund for the second project. He testified that he instructed Mr. Salzman to have the work on the first project completed by someone else and then to send respondent the bill for the same. Respondent has not heard from Salzman regarding this matter. By letter dated November 20, 1976, Chief Building Official Jahn notified respondent that "No further building permits [would] be issued to First Triangle Builders with you as their qualifier because of numerous complaints and unfinished projects." As indicated in the Introduction, petitioner filed an administrative complaint against respondent seeking to revoke his license for violations of certain ordinances and Florida Statutes S468.112(2). The cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer, and the undersigned was designated to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, as well as the seriousness of the offenses of which respondent has been found guilty, It Is recommended that respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG C005775 be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (488-9675) Area Code 904 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. James W. Geary 4370 Northwest 32nd Court Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Wallace Norman Construction Industry Licensing Board 305 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 JacksonvIlle, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged failure or refusal to satisfy a civil judgment in a reasonable period of time.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bradley T. Barbour, has not disputed that he is a certified tile and marble specialty contractor, holding Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board license number C-5778. The Respondent entered into a contract with Cameron Vale to tile the floor of his house. The tile job was unsatisfactory to Vale, who sued in the County Court, Pinellas County, Small Claims Division, Case No. 93-5287 SC-NCD. On February 14, 1994, Vale and the Respondent entered into a Pretrial Conference Agreement. Under the Agreement, the Respondent agreed, among other things, to pay Vale $2,500, payable $200 a month beginning February 18, 1994, until paid in full. Based on the Agreement, Vale and the Respondent filed a Stipulation to Stay Entry of Judgment on February 14, 1995, and two days later the court entered an Order staying entry of final judgment. Contrary to the terms of the Agreement and Stipulation, the Respondent only made one payment of $100. On June 7, 1994, the court entered a Judgment against the Respondent in the amount of $2,400, together with 12 percent interest on the Judgment. The Respondent has made no payments to Vale on the Judgment and has not satisfied the Judgment either in full or in part. The Board has published "Guidelines for Disciplinary Action" which provide for a $300 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "minor" infraction and a $750 fine as the "typical" penalty for the first "major" infraction. The Guidelines give no guidance in distinguishing between "minor" and "major" infractions. The Guidelines also list aggravating and mitigating circumstances which focus on the harm done by the offense, the licensee's efforts to rectify the situation, and whether there is a history of similar offenses by the licensee. They also authorize suspension or revocation and fines "not to exceed $1,000 per count."
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: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 24(2)(c) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida (1975), as amended; (2) fining him $750; (3) revoking his license; and (4) conditioning relicensure upon both full restitution to Cameron Vale under the terms of the outstanding Judgment and full payment of the fine imposed in this case. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, 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 23rd day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Bradley T. Barbour B & B Tile 2035 Philippe Parkway Safety Harbor, Florida 34695
The Issue Whether the Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by obtaining licensure by fraud or misrepresentation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure of certified general contractors. The Respondent Lawrence I. Paul, III, ("Respondent") is a licensed general contractor, holding State of Florida licenses GC C046485 and CG CA46485. On or about December 12, 1988, the Respondent submitted his application to the Department of Professional Regulation seeking leave to take the examination for certification as a general contractor. The Respondent subsequently took and passed the certified general contractors examination. In his application, the Respondent states that he is qualified to take the examination by virtue of having four years of proven experience as a workman or foreman of which at least one year was as a foreman. On the experience verification form submitted to the DPR as part of his application the Respondent states that from January, 1977 to January, 1980, he had been employed as a construction workman and that from January 1980 to January 1981 he had been employed as a construction foreman. The application includes an experience verification form executed by the Respondent and Paula Wisnik, a New York licensed architect. The form indicates that the Respondent had experience in steel erection form work, masonry walls, concrete slabs, footings, site work, excavation, rebar, trusses, and floor and ceiling joists, in single family residences, strip stores and high rise condominiums ten stories and higher. The experience verification form executed by Ms. Wisnik and the Respondent states as follows: I have read the CANDIDATE INFORMATION BOOKLET and reviewed the experience requirements and understand that any false information provided on this form may subject the person(s) signing below to disciplinary action and possible loss of license. I understand that DIRECT KNOWLEDGE does NOT mean that I am relying on a statement from the applicant that he has met the requirements. Ms. Wisnik has no direct knowledge of the Applicant's experience or of the applicant personally. Her knowledge was based upon information provided to her by Peter Wendt, another licensed architect. The Respondent originally sought to have Mr. Wendt complete the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt forwarded the form to Ms. Wisnik and she subsequently signed the document. Mr. Wendt has no direct personal knowledge of the Respondent's experience as set forth on the experience verification form. Mr. Wendt did not meet the Respondent until the Respondent's move to Florida, which occurred subsequent to the period of employment identified in the application. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that at the time the application was completed, the Respondent did not have the claimed four years of proven experience as construction worker or foreman. The Respondent's application states that first he became employed in the construction trade in January, 1977. In fact, he became employed full time in late December, 1978, with Paul Brothers, Inc., a family owned fire restoration business in Philadelphia. He worked primarily as a salesman and estimator with Paul Brothers until June, 1982, a period of approximately three and one-half years. Although there were periods when the Respondent worked on- site, it was not his primary responsibility throughout the employment period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order revoking the licensure of Lawrence I. Paul, III, as a certified general contractor, license numbers GC C046485 and CG CA46485. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-0193 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. The proposed finding is modified to reflect that the Respondent did not hold the licenses prior to examination. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5. Rejected, illogical and unsupported by evidence. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert G. Harris, Esq. Senior Attorney Dept. of Professional Regulation 2295 Victoria Avenue #263 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Timothy J. Murty, Esq. 1633 Periwinkle Way, Suite A Sanibel, Florida 33957 Wellington H. Meffert, II Chief Construction Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing Company is a roofing contractor registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Smith does not hold any license issued by local construction licensing boards which does not license roofing contractors. Smith admitted that he had commenced construction projects without acquiring the appropriate building permits from the local building officials. Calvin Smith identified a contract, Exhibit 2, which he had entered into with Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing regarding the repair of the roof of his house. This contract called for the replacement of bad wood, which was understood by the parties to refer to rotten wood planking and rafters. Calvin Smith stated that after construction commenced and the old roof had been removed, his house had suffered rain damage although Gary Smith had advised him that the roof had been dried in. Gary Smith explained that he had in fact laid the requisite felt paper on the roof but that a severe wind and rain storm and occurred immediately following which had destroyed the felt paper. Smith stated that a crew was on the job during the storm at all times trying to keep the felt nailed down and maintain the water-tight integrity of the roof. There were no delays following the removal of the roof in replacing the felt and diligently proceeding with the re-roofing. Several days after the storm the roof had been finished, the plywood ceiling of the family room of Calvin Smith's house was partially removed to permit the insulation to be replaced. At this time Calvin Smith discovered rotten wood which Smith felt should have been removed and replaced by Gary Smith pursuant to their contract. Gary Smith stated that he had found one rotten rafter, but that he had advised Calvin Smith of the fact that it was there and that Calvin Smith realized that he was not replacing it. Gary Smith stated that he had removed and replaced all the rotten wood in the roof and that the rotten wood discovered by Calvin Smith was on that portion of the family room roof which was under the eaves of the pre-existing roof of the house where it could only be seen upon removal of the family room ceiling. Gary Smith further testified that subsequent to finding the rotten wood, Calvin Smith had not permitted him to correct the job and that he had not personally seen the rotten wood, pictures of which Calvin Smith had identified. Calvin Smith identified photographs of the interior and exterior of the roof as repaired by Gary Smith. These photographs were received as Exhibits 3 and 8. Exhibits 7 and 8 were photographs of the exterior of the roof. Exhibit 8 is a photograph of a shingle which was not properly installed. Gary Smith admitted that the shingle was not properly installed but stated that it would have been corrected prior to finishing the job. Exhibit 7 is a photograph showing a course of shingles which does not have the proper overlap. Gary Smith explained that this short run of shingles was necessary to even up or balance the runs on both sides of a hip in the roof because the distance from the eave to the top or peak of the hip was not the same on both sides. Gary Smith also pointed out that in both photographs the shingles are laid so that the bottom of the upper course of shingles comes to or overlaps the lower course of shingles to the top of the tab, causing good contact between the shingles and the adhesive strips. Contrary to the assertion of Calvin Smith that the shingles had been laid in such a manner that the adhesive strips did not touch. Calvin Smith had identified Exhibit 6 as photograph of roof flashing on the family room roof which he asserted was improperly installed. Gary Smith stated that the flashing in Exhibit 6 was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and that the roof on the family room had the requisite number of layers of felt and tar as required by the building code. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of the roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he had shown the rotten beam indicated in Exhibit 4 to Calvin Smith and that Calvin Smith had known that he was not replacing the bean because replacement would have required the removal of the family room ceiling as well as the sheeting on the roof over the beam. Gary Smith stated that the wood shown in Exhibit 3 was not rotten but water stained and that the beam was sufficiently solid to hold the weight of the roofing materials on top of it and to nail the new sheeting into. Tommy Thompson, construction inspection supervisor of the City of Jacksonville, inspected the roof of Calvin Smith's home. Thompson found that the shingles had not been lapped properly, that some shingles had been laid so that the ceiling strips would not adhere properly, that rotten rafters and wood had been left, that the correct number of nails had not been placed in the shingles, that metal flashing around the chimney had not been installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, and that one, twelve inch hold had been left in the roof sheeting. Thompson identified the Building Code of the City of Jacksonville and those portions of the code relating to installation of roofing materials. Thompson stated that the items mentioned in the paragraph above constituted violations of the code. Thompson also pointed out that it was a violation of the code to commence construction or repair of a roof without obtaining the requisite building permit. J. R. Bond, Executive Director of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of the City of Jacksonville, stated that the board did not certify roofers. The ordinances of the City of Jacksonville empower the Construction Trades Qualifying Board to hear complaints against state registered but unlicensed contractors. However, the board lacks authority to take direct action against persons who are state registered but unlicensed. The board may only request that the city building official not issue the individual any further building permits. The building official must exercise his own independent authority and judgment in determining whether to suspend an individual's right to obtain building permits. The building official suspended Smith's privilege to obtain permits without a hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Smith's registration as a roofing contractor be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Telephone: 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gary A. Smith Sirmons Roofing Company 3845 Edidin Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 78-1780 GARY A. SMITH d/b/a SIMMONS ROOFING CO., RC 0030047, 3845 Edidin Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32211, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005),1 by abandoning a construction project, and, if so, the appropriate discipline; and Whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(i) by virtue of her violation of section 489.127(1)(f), which prohibits engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor without being licensed, and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, the following facts were made: Ms. Curbelo is a certified building contractor, doing business as A+ Construction & Management, Inc. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issued Ms. Curbelo License No. CBC 1255321 on March 12, 2007. She is currently licensed as the qualifying agent of A+ Construction & Management, Inc., and she was issued qualified business organization certificate of authority License No. QB53665. Before March 12, 2007, Ms. Curbelo was not licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I, to practice construction contracting. In December 2005, Ms. Curbelo purchased A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., and became its sole corporate officer. She renamed the entity A+ Construction & Management, Inc. (A+ Construction). Before March 12, 2007, A+ Construction was not duly licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I. Further, its predecessor, A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., was never duly licensed pursuant to chapter 489, Part I. On January 25, 2006, Mr. Torres was provided a proposal from Ms. Curbelo, doing business as A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc. The proposal was to remodel, renovate, and repair Mr. Torres' home located at 1031 Hunting Lodge Drive, Miami Springs, Florida 33166. On January 27, 2006, Mr. Torres accepted the proposal, and it formed the agreement between Ms. Curbelo and Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres made an initial payment of $24,900.00 to A+ Construction on February 6, 2006, which was due under the contract upon acceptance. The agreed contract price for the work was $166,000.00. The contract contained a description of the work to be completed and a draw schedule that provided for payment as the work progressed. Mr. Torres made payments to A+ Construction for the time period of February 8, 2006, through April 10, 2007. The payments totaled $157,700.00 and corresponded with a majority of the work contracted to be completed under the contract. The only draw that Mr. Torres did not pay was in the amount of $8,300.00 that was due "upon completion" of the work. Mr. Torres credibly testified that he paid A+ Construction for work that had not been completed in order to move the job along to completion. Furthermore, Mr. Torres credibly testified that when he would question Mr. Luis Curbelo, the job-site foreman, about the status of the work, Mr. Curbelo would threaten to walk off the job. Mr. Torres identified a check, Petitioner's Exhibit 6, that he made payable to First Call Roofing dated August 23, 2007, in the amount of $5,000.00. Mr. Torres explained that he paid First Call Roofing because he was desperate to get his leaking roof repaired. Mr. Torres paid this amount even though he had previously paid A+ Construction for repairs to the roof as part of the contract. The evidence also showed that during the work, Mr. Torres requested change orders which were not part of the original contract. Although these change orders increased the costs above the original contract, it was not disputed that Mr. Torres fully paid A+ Construction for all of the work outside of the contract. Sometime in late August 2007, A+ Construction stopped work on the job and failed to return. Mr. Torres credibly testified that he had an estimate from another contractor that the construction job was left approximately 40 percent completed and that it would cost an estimated amount of $108,000.00 to complete the job. The Department, however, did not introduce any non-hearsay evidence to support the estimate to complete the work or the costs to complete the construction. After A+ Construction stopped work on the job, Mr. Torres testified that he called in a series of inspections and that his home had passed the inspections. He stated that a majority of the inspections had been called in by him. Ms. Curbelo and Mr. Luis Curbelo offered the following three explanations for why A+ Construction stopped work on Mr. Torres' house: first, Mr. Torres failed to approve a payment draw concerning installation of windows; second, Mr. Torres' construction job included work for which Mr. Torres had not paid; and finally, Mr. Torres attempted to undercut A+ Construction by directly dealing with its subcontractors. None of these offered reasons is supported by the evidence. The record clearly showed that Mr. Torres made all of the payments required under the contract, except the final draw of $8,300.00, which was due on completion of the job. Consequently, under the contract, Mr. Torres had fully paid, including amounts for windows, all amounts that were owed under the contract when A+ Construction abandoned the job. The final draw was not due until completion, and A+ Construction had not completed the job. Next, the record clearly shows that Mr. Torres paid for all change orders. Therefore, the record does not support Ms. Curbelo's claim that A+ Construction stopped work because of non-payment. Finally, the record clearly showed that Mr. Torres contracted with the roofing subcontractor to do work that A+ Construction had been paid to do, but had not done. Thus, the evidence did not support the contention that A+ Construction had stopped work because Mr. Torres attempted to undercut them by dealing with the subcontractors. The record clearly shows that Ms. Curbelo, doing business as A+ Construction, abandoned the construction job. Next, the record does not support the claim that the building inspections showed that 85 percent of the remodeling had been completed on the job and that work stopped because of Mr. Torres' non-payment. Considering that Ms. Curbelo stopped work in August 2007, a review of the building inspections shows that many of the inspections occurred after she abandoned the job. None of the inspections shows the percentage of work completed by A+ Construction. Finally, the record does not support Ms. Curbelo's testimony that Mr. Torres was aware that at the time of entering into the contract that she did not have a contractor's license and that the job was under the supervision of Joe Anon (Mr. Anon). Ms. Curbelo testified that Mr. Torres was aware the Mr. Anon would be the general contractor, as his name was on the January 25, 2006, contract. Interestingly, the document that Ms. Curbelo relies upon for her testimony is a proposal dated January 25, 2006, from A+ Construction & Management, Inc. This document is nearly identical to the 11-page proposal from the A+ Construction & Remodeling, Inc., to Mr. Torres on the same date for the repairs to the home. However, two important differences are found on the faces of the two exhibits. On Respondent's Exhibit 2, under the logo of "A+ Construction" are the terms "& Management, Inc. For Joe Anon, GC." In contrast, Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the logo of "A+ Construction & Remodeling" with no reference to the later company or Mr. Anon's name. Both of these exhibits purport to be from the same proposal given to Mr. Torres on the same day. Yet, out of the composite exhibit of 12 pages, only Ms. Curbelo's offered document contains Ms. Curbelo's subsequent company's name or reference to Mr. Anon. Moreover, unlike the Department's exhibit, the exhibit offered by Ms. Curbelo is unsigned by Mr. Torres. Consequently, the document offered by Ms. Curbelo is untrustworthy. Thus, the undersigned rejects as unbelievable Ms. Curbelo's claims that Mr. Torres knew that she was not a licensed general contractor and that the construction project was being overseen by a licensed contractor. Mr. Torres credibly testified in rebuttal that he did not meet Mr. Anon until after Ms. Curbelo abandoned the job. Further, Mr. Torres credibly testified that his "biggest mistake was paying ahead" to get work completed. The Department's total investigative costs of this case, excluding attorney's fees, is $414.57. The evidence showed that Ms. Curbelo does not have any prior disciplinary actions against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board: Finding Respondent, Chandra Beth Curbelo, guilty of having violated section 489.129(1)(j), Count I of the Administrative Complaint, imposing as a penalty a fine of $7,500.00, and placing Ms. Curbelo's license on probation for a period of four years; Finding Ms. Curbelo guilty of having violated sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.129(1)(i), as set out in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a fine of $7,500.00, and placing her license on probation for a period of four years; and Requiring Ms. Curbelo to pay the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $414.57. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2011.
