The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint or is responsible for the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C031547 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for A.A. Home Improvement Company, Inc. (A.A.), 4101 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On August 25, 1990, A.A. contracted with Anthony Williams, Sr., and Janice Williams, 1/ as the owners, to re-roof and perform internal renovations on the owners' house located at 2804 Avenue H, Fort Pierce, Florida, for a contract price of $6,900.00. The contract provided that all repairs and improvements would be done and completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner. The contract between the parties was an installment loan contract that provided for a mortgage on the house and property that was the subject of the contract. On August 25, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Williams and Ethel Nelson gave A.A. a mortgage on the property to secure payment of the amount of the contract. A.A. assigned the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc. on August 29, 1990. Subsequent to the assignment of the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc., Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., consolidated certain debts through a loan from Metropolitan Mortgage Company of Fort Pierce, Florida. With the proceeds of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams paid off the mortgage that had been given to A.A. on August 25, 1990, and assigned to Union Mortgage Company on August 29, 1990. To secure payment of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams gave Metropolitan a mortgage on the subject property. The Williams were still paying off the Metropolitan mortgage at the time of the formal hearing. The contract between A.A. and the owners required A.A. to remove the existing roof of the subject property and to replace the roof with a twenty-year fiberglass roof, repair the ceilings of three rooms with sheetrock, seal off holes in two walls (these holes resulted after two air conditioning units were removed), install a vinyl floor in the dining room, renovate a bathroom to 90 percent completion, and make certain unspecified minor repairs. A.A. is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. Respondent is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. The repair of the roof on the subject property was work that should be performed only by a certified or registered roofing contractor. Workmen from A.A. were present at the job site for approximately a week. After the work was performed, including the roofing work, the owners began having problems with the work performed by A.A. Water began to leak through the walls where the air conditioning units had been. This leaking resulted because A.A. did not properly seal the holes in the wall. Instead, A.A. merely nailed pieces of plywood over the holes where the air conditioning units had been. The roof leaked and caused damage to interior panelling. A.A. did none of the work on the bathroom that had been contracted. Mr. and Mrs. Williams attempted to get A.A. to come back and finish the work or to correct defective work on two occasions. On two separate occasions, a representative of A.A. promised to return to the job site to complete the work and to correct defective work. A.A. did not return to the job site and made no further effort to complete or correct the work on the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Williams will have to expend approximately $6,000 to repair the roof and interior of the house as a result of A.A.'s failure to perform its contractual duties. In negotiating the contract with A.A., the owners dealt with Christine McDonough, who was a corporate officer of A.A. and who had the authority to bind A.A. as a party to the contract. A building permit was required by the City of Fort Pierce Building Code for the construction contemplated by the subject contract. No permit was obtained by A.A. The Respondent did not supervise any of the work performed on the subject property by A.A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $2,250.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and pay restitution to Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of June, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Farrall was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C040234. In addition, the Respondent was licensed as a certified roofing contractor and held license number CC C024398. Mr. Farrall was the qualifying agent for Sunmaster Roofing Company. On May 25, 1987, Sunmaster Roofing Company entered into a contract with Clarence A. Miller and Emily Miller to reroof their residence in Naples, Florida. After the project was completed, Mr. and Mr. Miller filed a complaint with the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board on December 7, 1987. Essentially, the complaint alleged as follows: 1) that the contractor abandoned the job without adequately completing construction; 2) that the roof materials were incorrectly installed; 3) that the contractor failed to obtain a building permit; and 4) that the contractor failed to adequately perform the contract due to his failure to correct faulty workmanship on the job. On December 11, 1987, copies of the complaint and a notice of hearing was sent to Respondent Farrall by certified mail to two different addresses. The items were promptly received at both locations. On January 15, 1988, the Respondent acknowledged that he was personally aware of the hearing scheduled for January 20, 1988. The Respondent requested a continuance until after January 29, 1988, because he had to attend to urgent family matters which required his presence in Canada. A continuance was not granted, and the hearing proceeded as scheduled. The Respondent was aware that the hearing was not continued prior to his departure for Canada. On January 20, 1988, a hearing was held, and the local board received evidence regarding the Miller complaint. As a result of the hearing, the local board found that the Respondent violated specific county ordinances in the following manner: by abandoning the job without legal excuse; disregarding or violating the building code by failing to obtain a building permit; and by failing to make good, faulty workmanship obviously performed in evasion of performance of the contract. The Respondent was disciplined by the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board on January 20, 1988. His permit privileges were suspended in Collier County until the contractor makes restitution and appears before the Board for reinstatement. The Respondent was given fifteen days to appeal the decision. The Respondent personally received a copy of the disposition of the hearing by certified mail on January 28, 1988. An appeal was not taken of the decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, John W. Farrall, in Case No. 89-3291 be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3291 The proposed findings of fact set forth in Petitioner's proposed recommended order are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2 4. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. 5. Accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges filed. Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges filed. The proposed findings of fact filed by the Respondent are addressed as follows: Accept the first two sentences. See HO #1. The rest of paragraph 1 is rejected as improper argument which is not based upon material evidence presented at hearing. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. The issue in this proceeding involves the discipline by the local government board and not the underlying facts upon which the board based its findings. Immaterial. 4. Rejected. Immaterial. See above. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Contrary to fact. See HO #6. Rejected. Rejected. Contrary to Irrelevant. fact. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John W. Farrall 316-2 Tudor Drive Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent was a registered building contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RB 0009164. At no time material to this proceeding was Domingo Alonzo (a/k/a Domingo Alonzo) registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent and Alonzo signed and submitted a proposal to Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox for remodeling and additions to their residence located at 1550 Zuleta Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida in accordance with plans prepared by Frese - Camner Associates on file with the City of Coral Gables, Florida, File No. 2897 for a contract price of $65,940.00 with draw schedules attached. On December 6, 1982, Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox (Homeowners) accepted the Proposal (Contract). On December 6, 1982, the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,297.00 in accordance with the contract whereby they were to receive 5 percent of the contract amount as a down payment upon signing. The draw schedule provided for a 10 percent retainage from each draw which was to be paid to Respondent and Alonzo upon completion and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. On December 21, 1982 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $2,025.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 3 for $1,350.00, Schedule II - Item 2 for $360.00 and Item 5 for $315.00. On December 17, 1982 the Homeowners and Respondent filed the affidavit required by ordinance with the City of Coral Gables for the purpose of having a building permit issued covering the work under the contract. 9. On January 19, 1983 Respondent using his building contractors license applied for building permit to cover the work anticipated under the contract and on the same day was issued building permit, No. 28214. Under the contract the Homeowners were to pay for the building permit and the bond required by the city. On January 26, 1983 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,000.00 which along with a payment on January 27, 1983 of $500.00 and January 31, 1983 of $544.60 represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 2 for $405.00, Item 5 for $1,260.00, Item 6 for $1,547.10 and Item 13 for $832.50. All payments from December 6, 1982 through January 31, 1983 under the contract by the Homeowners totaled $9,366.50 and were paid jointly to Respondent and Alonzo. On February 4, 1983 Respondent and Alonzo entered into an agreement, prepared by Myron Gold in the law office of Gold and Fox, whereby the Homeowners were to pay the balance of the funds remaining under the contract to Alonzo individually. After this date all payments were made to Alonzo. It was the Homeowners understanding after the February 3, 1983 agreement that Respondent would still be responsible for the supervision of the construction although they never saw Respondent again until October 1983. Edward Borysiewicz testified that he dealt with Respondent during March 1983 when he made the floor slab inspection on March 3, 1983 and the columns inspection on March 14, 1983. The record is clear that shortly after the agreement on February 3, 1983 Respondent no longer came to the construction site and supervised the work of Alonzo. On February 8, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,060.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 1 for $810.00, Item 5 for $1,417.50 and Item 13 for $832.50. On February 28, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,155.40 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 4 for $1,705.50 and $729.90 for extras apparently not covered by the contract but whether the balance of check No. 1161 (Pet. Ex. 13) of $720.00 was for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 18, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $1,000 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 9 for $819.00. Again whether the balance of check No. 1206 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) of $181.00 is for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 21, 1983, the Homeowners paid Alonzo $6,400.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Items 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. On March 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $2,166.90 but Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 does not list check No. 1210 as being a payment under the contract or for extras. On March 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $4,230.00 which represents a draw under Schedule I - Item 7 for $2,520.00 and a payment for extras not covered under the contract in the amount of $1,710.00. On April 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,207.40 which represented a draw Schedule I - Items 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14. On June 24, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,788.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 12 for $667.00, Item 14 for $3,024.00 and payment for extras not under contract for $2,097.00. After March 14, 1983 Respondent was not seen on the job site and there was no longer any apparent supervision of Alonzo by Respondent. After Respondent left the job site there was no licensed building contractor involved in the construction. After Respondent left the construction site the Homeowners soon realized that Alonzo did not know how to proceed with the work and experienced problems with the pace and manner in which the work was being accomplished. On July, 1983, Alonzo stopped working altogether. Although the Homeowners were aware of the problems that Alonzo was having with the construction and that Respondent was not on the job, the record does not reflect that they ever attempted to contact Respondent after the meeting on February 3, 1983. On August 1, 1983 the Homeowners notified Respondent and Alonzo that the contract had been terminated. The Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo $42,174.20 total under the contract (pages 1-5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) and paid Alonzo $10,766.37 for extras (Pages 6- 10, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15). On August 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Edward Bryant, plastering contractor the sum of $3,100.00 for plastering performed by Edward Bryant. This was for work under the contract that had not been completed or work necessary to correct problems that were already completed. Roberta Fox testified that there were no extras on plaster, however, page 7, line 11 and page 9, line 21 of Petitioner's Exhibit 15 indicates that there was extra plastering. On August 29, 1983 and September 29, 1983 the Homeowners paid Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. the total amount of $4,875.00 for work contemplated under the contract that had not been completed or needed correction. Homeowners had paid Alonzo $3,591.00 for plumbing under the contract. Both Alonzo and Southwest Plumbing, Inc. were paid for extra plumbing not covered by the contract in the amount of $567.00 and $391.50, respectively by the Homeowners. From September 13, 1983 through June 13, 1984 the Homeowners paid Charles Brueg, Jim Brueg, Charles Buffington and Dan, Inc. the total amount of $4,192.91 for electrical work contemplated under the contract that was not completed or required correction after Alonzo left the construction site. Page 6 lines 6 and 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 indicate that there were extras not covered by the contract. The total amount for electricity contemplated by the contract was $3,649.00. Alonzo was paid $2,627.10 under the contract and $1,710.00 for extras. The Homeowners were required to obtain the services of an air conditioning contractor to complete the work contemplated under the contract after Alonzo left the job site and as a result were required to pay Cameron, Inc., the air conditioning contract the amount of $5,181.60 between August 16, 1983 and January 24, 1984. The total amount contemplated under the contract was $3,600.00 of which $1,134.00 had been paid to Alonzo. Debris was dumped in the swimming pool requiring the Homeowners to pay $7,000 to refurbish the swimming pool. This amount included the repair contemplated under the contract and the extra work caused by Alonzo. The contract contemplated $2,300.00 for repairs of which none had been paid to Respondent or Alonzo. The Homeowners paid $1,150.00 to a painting contractor to finish the painting contemplated under the contract. Alonzo had been paid $1,125.00 for painting. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) The contract provided $2,500.00 for all painting required under the contract. Respondent failed to notify the building department that he was no longer responsible for the construction. After the Homeowners terminated the contract due to Respondent's and Alonzo's nonperformance, the Homeowners had to expend a substantial amount of extra money to complete the construction. The evidence is insufficient to determine an exact or approximate amount. Roberta Fox's testimony was conflicting with regard to her understanding as to whether or not the Respondent would continue to supervise the construction after the meeting in the Homeowners' law office on February 3, 1983 when Respondent and Alonzo entered into this agreement. Myron Gold testified that it was his understanding that Respondent would continue to supervise Alonzo after the agreement. However, the Homeowners action in this regard subsequent to February 3, 1983, in making no effort to bring the matter to a "head" and requiring Respondent to supervise the work or terminate the contract and in continuing to deal with Alonzo although Homeowners were aware shortly after February 3, 1983 that Alonzo could not perform without Respondent's supervision and that they knew Respondent was not on the job, tends to show that they were aware or should have been aware that Respondent was no longer involved in the day to day supervision of the construction. Alonzo installed a fireplace pursuant to the contract that the building department determined to be a fire hazard and recommended against its use. The Homeowners applied for and were granted a "owner/builder" permit on September 1, 1983 and requested cancellation of the building permit issued to Respondent which was cancelled on September 6, 1983. They have not received a certificate of occupancy because the building department has not performed the following inspection: electrical final; plumbing final; air conditioning final; roofing final and public works final. The building department would have issued a "stop-work order" had it been aware that Respondent was not supervising the construction and would have required the Homeowners to obtain another licensed building contractor or proceed as a owner/builder. The plans prepared by Frese-Camner Associates that were made a part of the contract by reference were not introduced into evidence with the contract and thus the record is insufficient to determine what was required to meet the specifications of the plans and thereby determine if the specifications had been met. There was a permit issued for the septic tank and drain field which work was started in December, 1982. The construction of the house itself was started in January 1983. The first inspection (foundation) on the house was made by the building department of January 21, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)(k)(m), Florida Statutes (1981) and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) years, provided, however, that if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of restitution to Myron Gold and Roberta Fox within one (1) year from the date of the final order herein, then the suspension shall be stayed and Respondent placed on probation for the balance of the suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, 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 6th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2529 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 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 except clarified as to the last date on construction site. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact24 but clarified to show correct amount paid under contract as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified to show that extra plastering not under contract was required. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32 but clarified to show that the record does not support a figure that approximate $32,000.00. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence even though the Homeowners' testimony supported this fact because the Homeowners' actions with regard to Respondent after February 3, 1983, was to the contrary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: No Findings of Fact was submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 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 W. Douglas Beason Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George J. Soler, Pro Se 3315 S.W. 96th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building contractors pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a Florida State Certified Building Contractor who holds license number CBC053702. On December 9, 2002, Mack Hayes entered into a contract with "McKay Engineering/Construction" to build an addition to the Hayes residence located at 3011 East Deleuil Avenue in Tampa, Florida. Although the contract refers to McKay Engineering/Construction rather than McKay Engineering Services, Inc., subsequent change orders to the contract show the Respondent's license number in the letterhead. In correspondence to the Petitioner, the Respondent also acknowledged that he was the contractor on the Hayes project. The Hayes contract did not contain a statement explaining the consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, stated that Mr. Hayes remains eligible for assistance from the Fund. The original contract price for the construction was $54,700. Change orders created an adjusted price of $57,450. During the course of the construction, Mr. Hayes made four payments to the Respondent totaling $49,000. Not long after the construction commenced in January 2003, Mr. Hayes and his wife became frustrated with the slow pace of the construction. Mr. Hayes originally understood that the work would take about 90 days. Instead, the construction remained uncompleted after nine months. In July 2003, the pace of work on the Hayes' addition slowed substantially and in October, the Respondent ceased work altogether. The Respondent ceased work on the project despite the fact that he had not been fired or otherwise given a reason to cease work. In order to facilitate progress on the construction, Mr. Hayes paid the air conditioning subcontractor $1,836, the electrical subcontractor $1,000, and the stucco subcontractor $800, even though it was the Respondent's responsibility under the parties' contract to pay the subcontractors. The Respondent's construction of the new roof of the residence was of particular concern to Mr. Hayes. The tie-in of new roof framing with the existing roof was misaligned and otherwise improperly installed which caused the new roof to sag. The records of the City of Tampa indicate that the Respondent did not obtain a permit from the City for the roofing work at the Hayes residence. In an attempt to repair the roof, large holes were cut in the ceiling to gain access for cutting some of the rafters. The holes in the ceiling were not repaired by the Respondent. The plywood and other wood used on the unfinished eaves was left exposed to weather for months, which has resulted in water damage to the wood that will necessitate that it be replaced. Mr. Hayes obtained cost estimates from two other contractors to repair the roof, gables, and eaves installed by the Respondent. One estimate was $17,490 (including materials) and the other estimate was $15,550 (without materials). Numerous aspects of the construction project were never started or were started and then abandoned, including the gables and eaves, the door trim and hardware, internal electrical box, attic access, plumbing, and front trim. Mack Hayes paid $2,500 to Ezekial Bain and $2,500 to Drains, Etc. to finish some of this work after the Respondent abandoned the project. Taking into account the adjusted contract price of the construction, the amount paid to the Respondent by Mr. Hayes, the direct costs paid to subcontractors by Mr. Hayes, and the reasonable estimated costs for repair of the roof, gables, and eaves, the total financial damages that the Respondent caused to Mr. Hayes is $17,676. The Petitioner did not present expert testimony regarding the competency of the Respondent as a building contractor. Without such testimony, the record evidence is not sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the problems associated with this particular project were due to incompetence. The problems could have been caused solely by the Respondent's mismanagement and misconduct. The Petitioner incurred investigative costs of $817.66 for the investigation and prosecution of this case.
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 requiring: that the Respondent pay financial restitution to the Hayes of $17,676; that the Respondent obtain seven hours of continuing education in the area of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, in addition to the hours required for renewal of the Respondent's certification; that the Respondent's license be suspended for two years; and that the Respondent reimburse the Petitioner for its investigative costs of $817.66. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Elzweig, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Curt L. McKay 9726 Timmons Loop Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent was validly disciplined by a local government, which causes the Respondent to be in violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent failed to perform the contracting job alleged in the Administrative Complaint in a reasonably timely manner, or abandoned the job, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), (k), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent exhibited financial mismanagement, misconduct or diversion, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), (m), Florida Statutes (1985). Whether the Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in connection with the job alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1985).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Charles R. Schelah was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C016841. Mr. Schelah was the qualifying agent for Schelah Construction, Inc. On March 11, 1986, Schelah Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Moner F. Green and Karen L. Green to construct a residence in Prairie Creek Park, Charlotte County, Florida A copy of the contract is Petitioner's Exhibit Pursuant to the written agreement, construction would occur as per the signed construction drawings. The total contract price was to be $102,775.00. This quote was contingent upon a construction start on or before March 15, 1986. After that date, increases in supply and labor costs would be borne by the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Green. The contract further stated that there is no specific completion date, that an expected completion date was August 30, 1986. Construction began on the residence on April 4, 1986. Three revisions of the drawings were completed by the owner before a building permit was requested by the Respondent Schelah. Throughout the progress of construction, major and minor revisions were made by the owners. Many of these revisions delayed construction as the Respondent was required to obtain new special order materials and retrofit many of the changes into the existing construction phase. The Respondent recollected that thirty-five revisions were made to the construction plans by the owners during various phases of construction. In September 1986, the owners began to frequently telephone the Respondent in order to urge him to quickly complete the project as the owners were now required to pay the savings and loan association mortgage installments. The Respondent did not return the telephone calls. A letter was sent to the Respondent by the owners' attorney on November 3, 1986, notifying him that he needed to resume his responsibilities at the construction site. The Respondent did not reply to this letter. On November 7, 1986, the Respondent was removed as contractor of record by the owners. All but the final draw from the savings and loan had been given to the Respondent before his removal. After the Respondent was removed from the project, the owners were given notice of the following liens: $2,750.55 to Pre-Hung Doors of Florida for supplies delivered in August 1986; $700.00 to Paul Hartt Plastering and Stucco, Inc. for work completed in September 1986. The work completed by both subcontractors was performed during the Respondent's term as the prime contractor on the project. These two contractors were never paid by the Respondent out of draws received by him for that purpose through October 1986. These subcontractors, as well as others, testified that they were unable to communicate with Respondent after September 1986. The final draw from the savings and loan in the amount of $19,618.97, was used by the owners to complete the project themselves. The proof of payment submitted by the owner, Mr. Green, at hearing for completion under the direct contract was $6,149.14, in Respondent's Exhibit 14. The residence was completed by the owners in December 1986. Mr. Green, the owner, filed a complaint with the Charlotte County Building Board on October 29, 1986, alleging that the Respondent refused to call him, and was dragging completion of the job for unknown reasons hearing was held on February 19, 1987. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Charlotte County Building board suspended the permitting privileges of Schelah Construction, Inc., until such time as all jobs in progress were finished. During the administrative hearing, the Respondent admitted that a twenty-one day delay on the Green project occurred when he was unable to acquire a sheetrock hanger who would go to the hinterlands (Prairie Creek Park) where the residence was being built. He contends however, that the additional time delays were a result of changes in supply orders due to the changes made by the owners, and the requirement that subcontractors be rescheduled to accommodate these changes. Petitioner's experts in construction practices within Florida, Mr. Bernard Verse and Mr. Stanley Ink, were unable to render an opinion that the Green Construction project had been abandoned by Respondent Schelah, or that there had been a diversion of funds. However, Mr. Ink did render an opinion that the project was not completed in a reasonably timely manner, that the Respondent is guilty of financial mismanagement, and that the Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct on the job in that the Respondent did not use due diligence in completing the job, staying on the job, and paying the subcontractors as the contractor should. Mr. Verse opined that the Respondent committed financial mismanagement and gross negligence in the practice of contracting. It was gross negligence not to maintain contact with clients. The Respondent's own expert in construction practices in the Punta Gorda area, Mr. Larry Deirmeyer, noted that it is difficult to acquire unscheduled building supplies in the Punta Gorda area if a contractor runs a small construction company because the supply houses are in Fort Myers, where rapid growth is occurring. In addition, it is difficult to get subcontractors to work on construction in areas like Prairie Creek Park, which is remote from the developed areas of Charlotte County. After Mr. Deirmeyer was admitted as an expert in construction practices, the Hearing Officer learned that he had built a custom home for the owner Moner Frank Green in 1980. Mr. Green's removal of Mr. Deirmeyer's company from the construction project during the last draw of that project, and his continuous changes in those plans were not considered by the Hearing Officer in this case except for the purpose of weighing Mr. Deirmeyer's independence as an expert witness. Another expert witness in construction practices presented by the Respondent was James Anderson, a state certified contractor from the Port Charlotte area. Mr. Anderson acknowledged the local builder supply problem and rendered the opinion that nine months was a reasonable period of time in which to complete the Green project, based upon the construction plans, the change orders, and the travel required to the project, which is not in the immediate Port Charlotte area. The Respondent Schelah did not maintain communication with the owners regarding the progress of the project, even though he was telephoned repeatedly and received written communication from the Green's attorney. This failure to maintain communication resulted in the Respondent's dismissal from the project. The County's Building Director's requests for communication were also refused by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph five of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(m) and (k), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph six of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph seven of the administrative complaint. That the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph ten of the administrative complaint in regard to misconduct by the Respondent on the Green project. That the penalties assessed against the Respondent not include an aggravation of penalties under Rule 21E-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, and that the Respondent pay a fine of $750.00, as set forth in Rule 21E-17.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-3442 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected as to location of project. The rest is accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #9 and #10. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #13 and #11. Rejected. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #3 and #8. Accepted. See HO #7. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #7. 9. Accepted. See HO #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13. 10. Rejected. Irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 John Charles Heekin, Esquire 21202 Olean Boulevard, Suite C-2 Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Larry F. Hoffman, held certified general contractor license number CG C019686 and certified residential contractor license number CR C018801 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He operates a general contracting firm at 3060 Indian Trail, Lantana, Florida. On or about November 18, 1983, Hoffman entered into a contract with Maurino Palmieri to add a screened porch addition to Palmieri's residence located at 6227 Hitching Post Way, Delray Beach, Florida. The contract generally required Hoffman to construct a screen enclosure with a flat roof to the existing structure for a price of $2,500. The contract reflected that the contractor on the project was Hoffman Construction, a name under which Respondent has not qualified to do business. Hoffman is not licensed to construct flat roofs in Palm Beach County. Because of this, he subcontracted the roofing work to American Roofing and Supply Association (American) in Delray Beach. According to Hoffman, American completed only one-half of the job and then filed for bankruptcy. Although Hoffman was not licensed to do the roof work, he finished the roof on the project. The project was completed on February 1, 1984 and Palmieri paid Hoffman the full amount due. At that time, Hoffman warranted the roof "to be free of leaks one year" and provided a written warranty to evidence this representation. About three weeks later, a heavy rain occurred and leaks developed in the new room. After calling Hoffman to complain, Hoffman placed a tar composition on certain parts of the new roof in an effort to stop the leaks. The leaks continued to persist whenever it rained and Hoffman sent a helper to Palmieri's residence on two occasions. Both efforts to fix the roof were unsuccessful. Thereafter, Palmieri telephoned Hoffman's residence on many occasions but was unable to personally speak with Hoffman. Hoffman never returned his calls. Palmieri eventually hired another roofer in October, 1984, to fix the leaks and discovered that flashing was missing in several areas. The repairs cost him $750. He has had no problem with his roof since that time. Hoffman denied that he had failed to put all necessary flashing in the roof. He attributed the leak to the gable in the original structure rather than any defect in the roof on the new room. However, this contention is rejected as not being credible. Hoffman also acknowledged that he finished the roof even though he was not licensed to do so, but did so since he could not find another roofing company within a reasonable period of time, and knew Palmieri desired the project to be completed as soon as possible. Finally, he concedes that he did not qualify "Hoffman Construction" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, but contended he was unaware of this requirement. He now understands the law and represents he will not violate this requirement in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.115(1)(b) and 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, that he be given a $500 administrative fine, and his license suspended for ninety days. In the event Hoffman makes restitution to Palmieri, and furnishes evidence of the same to the Board, the suspension should be lifted. The remaining charge should be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1985.
The Issue The issues presented in this case concern certain allegations made by the Petitioner against the Respondent through an Administrative Complaint. In particular, it is alleged that on or about April 23, 1980, the Respondent's contractor's license issued by the Petitioner was suspended and subsequent to that time, the Respondent continued to perform contracting services through a company, David H. Hamilton, Inc., a corporation which was not properly qualified by the Petitioner to provide contracting services. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent obtained building permits Nos. S2740-80B 1/ and 3214-80B from the Osceola County Building Department with the use of another contractor's license, namely: Louie S. Winchester, license #RR003839. For the reason of these facts, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he attempted to use a suspended registration. It is further alleged, based upon the facts as reported in this Issues statement, that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in a capacity as a contractor under a certificate of registration not in his name. Finally, it is alleged, based upon the facts as reported hereinabove, that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes, by not properly qualifying a corporation under which he performed contracting services.
Findings Of Fact The case presented concerns license disciplinary action by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, against the Respondent, David H. Hamilton, who holds a residential contractor's license issued by the Petitioner, #RR0014037. The prosecution of this action is through the offices of the Department of Professional Regulation and the outcome of the matter could lead to the revocation, suspension or other disciplinary action against the Respondent, in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. This case was presented before the Division of Administrative Hearings following a decision on the part of the Respondent to request a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The facts reveal that a Final Order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was issued on April 23, 1980, and this order established disciplinary action against the current license of David H. Hamilton. (A copy of this Final Order may be found as a part of the record in this proceeding and official recognition of that Final Order is made by the Recommended Order process.) This Final Order was entered after review of a Recommended Order of a Division of Administrative Hearings' Hearing Officer. By the terms of the Final Order, Hamilton's license was suspended "until such time as his Lake County Certificate of Competency is reinstated by the Lake County Board of Examiners." This contingency referred to the fact that the Respondent had his Lake County Certificate of Competency Card removed prior to the entry of the April 23, 1980, order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 2, 1980, at a time when the Respondent's residential contractor's license was under suspension by the State of Florida, the Respondent through a corporation applied to the Osceola County Building Department for a building permit to construct a residence in Osceola County, Florida. This permit number was #2740-80B. The permit was issued on September 4, 1980, and was granted in the name of David Hamilton, Inc., a corporation in which the Respondent was a principal. To obtain the permit in the sense of an effort to meet the requirements that the permit be applied for by a licensed Florida contractor, the Respondent used the registered residential contractor's license of one Louie Stevens Winchester who held license #RR003839 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On the occasion of the issuance of the permit by Osceola County, Winchester was an officer of David Hamilton, Inc. Through the action of "pulling" this permit and the utilization of the permit in his construction of the residence, the Respondent was acting in the capacity of contractor under Winchester's license and the offices of the corporation, as opposed to the Respondent's suspended license. Prior to the request for permit, neither Hamilton nor Winchester had attempted to properly qualify David Hamilton, Inc., as a contracting corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In this case, to properly qualify the corporation, it would have entailed the use of Winchester as the qualifying agent, in view of the fact that Winchester still held a valid contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. No effort was made to qualify David Hamilton, Inc., in its own right, through the agency of Winchester, until some time shortly beyond December 1, 1980. On October 28, 1980, the Respondent in his individual capacity, that is to say unconnected with his business pursuits as David Hamilton, Inc., went to the Osceola Building Department and applied for the issuance of a building permit for a home remodeling project for a customer of his. The permit in question on this occasion was #3214-80B. That permit was issued on October 29, 1930, and was used by the Respondent in his building project. An official in the Osceola County Building Department had checked with an employee in the Lake County Building Department on the status of Hamilton's rights to be employed as a building contractor in Lake County, Florida, and was informed that Hamilton's status in Lake County was acceptable. Based upon these representations, the Osceola County employee issued the permit discussed in this paragraph to Hamilton. The Osceola County employee also asked that the Lake County employee formally confirm Hamilton's status. The correspondence in response to Osceola County employee, John Pate, Assistant Building Director, as issued by an official in Lake County, one Herb Dudgeon, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. This letter was received by Pate after the permit was issued. That correspondence indicates that Hamilton had been given the privilege of reinstating his Lake County Competence Card, contingent upon "providing bond, insurances, occupational license, etc.," which had not been received by Lake County as of the date of the correspondence. The correspondence goes on to mention that the State, meaning the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, was waiting for confirmation of the completion of the contingencies referred to. Subsequent to this correspondence, the Respondent having completed all the necessary steps for reinstatement of the Lake County Competency Card, had his license suspension removed and was reinstated by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, as verified by that body.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order which absolves the Respondent of any responsibility for a violation of Subsection 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1980); that finds the Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), and imposes a penalty of a 60-day suspension; and that finds the Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and imposes a suspension of 60 days to run concurrently with the other suspension in this paragraph of recommendation. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1981.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding involves whether the Respondent's certification to practice contracting should be subjected to disciplinary action for alleged violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and, if the violations are proven, what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with enforcing, administering, and regulating the practice standards and licensure standards for the construction industry in Florida. This authority is embodied in the various provisions of Chapters 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent is a licensed general contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RG0060516 and is registered to conduct contracting business in his individual capacity. On July 2, 1990, a contractor, Lonnie J. Walker, notified the Building Department of the City of Tallahassee that he had withdrawn as contractor for a job located at 722 Dunn Street, in Tallahassee, Florida. He thereupon withdrew the building permit he had obtained for the work being performed at those premises. On August 8, 1990, the Respondent contracted with Mary N. Spencer, the owner, to make certain repairs at the two-unit apartment building located at 722 Dunn Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. The contract price agreed upon between the Respondent and Ms. Spencer was $867.00. The Respondent thereupon performed some of the aforementioned contracting work, consisting of repairs of various types. He was not registered to contract in Leon County, Florida, however. The Department of Growth and Environmental Management of Leon County, Florida, is responsible for issuing construction contractor licenses for the County, including for the City of Tallahassee. There was no proper building permit issued for the job and job site when the Respondent entered into the contracting work at those premises. The Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the repairs and this ultimately came to the attention of the City of Tallahassee Building Department. That agency issued a stop work order on September 5, 1990. The Respondent was not performing work pursuant to Mr. Walker's previous permit, which had been withdrawn. The Respondent was not an employee of Lonnie J. Walker, the previous general contractor for the job. The Petitioner agency submitted an affidavit after the hearing and close of the evidence, with its Proposed Recommended Order. That affidavit asserts that the Petitioner accumulated $458.10 in investigative costs and $2,491.30 in legal costs associated with the prosecution of this case, for a total alleged cost of prosecution of $2,949.40. It moves, in its Proposed Recommended Order, that payment of the costs should be made in accordance with Section 61G4-12.008, Florida Administrative Code. The request for costs was first raised as an issue in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Petitioner and is advanced only in the form of a hearsay affidavit. No prior motion for costs served upon the Respondent is of record in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint and assessing a penalty in the form of a letter of guidance and an aggregate fine of $600.00, as described with more particularity hereinabove. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-591 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-8. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent submitted no post-hearing pleading. COPIES FURNISHED: G.W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Julius S. Baker, Sr. Box 253 Morrow, GA 30260 Mr. Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, abandoned the construction project of his customer, Otto Kipar at a time when he had received 98 percent of the contract price and completed approximately 75 percent of the job, and whether or not such abandonment constituted a violation of Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, against the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, d/b/a Suwannee Roofing Company. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida empowered to administer and regulate those individuals who hold various licenses with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Charles E. Sullivan, d/b/a Suwannee Roofing Company holds a registered roofing contractor's license and the number is RC 18162. In May 16, 1977, Otto Kipar, a resident of Suwannee County, Florida, entered into a contract for the Respondent to perform certain roofing work and associated to the roofing. The terms and conditions of this contract may be founded in the Petitioner's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. The price of the contract was in the amount of $2,500, to be paid by Mr. Kipar in an installment of $2,450 when the roofing was finished and a $50 balance when the chimney was flashed. Among other things, the contract called for the setting of the trusses on the roof, sheeting the roof with plywood, running facia boards, putting up the jack molding and putting on roofing shingles. The work was to be done by Suwannee Roofing, which is owned by the Respondent, Charles E. Sullivan, and all of the materials were to be furnished by Mr. Kipar, with the exception of the shingles and the staples necessary to nail the shingles into the plywood sheeting. The Respondent's employees went to the job site and started to install the roof. On June 24, 1977, Berl Wilson, a building inspector for Suwannee County, Florida, went to the job site and inspected the roof. He determined that the work on the roof was 50 percent completed. He found the trusses up and the sheeting and shingles installed. However, he felt that the roof construction was unsatisfactory and that the roof would eventually fall in. He immediately tried to contact Mr. Sullivan, the Respondent, and was able to speak to him on June 27, 1978. At that point, Mr. Sullivan indicated that he would work the matter out with the owner, Mr. Kipar. In August, 1977, the Respondent hired some individuals to go to the job site and make adjustments to the roof, so that it would structurally meet the necessary building standards of Suwannee County, Florida, and comply with his contract with Mr. Kipar, as to that element. At the behest of Mr. Kipar, the building inspector Wilson returned to the job site in August or September 1977, and discovered that the roof was not shingled over 25 percent to 35 percent of the roof area. In that particular part of the roof, only the felt paper was installed on the sheeting. This caused the roof to fail to meet the Southern Building Code, in terms of requirements of that code. It was also in violation of the contract conditions which called for the Respondent to install the shingles over the entire roof, not just part of it. When confronted with the fact of the incompleted roof, the Respondent told Wilson that he had spent over $600 in trying to make the necessary adjustment to the trusses and that he felt no obligation to spend any other money on the Kipar job. Therefore, the job was left unfinished and when Mr. Wilson saw the job site on March 22, 1978, he found it in the same state as had been indicated in August/September 1977, in that the roof was still 25 percent to 35 percent without shingles. The Respondent and his employees did not return to the job site to complete the roofing and Mr. Kipar had to make those arrangements himself. This abandonment on the part of the Respondent came, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Kipar, in accordance with the contract had paid the Respondent $2,450 on May 30, 1977, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, admitted into evidence. In summary, the Respondent was paid 98 percent of the amount of the contract, which constituted the full amount of payment with exception of $50 for flashing the chimney, and the Respondent abandoned the job when 25 percent to 35 percent of the shingles remained to be installed. This abandonment constitutes cause for disciplinary action in accordance with Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes, which states: ... (h) Abandonment of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project is to be considered abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates said project without notification to the prospective owner and without just cause. Abandonment has been demonstrated here because the Respondent did not work on the roof after the period of August/ September, 1977, and as stated before the roof was missing 25 percent to 35 percent of the necessary shingles at that time. In addition, the Respondent failed to notify the owner of this abandonment and the abandonment was without just cause.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Occupation Regulations, Florida Construction Licensing Board, suspend the Respondent's, Charles E. Sullivan's roofing contractor's license, RC18I62, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles E. Sullivan Suwannee Roofing Company Post Office Box 999 Live Oak, Florida 32060 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
