The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints made to the Department for violations of the requirements of chapter 489, part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for the violations set out in that section. At all times material to this case, Mr. Cote was a certified general contractor operating under License Number CGC006199 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Cote currently holds this license, and he has been a licensed general contractor since 1973. At all times material to this case, Mr. Cote was the licensed qualifying agent for JLC Enterprises, Inc. On January 12, 1995, Noel Mais, on behalf of Noel Mais Roofing, contracted with Judith Braun to re-roof property she owned located at 8914 Northwest 26th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price was $7,000.00, with $3,000.00 required as a down-payment, $3,000.00 to be paid after the roof was dried in, and $1,000.00 to be paid on completion of the project. Neither Mr. Cote nor JLC Enterprises, Inc., was a party to this contract. In late January, 1995, Mr. Mais approached Mr. Cote and requested that he apply for the necessary building permit from the City of Coral Springs. He provided to Mr. Cote a workers' compensation waiver and exemption, a Certificate of Insurance for general commercial liability insurance, and a Certificate of Competency issued by Broward County, Florida, with an expiration date of August 31, 1995. Mr. Mais also told Mr. Cote that he had submitted all of the papers necessary to register his Broward County Certificate of Competency with the state but had not yet received his registration. Mr. Cote relied on the documents and the representations of Mr. Mais regarding his registration status with the state. On or about February 1, 1995,1 Mr. Cote submitted an application to the City of Coral Springs for a building permit to re-roof property owned by Ms. Braun and located at 8914 Northwest 26th Court, Coral Springs, Florida, naming JLC Enterprises, Inc., as the contractor and identifying the estimated cost of the project at $7,000.00. Mr. Mais gave Mr. Cote $300.00 when he applied for the permit. Mr. Cote used $150.00 of this money to pay the permit application fee and $60.00 to pay for two re- inspections which had to be done on the roof. On or about February 17, 1995, the City of Coral Springs issued Permit Number 95-443.2 Mr. Mais commenced work on the project a few weeks after the contract was signed, but before Mr. Cote applied for the permit. According to Ms. Braun, Mr. Mais started "like gangbusters" and quickly stripped the old tiles off of the roof and applied the tar paper. After Mr. Cote agreed to apply for the permit, he told Mr. Mais not to work on the project until the permit was issued. According to Mr. Cote, Mr. Mais returned to work the day after the permit was issued and, the "next day," the job failed inspection because the nail spacing was not consistent with the new code. Mr. Mais re-nailed the roof according to code, but it failed re-inspection because the flashing was not painted. This was done, and the job passed a second re-inspection. Mr. Cote looked in on the job a couple of times after this and saw that nothing was being done. He contacted Mr. Mais and asked why he was not working on the project, and Mr. Mais told him that he was waiting for Ms. Braun to give him some money so he could buy the tiles. When Ms. Braun called Mr. Cote and complained that no tile had been delivered, he went to Mr. Mais's home and insisted that he "get some tile on that roof." The next day, Mr. Mais brought a load of tiles and piled them on the roof.3 Ms. Braun paid Noel Mais the $3,000.00 down-payment specified in the contract by a check dated January 12, 1995, the day the contract was executed. Then, notwithstanding the payment schedule stated in the contract, Ms. Braun paid Mr. Mais $3,000.00 by check dated January 25, 1995. She paid Mr. Mais the remaining $1,000.00 due under the contract by checks dated March 28 and 31, 1995, and April 13, 1995. After receiving full payment, Mr. Mais abandoned the job, and, when Ms. Braun told Mr. Cote she had paid Noel Mais in full for the job, Mr. Cote refused to finish the work because he had not received any portion of the payment. In November, 1995, Ms. Braun contracted with R. J. Chambers Roofing, Inc., to complete the work on her roof for $4,500.00. The work was completed, and she paid Mr. Chambers the contract price. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Cote knew that Mr. Mais was not registered with the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and that Mr. Cote stated on the permit application that his company, JLC Enterprises, Inc., was the contractor for the Braun re-roofing job even though he was not a party to the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order finding that Jacques Cote violated section 489.129(1)(e) and (n), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $1,000.00, consisting of a $500.00 fine for each of the two violations; assessing the costs of investigating and prosecuting the violations; and requiring Mr. Cote to make restitution to Judith Braun in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1997.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the contracting license of the Respondent Konrad v. Ising should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined by the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2(a)-(g) were offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Konrad V. Ising is licensed to practice contracting in Florida, and is a licensed certified general contractor holding license number CG C009669, a license current and active from 1982 through the present. The Respondent qualified Master Craft Constructors using license number CG C009669. During 1982, the Respondent entered into an association with Carlton Mosher whereby the Respondent would use his contractor's license to obtain building permits for construction projects which Mosher had contracted. The Respondent hoped his association with Mosher would lead to a partnership and assist him in obtaining practical experience in the construction field. During his association with the Respondent, Mosher was not a licensed contractor. In December 1982, Mosher, doing business as Re-Builders, contracted with Russell Hirstins to construct a room addition on his home at 4034 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. On December 3, 1982, an application for a building permit for the job was submitted to the City of St. Petersburg and permit number 88638 was issued. The permit was obtained using the Respondent's license number and Respondent is listed as the job contractor. However, the Respondent performed no work on the Hirstins job, maintained no control over Mosher's work, failed to adequately supervise the project, and failed to qualify Re-Builders with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since becoming licensed in 1975, the Respondent has not been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings. At the final hearing, the Respondent candidly acknowledged that his association with Mosher was a regrettable mistake. The project was completed by Mosher to the apparent satisfaction to the Hirstins.
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 Konrad V. Ising guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $250 administrative fine. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Konrad V. Ising Post Office Box 1023 Maitland, Florida 323751 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a certified residential contractor should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Brent Somers Graham, was licensed as a certified residential contractor having been issued license no. CR C056809 by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for G C Construction, Inc., whose business address is not of record. At the present time, Respondent's license is in a delinquent status. In late 1995, a major hurricane struck the Panhandle section of Florida and damaged the home of Katherine M. Cook, who lived at 741 Miracle Strip, Mary Esther, in Okaloosa County, Florida. Among other things, the hurricane lifted an 78-foot porch off of her home, and a tree fell through its roof. On January 18, 1996, Cook accepted a proposal by Respondent to repair the damage to her home for $9,000.00. A description of the work to be performed by Repondent is found on Petitioner's Exhibit 2, and it includes replacing a 78-foot by 12-foot screen porch and its roof, and other related work. Cook paid Respondent $2,700.00 as a down payment on the job on January 19, 1996. On February 8, 1996, Respondent made application for a building permit with the City of Mary Esther (City). After receiving a permit, he then commenced to work on the repairs, mostly by himself but occasionally with the assistance of a few other helpers. When the job was supposedly completed in March 1996, Cook paid Respondent another $6,200.00, or a total of $8,900.00, pursuant to the parties' agreement. Within a short time, Cook noticed that the porch roof was sagging and falling in. Efforts to reach Respondent were futile since he had disconnected his telephone and apparently left the area. She then asked that an inspector for the City, Neil Sasnett, to make an inspection of her home. Sasnett quickly discovered that Respondent had never called for an inspection by the City, although the City Code required that he do so and Cook had paid for one. This omission constituted a violation of the local building code. It can be inferred from the evidence that, given the poor workmanship on the project, as described below, the violation was intentional, especially since a licensed contractor would be expected to be aware of this requirement. Sasnett found numerous deficiencies in the work just completed by Respondent, including rafters that were notched to less than 4 inches about 3 feet inside the load bearing wall, a header on the outside bearing wall that was jointed in between the upright posts, and roofing metal panels improperly sealed. These deficiencies resulted in an unsafe roof in an uplift condition and one that would be dangerous to walk on. Because Cook lived on the Gulf of Mexico, and her home was subject to windy conditions, these deficiencies were especially egregious. All of the foregoing deficiencies constituted violations of the local building code. Cook was forced to hire a second contractor to repair the porch since Respondent had left the area. For this additional work, Cook paid an additional $15,975.00, including $3,000.00 to tear out the faulty work previously performed by Respondent. At hearing, the second contractor described Respondent's work as "very poor" and "substandard." Given this consideration, and the deficiencies described by the City's inspector, it is found that the faulty work constituted incompetency in the practice of contracting on the part of Respondent. Throughout this process, Respondent refused to contact Cook or return to her home to make the needed repairs. After the complaint was issued by the Board, however, he telephoned Cook. Although he then offered to repair the porch, which had been repaired by another contractor some 18 months earlier, his main concern was that his license might be in jeopardy because of her complaint. There is no record of Respondent having been previously disciplined by the Board. Therefore, it is fair to infer that these offenses were the first committed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding that Respondent is guilty of the violations described in Counts I through IV of the Administrative Complaint. For those violations, it is recommended that Respondent's license be revoked, and that he be required to pay Katherine M. Cook $11,900.00 as restitution for her costs incurred in her dealings with Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire 355 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brent Somers Graham 6156 White Oak Drive Flowery Brand, Georgia 30542 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a registered roofing contractor with license number RC-0021643 and was acting as the qualifying agent for Poe Roof Company, Inc. The City of Coral Gables has adopted the South Florida Building Code which requires that a contractor obtain a building permit prior to commencing roof construction or repair. However, no permits is required when such work does not exceed $300 in value. If a roofing contractor fails to apply for a building permit the City is unable to conduct required inspections and is unaware of ongoing construction unless it is discovered by the City's code enforcement section. A Notice of Violation is issued when unpermitted construction activity is discovered, and the contractor is asked to "dry the roof in" to avoid the possibility of damage due to bad weather. All work is then stopped and the contractor must apply for a permit. On July 28, 1983 Poe Roof Company, Inc., submitted a proposal to reroof St. Mark's Lutheran Church which was accepted in March 1984 and work was begun. Construction was completed in June, 1984. Respondent did not apply for a permit for this job prior to the work commencing, and therefore required inspections were not made by the City. Respondent subsequently did apply for a permit on June 4, 1984. When a complaint from the church was received by the City about the work being performed, the City required Respondent to cut a "roof plug" so that it could be determined if the roof was being properly installed. No defects in the roof installation were discovered. The Church's representative had complained that Respondent did not properly supervise the installation and that the wrong roof tiles were used. The evidence presented does not establish that the wrong tiles were used, but it is evident that Respondent visited the job site infrequently, if at all. An investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation interviewed Respondent on July 5, 1984 and testified that Respondent admitted that he had never visited the job but simply supervised the reroofing from his office. The City of Coral Gables issued Notices of Violation against Poe Roof Company, Inc. on May 2, May 21 and July 11, 1984 for performing other roof work and repairs without the required permit. In these instances the value of each job exceeded $300, Respondent had not applied for a permit prior to the issuance of the Notice of Violation, and he was therefore assessed a double fee when he did submit applications on June 4, 1984 for the jobs associated with the Notices issued on May 2 and 21. He was also assessed a $100 fine by the City as a result of the Notice of Violation issued on July 11, 1984 for which he subsequently applied for a permit on September 26, 1984. In November, 1983 Respondent submitted a change of status application to the Construction Industry Licensing Board to change his license from inactive to active. Although he was designated as the applicants the license number for Roger Miller, owner of Poe Roof Company was shown on the application as well as on the check that accompanied the application. As a result of this error, Respondent's license was not changed to active status until July 9, 1984 when he was issued a 60 day temporary license to serve as qualifier for Poe Roof Company. Thus, when the work at St. Mark's Lutheran Church was taking place and two Notices of Violation were being issued on May 2 and 21, Respondent did not have an active license. His license was inactive when he subsequently applied for permits for these three jobs on June 4, 1984. Respondent knew his license was inactive since in defense he contends the City would not have issued permits to him if he had timely applied for them because he did not have an active license. The parties were given an opportunity to submit posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4., F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that a Final Order issue imposing an administrative fine of $750 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 10th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce M. Cease, Esquire 2720 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135 James Linnan, Executive Director 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 Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0031831. During the times of the alleged violations, the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for J & J Construction Company (the company.) The principals of the company were the Respondent and a man named James Jimenez. Both men sold jobs for the company and were responsible for overseeing some of the work of the company. The Respondent pulled permits for, and was primarily responsible for, the roofing work contracted by the company. But sometimes, when the company had more than one job going at the same time, the Respondent would be primarily responsible for overseeing one, and Jimenez would be primarily responsible for overseeing the other. The Respondent thought that Jimenez held a license of some kind that enabled him to do some kinds of minor renovation construction. The Respondent restricted his work to roofing and did not mind Jimenez doing some renovation work on the side, separate from the business of the company. But the Respondent understood that Jimenez' "side deals" would be done separately under Jimenez' own license and would not be part of the business of the company. On or about August 14, 1986, Jimenez entered into a contract on behalf of the company to build an addition, remodel and reroof the existing structure and roof the addition of the residence of Ernest and Mercedes Riccio located at 3117 West Henry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price was $18,999. Jimenez telephoned the Respondent about the job but only told him about the part of the contract that called for the existing roof to be torn off and reroofed. He told the Respondent that the contract price for the job was $3,800. The Respondent pulled a permit for what he thought was the job and started and finished what he thought was the work to be done. The Respondent personally was compensated approximately $700-$800 for his part in the reroofing job. When the Respondent was finished, Jimenez continued with the rest of the contract, which was to include roofing the addition, without telling the Respondent about it. Jimenez did not get very far before a Tampa building inspector happened past and, seeing unfamiliar work in process, inspected the job site. He discovered that the building permit displayed at the site had been altered to expand the work purportedly permitted to include building, in addition to the roofing work for which the Respondent had obtained a permit. Someone other than the Respondent (probably Jimenez although he denied it) altered the permit. The Respondent knew nothing about the contract (other than the reroofing that he did), the alteration of the permit, or the work Jimenez was doing after he left the site. When he discovered the permit violations, the building inspector "red- tagged" the entire job, and work stopped. That was only the beginning of the Riccios' problems. Further investigation revealed that the job would require not only a valid permit but also zoning variances and utility easements. Although the contract had called for the company to obtain all necessary permits, Jimenez and the Riccios agreed that the Riccios would apply for whatever else was necessary in their own names and that Jimenez would assist them. By the time work stopped, the Riccios already had paid the company $12,666 of the total contract price. Nonetheless, when Jimenez' minimal assistance did not resolve the Riccios' problems quickly, Jimenez decided that he already had put too much into the job, and he began to lose interest and make himself scarce. The Riccios finally got their necessary permits on January 26, 1987. They then approached Jimenez about the work to be done under the contract (and the matter of the remaining $6,333 draw). The Riccios and Jimenez agreed that the Riccios would provide the materials and supplies necessary to complete the work and the company would provide the labor. Despite these alternate arrangements, the company did not promptly finish the job. Eventually, the Riccios gave up on Jimenez and in April or May, 1987, began to deal directly with the company's former job superintendent, a man named Ray. To improve their chances of getting the job done (and reduce some of their extra expenses), the Riccios agreed to allow Ray to live in the house free of charge while they were doing the work. The job still did not get finished. Eventually, Mrs. Riccio and some of her relatives finished the job themselves. Even so, the Riccios wound up spending about $20,000, in addition to the $12,666 they had paid the company, to complete the job which the company had contracted to do for $18,999, total. The Respondent was not aware of any of Jimenez' dealings with the Riccios after the Respondent completed his reroofing work. The Respondent assumed that Jimenez had called for a final inspection and that the job had been completed satisfactorily. But in approximately February or March, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by a DPR investigator in connection with the Riccios' complaint against the company. He learned at about that time about Jimenez' other dealings with the Riccios. He also learned that the roof over the addition that had been built had failed inspection. The Respondent eventually corrected the deficiencies, and the roof passed final inspection on August 19, 1987. The Respondent attempts to excuse himself of any wrongdoing, saying that he had a right to delegate the supervision of jobs such as the Riccio job to Jimenez and that he himself was victimized by Jimenez, along with the Riccios. Respondent nonetheless negotiated with Jimenez through the end of the year 1987 in an attempt to come to an agreement to continue to do business together, but the negotiations finally failed. The Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 7, 1988, for offenses which occurred during the same time frame in which the Riccio job took place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald F. Royal, pro se 8509 North 16 Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the amended administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Ronnie L. Barfield was registered as a roofing contractor and held a state contractor's license, No. RC 0039607. At some point, records reflected the license was inactive, but this was in error. In 1987, Jack Williams lived in the house at 3101 Kings Drive in Panama City, Florida. At all pertinent times the house belonged to Evelyn Rhoads, whose daughter Anna was once married to Mr. Williams. "[B]ack in 1987," (T.10) Mr. Williams contracted with respondent Barfield, on behalf of Ms. Rhoads, to re-roof the house. Doing business as Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Mr. Barfield estimated the work would cost $5,000, before seeing the house, but ultimately presented a bill for (and was paid) $13,922.56. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent removed the existing shingles, replaced rotted portions of the decking near the chimney, installed four new skylights, installed a new drip edge or eave drip and put on new felt and fiberglass shingles. Any flashing there may have been around the chimney did not survive removal of the existing shingles. The eave drip, a strip of aluminum, "puckered" over the carport because the trusses were not uniform. At Mr. Williams' request, Mr. Barfield drove three nails through the eave drip into the fascia to flatten the metal out. Exposed to the elements, the heads of these galvanized nails rusted. On August 10, 1987, after Jack had moved out, Anna moved back in. She noticed "a lot of ridges, indentations and waves in the roof." T.16. (But this may have been nothing new. When a concrete slab foundation varies in height, so that the trusses are at different heights, it makes the roof uneven.) Waviness arising even after respondent's work would more likely have been because of poor attic ventilation than any dereliction by respondent. Anna Bartness, as she has been known since July of 1988, also noticed that the shingles capping the peak or ridge of the roof were loose and uneven. When inspected in January, ridge cap shingles were found attached with only a single nail, instead of two -- one on either side -- which is the industry standard. Eventually "the ridge cap came off it was in the yard." T.16. One of the skylights leaked, when it rained. Ms. Bartness sought Mr. Williams' assistance in locating respondent to tell him of the problems. Mr. Williams remembered getting "the telephone number where [respondent] could be reached." T.14. Whether Mr. Williams himself actually telephoned is not clear, but Ms. Bartness tried repeatedly to reach Mr. Barfield by telephone. Although she never succeeded, she left messages on a telephone answering machine and also left word with a secretary in Mr. Barfield's lawyer's office. A certified letter she mailed respondent was returned unclaimed. These efforts to reach Mr. Barfield may have coincided with time he spent in south Florida. Respondent had agreed "LABOR CARRIES A 5 YEAR WARRANTY." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. He did not learn of complaints about the work at 3101 Kings Drive until after Ms. Rhoads complained to the Department of Professional Regulation and the present proceedings began. But he had not offered to reimburse Ms. Rhoads or otherwise honor the warranty in any way, as of the time of the hearing. Giving up on Mr. Barfield, Ms. Bartness got estimates from two other roofers, David C. Stallnecker and Mayo= Rudd. Among other things, flanges around plumbing vents that had sustained damage from external sources required replacement, flashing needed to be installed around the chimney, wood there had again rotted, and ridge cap shingles needed removal and proper installation. Mr. Rudd charged her $710 for repairs he told her consisted of putting flashing around the chimney because there was none, reapplying tar or "bull," replacing a defective vent that was leaking into a skylight and, which she could see herself, replacing shingles on the roof ridge. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On or about January 15, 1988, before these repairs, Mr. Stallnecker, like Mr. Rudd, found "no flashing on the chimney." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5; T. 44. When water began coming down the chimney in 1990, Ms. Bartness contracted with James Rutledge, doing business as Rutledge Roofing, to do additional work. He removed shingles around the chimney, replaced bad wood, installed a "membrane with plastic [r]oof cement for flashing against chimney," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and replaced felt and shingles. Unless an owner instructs him not to, a reasonably prudent roofer would install flashing around a chimney that did not already have it before laying shingles there. T. 45. Testifying at hearing, Mr. Barfield never claimed that he installed flashing around the chimney. Nor did he ever say he saw flashing around the chimney. He said flashing was built in behind the brick. You couldn't see it . . . until you pulled the brick out. T. 70. On balance, however, his testimony suggested that he assumed there was flashing around the chimney, without ever seeing it. [T]he brick masons put the flashing on unless you go where they're building these 235 houses around here they would have nailed it on the side. You hardly wouldn't do that on a $200,000 house sitting on the water, I wouldn't think. I would think it would be built in. T. 71. However reasonable this assumption, and the unstated assumption that his crew had not (inadvertently) removed the flashing in taking off the existing roof, the evidence as a whole showed there was no flashing around the chimney by the time respondent's crew put down the new shingles.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board fine respondent five hundred dollars ($500). DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of January, 1991. Copies furnished to: 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 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rowlett W. Bryant, Esquire 833 Harrison Avenue Panama City, FL 32402
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner was licensed as a general contractor in Florida, holding license number CG CO20660, under which license he had qualified Custom Retail Contractors, Inc., and the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. On February 12, 1986, the Board entered a Final Order in its case number 0058164 in which it suspended Respondent's license to practice contracting for five years. This action was based on a finding that Respondent had violated several sections of the Standard Building Code in a contract to build several commercial buildings in Largo, Florida, and also had exhibited gross negligence or incompetency in several aspects of the job. Respondent was first made aware of the action of the Board in late March or early April, 1986 when his attorney, Mr. Gordon, told him he had received a copy of the Final Order. At that point, Respondent did not know there had been a hearing on his case, though he knew an action had been filed. Correspondence extracted from the files of DPR relating to Respondent, indicates that between March 11, 1986 and June 25, 1986, several phone calls and letters were exchanged between DPR legal personnel and Respondent's counsel regarding whether Respondent had been given notice that the initial Administrative Complaint against him had been filed. The complaint had been served by an investigator with DPR on Mr. Gordon who declined to accept service since he was counsel for Respondent's corporation and not Respondent, individually. The evidence further indicates that subsequent pleadings in that case were misdirected and misaddressed due to faulty addresses used by the Department which included erroneous street addresses and erroneous ZIP codes. The upshot of all this was that Respondent failed to submit an Election of Rights regarding the initial Administrative Complaint, and, after numerous attempts at communication by DPR, which included the posting of a notice of the Board hearing in the Clearwater, Florida newspaper, the Board ultimately held Respondent in default and entered the Final Order suspending his license as described above. In the Spring of 1986, however, while the communication and correspondence between DPR and Mr. Gordon was going on, Respondent was led to believe, he contends, that the Final Order was not dispositive of his status, that the status of his license was still undecided, and that he could continue to practice his profession. His reliance on advice of counsel was misplaced and works to his detriment here as it does not excuse his improprieties. Consistent with that understanding, on May 1, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Clarence P. Foster, owner of Clarence's, a lounge, restaurant and package store located in Clearwater, Florida, to remodel a patio outside the facility. Work was to include pouring a concrete slab in the drive- thru, constructing a block wall around the patio, installing lattice panels on top of the block wall, and placing planter boxes on two of the walls. The total contract price was $4,730.00 and on May 15, 1986, the manager of Clarence's issued a check in the amount of $1,730.00 payable to Tom Morgan, Respondent's associate. At the time of Respondent's negotiations with Mr. Foster, Mr. Foster indicated he was utilizing a contractor for the complete remodeling of his facility who did not want to do the patio work, and Respondent agreed to do it. After their contract was signed, Respondent dealt with Mr. Foster's manager who showed him the plans for the entire remodeling which, according to Respondent, included the patio. They were stamped by the contractor and had a permit number on them. Respondent contends he asked if that indicated permit included the entire project and claims he was told it did. Respondent also claims he advised Foster's manager that there was some problem with his contractor's license but was assured that the master permit already issued would cover any work done by him under the terms of the individual contract. After receiving the down payment from the manager, Respondent purchased the required materials, paying cash therefore, and started work. Respondent relates that at the very beginning, a violation was written by building inspectors for the failure of the electrical contractor to procure a permit for his portion of the work. When this was done, the contractor immediately got the required permit after the fact and continued with his work. This concerned the Respondent, however, and he requested the manager to bring the existing permit for the remodeling around to the area where Respondent was working where he posted it and covered it with cellophane. When the inspector subsequently came by to check Respondent's work, he asked where the permit for that portion of the construction was and Respondent pointed to the master permit. The inspector then indicated that that permit was only for exterior siding and when Respondent protested that decision, called his office and verified that fact. Upon being advised of this development, Respondent then took the plans he had been furnished and a copy of the permit to the building office and asked the clerk on duty what he had to do. According to Respondent, he was advised that he needed to get more plans prepared with a certificate that the work already done had been done to code. Respondent relates that in response to these instructions, he procured an architect to come and look at the job as it then stood. The architect reportedly thereafter drew up plans and certified the quality of the work already accomplished by Respondent and Respondent allegedly took this information to the building department where, on June 25, 1986, he applied for a building permit to do the work. At that time, according to Respondent, he advised the clerk he had a problem with his license and that all he wanted was a supplemental permit to finish the job. Approximately two weeks later, when passing the County building, Respondent stopped in at the building department office to check on the status of his permit. It was at this point that he first discussed the matter with Mr. Palmer, the plans examiner, who told him that his license had been suspended and that he could not receive a permit to do the work requested. Respondent returned to Mr. Foster and explained the situation to him. Mr. Foster turned the matter over to his manager who arranged for someone else to get the permit and complete the job. Respondent contends he was not trying to trick anyone or to contract without a license. He claims that at the time he entered into the agreement with Mr. Foster, he was unsure of the status of his license and he thought he had made that clear to everyone, including Mr. Foster and the people at the building office. Respondent contends that in his dealings with Foster he was attempting to deal as a subcontractor and not as a general contractor. The fact is, however, that the contract he entered into was a separate contract with Mr. Foster and failed to indicate any reference to subcontractor status. The agreement called for Respondent to be paid directly by Foster and not by the general contractor and his claim is, therefore, not believed. Respondent's protestations in this regard are without merit. Further, his story regarding the permit status is equally as unbelievable. As a qualified contractor, Respondent knew, or should have checked on, the limits of the permit issued and whether it would cover the work he was to do. Reliance on the representations of the non-contractor manager of Mr. Foster's facility as to the status of the permit was unreasonable and constituted gross negligence. Consequently, he was thereafter operating in violation of the local law which required a permit for this work. As a result of the ongoing negotiations between Respondent's counsel and counsel for the Board, on July 10, 1986, after the contract between Mr. Foster and Respondent had been entered into, Respondent and the Board entered into a Settlement Stipulation which called for amendment of the Final Order entered in the prior case and which provided for the payment of a fine of $1,000.00 within 30 days with the further stipulation that when the fine was paid, the previously imposed five year suspension would be set aside. In the event the fine was not paid, however, then the Respondent's license was to be relinquished to the Board. The Amended Final Order was sent by certified mail to the Respondent but was unclaimed because the address used by the Department was, again, incorrect. It must also be noted, however, that at the time the Board agreed to the settlement stipulation, it had available to it the report of investigation relating to the current Administrative Complaint. The Board either failed to consider it or chose to ignore it when it agreed upon a settlement to the former Administrative Complaint. It is also noted that the Board was aware of the difficulties involving service of process as early as August, 1986. At that time, Respondent received a certified letter from the Board Attorney indicating that final action on his license would be taken by the Board at its September, 1986 meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Respondent attended that meeting where, after discussion, counsel for the Board convinced the Board to reopen the case due to the questions involving proper service of its former actions. A year later, in July, 1987, Respondent was advised that the reopened case would again be considered at the Board's meeting in Tampa, and at the 1987 meeting of the Board, it entered its Amended Final Order. Though regrettable, these factors are not controlling and do not affect this current action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a general contractor in Florida be suspended for two years. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1999 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 10 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Palmer refused to issue the permit because Respondent's license had been suspended. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected that Respondent willfully violated local building code. Evidence shows more of gross negligence than willfulness. Accepted. For the Respondent: No submittal. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0758 Fred H. Moore 12687 - 97th Street, North Largo, Florida 34643 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0039352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for Ken and Rick's Roofing, Inc. of Mami, Florida. On May 16, 1986, Ken and Rick's Roofing, Inc. contracted to repair roof leaks for a Victor Krauthaner of 18441 Northeast 21st Place, North Miami Beach, Florida. The contract, signed by Respondent and Mr. Krauthaner, contained a six (6) month warranty on repairs. The contract price was $215.00. Mr. Krauthaner paid the full amount by a check which was cashed by Respondent. On May 17, 1986, David J. Godfried, an employee of Ken and Rick's Roofing, Inc. was dispatched by Respondent to repair Mr. Krauthaner's roof. Godfried removed tiles from the affected portion of the roof and installed new tar paper. The old tiles could not be re-used and Godfried did not have appropriate tiles in stock, so he left the tar paper exposed and promised Krauthaner that he would return with new tiles within a week. No one from Ken & Rick's Roofing, Inc. returned after May 17, 1986 to replace the tile and Krauthaner began experiencing new leaks. Mr. Krauthaner made repeated attempts by telephone and letter to encourage Ken & Rick's Roofing, Inc. to complete the repairs. Representatives of the company repeatedly assured Krauthaner that someone would respond to repair the leaks, but no one ever did. Mr. Krauthaner repaired the leak himself in June of 1987. Chapter 10 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County requires that roofing contractors working within the county be either certified by the State of Florida or possess a certificate of competency in roofing issued by the county. Respondent's registered roofing license was suspended by The Construction Industry Licensing Board in March 1985 for failure to pay a fine assessed as the result of a previous disciplinary action. The suspension was in effect at the time Respondent contracted to repair the Krauthaner residence. Respondent does not possess a certificate of competency from Dade County, nor did he possess one at the time the contract was executed. Respondent has been disciplined on three prior occasions by The Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 23, 1984 (DPR Case Number 33028); May 21, 1984 (DPR Case Number 42963); and, June 6, 1985 (DPR Case Number 49942). The complaint in Case Number 42963 alleged that Respondent had exceeded the scope of his license by contracting in Dade County without first meeting local competency requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Copenhaver was holder of a registered general contractor's license number RG 0013968 issued by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent qualified Southwest Building and Development Corporation with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. At all times material herein, neither Respondent nor Southwest Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc., were registered or certified as a roofing contractor with the Board. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. At all times material herein, Respondent was the holder of a Class C building contractor's license and a specialty limited roof-coating and spraying license, both issued by Sarasota County. See Transcript of Proceedings, page Said license was limited to work done to cosmetically improve a roof. Any work done to repair leaks required a standard roofing license. Respondent and Don Cogswell incorporated Southwest Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. (SRWI), under the laws of the State of Florida on January 10, 1980. See Petitioner's Exhibit #5. All work done by SRWI was done under the Sarasota special roofing contractor qualification. Respondent was president of the corporation until December 15, 1980, at which time he resigned and transferred all his stock to Cogswell. See Petitioner's Exhibit #6. On February 14, 1980, SRWI contracted with A. T. Esslinger to completely waterproof a roof at 816 Idlewild Way, Sarasota, Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit #2. The only warranty referenced in the contract was a separate standard warranty to be delivered at the time of final payment. See Petitioner's Exhibit #3A. Respondent gave the Esslingers a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit #3B) in which SRWI guaranteed to stop the leaks in their roof. This letter referenced SRWI's standard warranty. To waterproof the roof, gravel was removed from the existing roof and a cement-like surface applied to the roof. On June 4, 1980, SRWI contracted with Earl Mowry to waterproof a roof at 5339 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Bradenton, Florida, in accordance with specifications originally attached to the contract but not introduced at hearing. See Petitioner's Exhibit #4. To waterproof the roof, a concrete material was applied to the existing roof. On June 25, 1980, SRWI contracted with Maynard Howe to waterproof a roof over the family room in accordance with attached specifications at 2271 Mill Terrace, Sarasota, Florida. The only warranty given was the separate standard warranty to be delivered at the time of final payment. See Petitioner's Exhibits #7A and #7B. To waterproof the roof, a concrete material was applied to the existing roof. All of these contracts provided that SRWI would apply MARKEM Elastic Waterproofing material so that said roof areas were completely covered and free of all leaks. See Petitioner's Exhibits #9A, #9B and #9C for data concerning MARKEM. After the work was completed, each of the roofs in question leaked. When Respondent was contacted after he had left SRWI, he advised each of the persons that he had left the company and could not assist them. Respondent referred them back to SRWI, MARKEM or the company who became the MARKEM distributors in the area. None of the persons obtained relief from SRWI, the Respondent, MARKEM or MARKEM's new distributor. See Transcript of proceedings, pages 16, 25, 34. Howe sued SRWI and served Respondent with suit papers. In response, Respondent sent Howe a notarized document (Petitioner's Exhibit #6), which states that as of December 15, 1980, Respondent had resigned as president of SRWI and had transferred all of his stock to Don Cogswell. On October 14, 1980, SRWI contracted with Catherine Gilligan to waterproof her roof at 4819 Graywood Lane Meadows, Sarasota, Florida. See Petitioner's Exhibit #12. Gilligan paid SRWI $174 as partial payment on this contract. SRWI never did any work pursuant to the contract. Gilligan called SRWI, but to her knowledge never spoke to the Respondent concerning when SRWI was to start the job. Gilligan waited for one month, then called SRWI every day for three weeks. In the fourth week, SRWI's telephone was disconnected. This date reasonably coincides with the date Respondent resigned, December 15, 1980. No evidence was received of disciplinary action against SRWI or the Respondent by Sarasota County.
Recommendation Having found Respondent Robert W. Copenhaver guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board suspend the registration of Respondent as a general contractor for one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert W. Copenhaver 2409 34th Street, West Bradenton, Florida 33505 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
