The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondent's registered roofers contractors' license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on allegations set forth in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint filed herein signed February 21, 1983 alleging that Respondent unlawfully abandoned a construction project; diverted funds or property received for the completion of a construction project; made misleading, deceptive, fraudulent or untrue representation in the practice of contracting; was the subject of disciplinary action by a local licensing board and was guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, all within the moaning of Sections 489.129(1)(i),(h),(k),(m) and sections 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number PC 0034672 in the name of John M. Sneed, Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation, 7650 SG 135 Street, Miami, Florida 33156. At all times material, Respondent was qualifier for Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation under his registered roofing contractor's license. (Petitioner's exhibit 1) On April 22, 1982, Respondent entered a contract with Marcel and Goldy Wiesner to reroof the Wiesner home at 9225 Bay Drive, Surfside, Florida for a contract price of $4,915 less five percent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Wiesners contacted the Respondent and Beall and Associates because of a coupon which Wiesner noticed in the Greater Miami Yellow Pages. The coupon provided for a 5 percent roofing discount on roofing work performed by Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 6 and Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner) Under the terms of the contract entered into by the parties, Respondent was to complete the installation of roofing tiles on the Wiesner residence on or before May 30, 1992. The Wiesners had informed the Respondent that they would be leaving on vacation during June of 1982, and therefore wanted the roof- repairs completed prior to their departure for vacation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5 and Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner) On approximately May 3, 1982, Respondent applied for a building permit from the town of Surfside, Florida, for the repairs to the Wiesner roof. A permit, number 18697, was issued by the town of Surfside for the reroofing job on that same date. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Respondent immediately commenced construction on the Wiesner project on May 3, 1982. At that time, Respondent was given $2,457.50, which represented 50 percent of the contract price. On May 6, 1982, the Wiesners paid Respondent $1,253.75 making the total percentage of the contract price paid to date 79 percent inclusive of the 5 percent deduction referred to above. During May of 1982, Respondent abandoned the Wiesners reroofing project and, at that time, the tin capping inspection had been performed and the project was approximately 60 percent completed. (Testimony of Marcel J. Wiesner and John Hahn, Town Clerk and Manager, Town of Surfside) Respondent provided the Wiesners no prior notice of his in tent to abandon the reroofing of their residence and did not offer them any reasons for his failure to return to complete the project. (Testimony of Marcel Wiesner) The Wiesners individually, and through their attorney, made numerous attempts to contact Respondent to return to complete the reroofing work to their residence without any success. The Wiesners therefore hired a second roofing contractor to complete the project. During the interim, the Wiesners had to repair the interior of their home which was water-damaged as a result of the Respondent's failure to complete the roofing project the started. On approximately May 23, 1982, Respondent, as qualifier for Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation, contracted with John C. Leisinger to reroof the Leisinger home at 851 Heron Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida. Respondent agreed to install monterey tile on their "villa mission" style home. The contract price was $5,600. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 9 and Testimony of John C. Leisinger) On July 14, 1982, Respondent received $2,800 representing one-half of the contract price to perform the reroofing to the Leisingers' home. On or about July 16, 1982, Respondent received an additional $1,719 from the Leisingers or a total of approximately 81 percent of the contract price. (Testimony of John Leisinger) On or about July 16, 1982, Respondent applied for and received a roofing permit from the City of Miami Springs, Florida, for the reroofing work on the Leisingers' home. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Between July 14 through 16, 1982, Respondent partially performed the roofing work on the Leisingers' residence. After July 16, 1982, Respondent failed to return to the Leisingers' residence to complete the reroofing work despite numerous attempts by the Leisingers to get the Respondent to return. At the time that he left the Leisinger residence, Respondent had not installed the roofing tiles as required but left the roof in an exposed state. (Testimony of John C. Leisinger) Respondent left the Leisinger reroofing project without notice to the Leisingers nor did he later provide them any reason for his failure to return to that project. At that time, Respondent had completed approximately seventy (70%) percent of the work required under the contract. Respondent, however, did advise Mr. Leisinger that he was unable to complete the project at the original contract price because the price of the monterey tiles specified in the contract had increased. In this regard, Mr. Leisinger contacted the tile company that supplied the monterey tiles and was in formed that the price was unchanged during the period that Respondent would have purchased those tiles for the project. Further, Mr. Leisinger later purchased the same tiles specified in the contract at the same price contemplated by the parties. Mr. Leisinger was left with the alternative and was forced to purchase the tiles and complete the roofing project himself when Respondent failed to return. (Testimony of John C. Leisinger) During the course of time when the petitioner investigated a complaint filed by Mr. Leisinger with the Petitioner against the Respondent, Petitioner's Investigator, Bill McDonald, received a memorandum sent to all Building Officials in Metropolitan Dade County informing them that Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency, issued by Metropolitan Dade County, had been suspended by the Metro-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board until such time as Respondent paid fines totalling one-thousand five-hundred dollars. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12 and Testimony of Bill McDonald) Based on information contained in the above memorandum, McDonald initiated a complaint against Respondent with regard to the disciplinary action by the Metro-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board. In this regard, on February 11, 1982, the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, Division "A," considered a complaint filed by Peter Di Filippi against the Respondent. The Board found that there was at least a prima facie showing of violations of Chapter 10, Metropolitan Dade County Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) On or about May 17, 1982, the Building and Zoning Department for Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board would hold a hearing to determine whether the Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency as a roofing contractor, issued by Metropolitan Dade County, should be disciplined for various charges. On July 8, 1982, the Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board considered several charges against Respondent and found that Respondent was guilty of several charges specified in a Complaint and the Board fined Respondent a total of one-thousand dollars to be paid within thirty days following the close of that hearing. The Board also issued a reprimand to Respondent based on those charges. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) On September 9, 1902, the local Metropolitan Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board considered other charges filed against the Respondent and as a result thereof found Respondent guilty of several charges and imposed a fine of $500 payable within 60 days following the close of the September 9, 1982 hearing. Also, the Board directed that Respondent's business and personal Certificates of Competency as a roofing contractor he suspended for a period of thirty days. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 21 and 22) On or about February 7, 1903, John Leisinger obtained a Judgment in the amount of $3,665 plus costs and attorneys fees .. against Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation. The Judgment stemmed from the transaction referred to hereinabove between Leisinger and the Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 28 and Testimony of John Leisinger) On or about -May 23, 1983, Marcel Weisner obtained a Judgment in the amount of $10,440 against Beall and Associates Roofing Corporation end Respondent, jointly and severally. That Judgment was obtained based on the transaction referred to hereinabove between the Weisners and Respondent. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 27 and Testimony of Marcel J. Weisner) Respondent's Defense As stated herein, the Respondent did not appear to offer testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be suspended for a period of five years and he be assessed a civil fine of $2000.00 payable to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1984.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty of prosecuting administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and was, at all times material hereto, a licensed Florida real estate salesperson. He holds license number 0487661. Respondent was working as a real estate salesperson in association with Global Realty of Volusia, Inc. (Global Realty) in Deltona, Florida, when he received his current license. In 1993, Paul Costello owned a residence (hereinafter "the property") in Deltona, Florida. Mr. Costello lived in Miami, Florida. He rented the property to tenants who informed him that cracks were developing in the property's driveway. Additionally, the house was settling and cracking. Mr. Costello subsequently made a claim for the property's reported distress on his homeowner's insurance policy with Republic Insurance Company. The insurance company retained a geotechnical engineering firm to determine the cause of the reported distress. The engineering firm made a site visit to the property on August 22, 1993. A visual inspection revealed cracks up to one and one-half inches wide in the exterior walls of the garage. The engineering firm completed its investigation in September 1993 and concluded that the property was subject to sinkhole conditions/activity. Based on the recommendations of the engineering firm, the insurance company hired a grouting contractor. Deep cement grout injections and shallow grouting (mudjacking) were performed in an attempt to stabilize the loose soil conditions on the property. Steel piles were used to raise and support the structure's footing. The stabilization effort took approximately two months to complete. In 1995, Shawna Lee Christenson and Janice Beery worked as licensed real estate salespersons for Choice Properties, Inc., (Choice Properties) in Deltona, Florida. Jean Gillian, a licensed real estate broker and owner of Choice Properties, gave Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery their first employment as real estate sales associates. Because they were new to the real estate profession, Ms. Gillian directed Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery to work as partners. Respondent was also working at Choice Properties when Ms. Gillian hired Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. He worked for Choice Properties for several weeks before returning to Global Realty as a sales associate. Sometime prior to October 22, 1995, Ms. Christenson received a call from a woman in Orlando. The woman, a friend of Mr. Costello's, requested Ms. Christenson to perform a market analysis on the property. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery performed the market analysis on the property. Subsequently, they received permission from Mr. Costello to list the property for sale as a multiple listing. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery signed a listing agreement with Mr. Costello. About that time, or soon thereafter, Ms. Christenson had a telephone conversation with Mr. Costello. During the conversation, Mr. Costello informed Ms. Christenson about possible prior sinkhole activity on the property. Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery discussed the problem with Ms. Gillian. Everyone at Choice Properties thought the situation was humorous because the property was the first listing for Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. Later, Mr. Costello sent Ms. Christenson a document with the name of the geotechnical engineering firm. Ms. Christenson then contacted Mike Wilson, a friend who worked in soils engineering. Mr. Wilson contacted the engineering firm and requested that a copy of its settlement claim evaluation report be sent to Ms. Christenson. Ms. Christenson placed a copy of the engineering firm's report in the property's file at Choice Properties. She disclosed the possible sinkhole activity to everyone who called about the property. She advised all callers that the report was in the file. After learning about the possible sinkhole activity, real estate agents would not show the property to their customers. Sometime in October 1995, Barbara Redding, a single disabled female, contacted Respondent after seeing an advertisement in the newspaper. Respondent was aware that Ms. Redding was a recipient of Social Security benefits. On or prior to October 22, 1995, Respondent telephoned Ms. Christenson to inquire about the property. He told Ms. Christenson that he had a client (Ms. Redding) who was a Social Security recipient and really needed a home. Respondent was interested in the property because it was within Ms. Redding's price range and had an assumable mortgage. Ms. Christenson disclosed the possible sinkhole activity to Respondent. She told him that the engineering firm's report was in the file. Respondent declined Ms. Christenson's offer to fax the report to him. Ms. Christenson was surprised to learn that Respondent intended to show the property to Ms. Redding despite the disclosure about the sinkhole activity. Sometime after the initial phone call, Ms. Beery was outside the office of Choice Properties smoking a cigarette. Ms. Christenson was with Ms. Beery when Respondent arrived. As he walked into the office, Respondent joked about the fact that Ms. Christenson's and Ms. Beery's first listing was on a sinkhole. Respondent showed Ms. Redding four or five houses, including the subject property. After seeing the property, Ms. Redding contacted Respondent to make an offer to purchase it. Respondent prepared a contract for sale and purchase, which Ms. Redding signed on October 22, 1995. Respondent was acting as buyer's agent for Ms. Redding. The contract states that a deposit in the amount of $100 was held in escrow by "Associated Land Title upon acceptance by October 30, 1995." Respondent included the following language in the contract as an addendum: Seller agrees to remove branch from roof and repair roof and soffit where branch is presently lodged. This offer is contingent on Buyer receiving settlement from Social Security that has already been awarded. Seller agrees to close at Associated Land Title contingent on all payments being up to date. Regardless of principal balance, cash to mortgage [sic] will be $6,000 (six thousand dollars.) Respondent hand-delivered the contract for sale and purchase to Choice Properties. Mr. Costello, through Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery, made a counter offer for a higher purchase price and a $500 deposit. The counter offer eliminated language in the contract addendum related to removal of the branch and repair of the roof. It also deleted the language related to $6,000 cash payment. The offer included an additional addendum to the contract that stated as follows: Buyer acknowledges that there has been disclosure regarding the driveway and previous activity affecting it. Seller reserves the right to leave property on market to entertain offers. Buyer acknowledges property is being sold "AS IS." Ms. Christenson and Ms. Berry asked Ms. Gillian to review the language in the contract addendum before they returned the contract to Respondent. After Ms. Gillian approved the statement, Ms. Christenson and Ms. Berry returned the contract to Respondent. Ms. Redding only had $100 in cash for a deposit. Respondent offered to loan her the other $400. Ms. Redding accepted Respondent's offer and signed a promissory note to that effect. Ms. Redding subsequently paid Respondent the $400 that she owed him. When Ms. Redding reviewed the counter offer, she asked Respondent about the additional language in the contract addendum stating that the buyer acknowledged disclosure about the driveway and previous activity affecting it. Respondent told Ms. Redding that the driveway had been cracked and that a new driveway had been put in. Respondent never discussed possible sinkhole activity with Ms. Redding. The contract closed in November 1995. After painting the house, Ms. Redding moved in on January 20, 1996. Sometime in March or April of 1996, a friend of Ms. Redding's asked her if she knew she had purchased a home on a sinkhole. Ms. Redding then discovered that all of her neighbors were aware of the problem. Ms. Redding contacted Richard Meyer, a professional geologist who works for the Volusia County Environmental Management Department. Mr. Meyer inspected the property in August 1996 and on three subsequent occasions. In the meantime, Ms. Redding contacted Ms. Christenson and Ms. Beery. They told Ms. Redding that they had advised Respondent about the sinkhole activity prior to Ms. Redding's purchase of the property. Ms. Gillian showed Ms. Redding a copy of the engineering report from the property's file at Choice Properties. Ms. Gillian gave Ms. Redding a copy of the report. Ms. Redding showed the engineering report to Mr. Meyer on one of his visits. Mr. Meyer determined that the property definitely was subject to sinkhole activity. He concluded that the property was a "slow sinking hole." Ms. Redding did not contact Respondent after she learned about the sinkhole on the property. At that point in time, Ms. Redding felt intimidated by Respondent. One day Ms. Redding heard a loud crunch as she was going into her garage. She asked the fire department to inspect the property to determine whether it was safe as a dwelling. The fire department determined that the property was not safe for habitation. Ms. Redding moved out of the house and had it demolished in October 1996 after the fire department condemned it. Ms. Redding's insurance company "totaled" the property.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's real estate license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 28th day of June, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Bobbie G. Scheffer, who holds license No. 0073955, was a real estate broker for Rivard Realty, Inc. in Fort Walton Beach, Florida; and Ralph S. Ecoff was a licensed real estate salesman, employed by Rivard Realty, Inc. He holds license No. 0454969. In the spring of 1988, another salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Wayne Thompson, obtained the listing for the three-bedroom, one-story house at 28 East Casa Loma Drive in Mary Esther, Florida, from its then corporate owner, Roman Acts, Inc. He received information about the property from a representative of the corporation. Without verifying the information, Mr. Thompson entered it into a computer. Misled by the owner's representative, he reported the house's age as eight years. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. In fact, the house had been built in 1974. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. A public water supply serves the house, but a septic tank, not a public sewer, receives wastewater from the house. Aware of these matters, Mr. Thompson, when confronted with a blank on a form labelled "WATR/SEW", filled in "Pub. Wat." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. No more than another letter or two could have been squeezed into the blank on the form displayed on a computer video terminal. Respondent Ralph S. Ecoff saw the house in the course of showing it to prospective buyers, and decided to buy it himself. After a representative of Roman Acts, Inc. accepted his offer (but before the closing), Mr. Ecoff and a partner set about refurbishing the house. Mr. Ecoff, a septuagenarian who bought the house with the intention of reselling it, finds computers intimidating. Still another real estate salesman in the employ of Rivard Realty, Inc., Steve Kehran, volunteered to enter a revised listing in the multiple listing service computer, to let it be known that the property was again for sale. As instructed by Mr. Ecoff, Mr. Kehran raised the price and "changed the blurbage" (to read "EVERYTHING NEW AGAIN. COMPARES WITH NEW HOME. LOW INTEREST RATE," etc.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. In keeping with Mr. Ecoff's instructions, Kehran relied on the superseded listing for other information about the house. That is why the age of the house was again inaccurately reported as eight years. Extrapolating innocently but inaccurately from the earlier listing's "Pub. Wat.," Mr. Kehran assumed public sewers accompanied the public water supply and filled in the "WATER/SEW" blank with the abbreviation "Comm Sew." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. Mr. Ecoff had read the listing from which Mr. Kehran took the information but, he testified, he did not read it carefully. Whether he read over what Mr. Kehran wrote at any time before the Stacys complained of the inaccuracies is not clear. Mr. Ecoff has said all along that he was aware the property had a septic tank. He testified to this effect at hearing and also testified that he was aware the house was more than eight years old when the Stacys agreed to buy it. If he had read the listing Mr. Kehran entered in the computer for him with proper care and due regard for the importance of its accuracy, he would have discovered the misinformation it contained. Although Mr. Stacy had physical possession of a multiple listing sheet bearing the information Mr. Kehran introduced into the computer data bank at Mr. Ecoff's behest, while he and his wife drove around with Ms. Scheffer, looking at houses, and may well have read it at that time, the evidence did not show that either Ms. Scheffer or Mr. Ecoff reiterated the information verbally. (It was not clear whether Mr. Stacy retained the sheet Ms. Scheffer furnished him after seeing the house.) Engaged by a mortgage company, an appraiser who was familiar with the neighborhood reported the true age of the house, but put its "effective age" at ten years, after two visits to the property. The appraiser's report, which recited inaccurately, as the listing had, that a public sewer served the property, was furnished to the mortgage company that financed the Stacys' purchase. Once the report reached the mortgage company, it was available to the Stacys, although they did not in fact see it, as far as the evidence showed, before the closing, which took place on August 24, 1988. On or before January 1, 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Stacy will be required to cause pipe to be installed to connect the house to a public sewer main, itself yet to be laid. Mr. Stacy has been told the hook-up will cost $1,600.00 over and above the $600.00 it will cost to install the connector. Even so, the evidence did not establish that the house's dependence on a septic tank affected its market value in 1988. The evidence also failed to show that the house's age materially affected its value. Ms. Scheffer encourages salespersons in her employ to take advantage of courses the local Board of Realtors offers, and scheduled Mr. Ecoff for every such course available. She has not personally instructed salespeople to verify information sellers give them by independent inspection. Perhaps because the practice of relying on sellers' representations is widespread, the multiple listing sheets all bear the disclaimer, "INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED." The evidence did not show how carefully Ms. Scheffer read the inaccurate listing that salesmen in her employ generated, or that she would have been or should have been aware of the inaccuracies, however carefully she had examined the listing. Although Mr. Ecoff said he knew there was a septic tank on the property because the grass was so green in part of the backyard, Mr. Stacy testified that the septic tank is buried in front of the house. It was not proven that even an experienced real estate broker like Ms. Scheffer should necessarily infer an actual age of more than eight from an effective age of ten years. In short, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that respondent Scheffer actually knew or had reason to know the listing was inaccurate.
Recommendation It is, in accordance with Rule 21V-18.008, Florida Administrative Code, recommended: That petitioner suspend respondent Ecoff's license for thirty (30) days. That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint, insofar as it alleges that respondent Scheffer violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1990, 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 20th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issues in Case No. 07-4376PL are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i), 489.119(2), 489.126(2)(a), and 489.129(1)(j), (m), and (o), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed. The issues in Case No. 07-4377PL are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.1425(1), and 489.129(1)(i) and (o), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Mr. Roach is, and was at all times material to this action, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida having been issued License No. CCC1326005. Mr. Roach's Certified Roofing Contractor License No. CCC1326005 is current and active. Mr. Roach's current addresses of record are Post Office Box 345, Orange Springs, Florida, and 22204 U.S. Highway 301, Hawthorne, Florida. At all times material to this action, Mr. Roach was a licensed qualifier for All Florida Roofing Contractors, Inc. (All Florida). There is evidence in the record sufficient to establish that Mr. Roach has been previously disciplined for a violation under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Notably, Mr. Roach has been previously disciplined for, among other things, violations of Subsections 489.129(1)(m) and (o), Florida Statutes. Case No. 07-4376PL Mr. Roach failed to obtain a Certificate of Authority for All Florida, as required by Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. On or about August 23, 2004, Mr. Pang contracted with Mr. Roach, to remove and replace the hurricane-damaged roof of his hotel property located at 1620 West Vine Street, Kissimmee, Florida. The contract price for the aforementioned project was $40,000.00. Mr. Pang made an initial payment of $2,250.00 on August 22, 2004, and another payment of $20,000.00 on August 23, 2004. As part of the contract, All Florida was required to pull the building permits for the project, and Mr. Roach failed to do this. Mr. Roach commenced work on the project on or about September 7, 2004. On or about late September 2004, he ceased work on the project, and the project remained unfinished. Mr. Pang paid All Florida an additional $10,000.00 on September 16, 2004. On October 1, 2004, the City of Kissimmee issued a Notice of Violation against Mr. Pang for failure to have a building permit for the work that had been performed by Mr. Roach on the roof. Mr. Roach scheduled repairs on the project, but did not return to the project. Mr. Roach did not have any inspections performed on the roof. Later, another contractor hired by Mr. Pang finished the roofing project at a cost of an additional $32,975.00. Case No. 07-4377PL On or about September 15, 2004, Ms. Perez contracted with Mr. Roach to repair roof damage to her residence at 1502 Golden Poppy Court, Orlando, Florida. The contract price for the aforementioned project was $7,268.32, of which Mr. Roach was paid $3,634.16 on September 18, 2004. The contract entered into between Ms. Perez and Mr. Roach failed to inform the homeowner of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. On or about October 27, 2004, the Orange County Building Department issued Mr. Roach a permit for the aforementioned project (Permit No. T04018050). Mr. Roach did not have any inspections performed on the roof. On September 25, 2004, Ms. Perez paid $3,614.16 to All Florida, which was the remaining amount of the contract. Another contractor was hired by Ms Perez to correct deficient aspects of Mr. Roach's work on the roof at a cost of $900.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered whose outcome is the following: That in Case No. 07-4376PL Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i), (j), (m) and (o), Florida Statutes; Dismiss Count II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 07-4376PL; In Case No. 07-4376PL, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; no administrative fine is recommended for the violation of 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, because the violation is included in the violations of Subsections 489.129(1)(j) and (o), Florida Statutes; That in Case No. 07-4377PL, Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i) and (o), Florida Statutes; In Case No. 07-4377PL, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; Requiring Respondent to make Restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Pang in the amount of $25,000; Requiring Respondent to make Restitution to Ms. Perez in the amount of $900; and Revoking Respondent's contractor license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2008.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a written reprimand to respondent Elias Davis for failure to pull a permit on a roofing job. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 5th day of April, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes and Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Andrea S. Carollo, was, at all times material hereto, a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0229337. The last licensed issued was as a broker c/o Florida Leisure Realty, Inc. t/a ERA, 27427 SR 54, Wesley Chapel, Zephyrhills, Florida 33543. Randy Locke and Geoffrey Bickerdike are not and have not been licensed, during times material, in any capacity with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board or the Florida Real Estate Commission. During July 1990, the Beardsleys entered into a contract to purchase realty situated at 220 Debbie Lane, Lutz, Florida. Additionally, the Beardsleys executed an addendum providing for the replacement of the roof. Negotiations for the contract and sale and the contract with its addendum were prepared by Respondent's licensed real estate salesman, Frank Kinsinger, an employee of Florida Leisure. The subject property was owned by Respondent's relatives, the Barettas, (aunt and uncle) who resided in Illinois. In anticipation of the sale of their rental property, the Barettas requested that Respondent obtain proposals to repair the roof. Pursuant to their request, Respondent obtained several proposals including proposals from Sun Roofing of Tampa, Hardy Roofing & Construction, Imperial Roofing Contractors, Inc. and Geoffrey Bickerdike. The proposals from all of the companies, with the exception of Bickerdike, all claimed that they were licensed roofing contractors. Respondent was acquainted with Bickerdike who represented himself in the past as a licensed contractor. Respondent was unaware that Bickerdike was not licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board or the local board (Pasco County). Of the proposals received from the various contractors, the Barettas selected Bickerdike's proposal to repair the roof since his proposal also included additional work that the home needed. During the period when the Respondent accepted the proposals and the Beardsleys entered into the contract, the Barettas replaced the roof and undertook certain FHA repairs that were required. After execution of the contract, Bickerdike subcontracted with Randy Locke (Locke) a subcontractor to replace the roof. A permit was not pulled for the removal and replacement of the roof. Respondent was unaware that Bickerdike had subcontracted the roofing job and the other repairs to Locke and that a permit had not been pulled for the repairs. The roofing repairs were completed prior to closing and the inspection was approved by the FHA as required by the contract and other lending requirements. Following a period of approximately two months from completion of the roof replacement and closing on September 11, 1991, no water leakage was observed in the house by the Beardsleys when they subsequently visited the home. At closing, the Barettas paid for and provided the Beardsleys with an ERA home warranty. The Barettas likewise reimbursed Florida Leisure the sum of $1,930.00 for roof repairs which had been advanced by Florida Leisure on behalf of the Barettas. Approximately two months after the closing, the Beardsleys experienced water leaks from the roof of their home. The Beardsleys called Florida Leisure to complain of the leaks. Initially, agents and employees of Florida Leisure contacted Bickerdike such that he could return to the house and correct the leaks. Bickerdike, in fact, made several attempts to correct the roof leaks and after further calls, Florida Leisure furnished the Beardsleys Bickerdike's beeper number which they used to directly contact Bickerdike. Respondent did not hear from the Beardsleys and considered the problem to have been resolved. On August 8, 1991, the Beardsleys contacted the Pasco County Building Department to report the leakage problem. On August 11, 1991, Joe Creech, a Pasco County Building Construction Inspector, inspected the roof and reported the roof replacement by Bickerdike and Locke as being unworkmanlike. Creech concluded that the roof needed to be torn off and corrected. Creech also determined that neither Bickerdike or Locke had a roofing contractors license and that no permit had been pulled for the job. On October 29, 1991, Respondent, after being advised of the problem, obtained a proposal from RFP Roofing Company, Inc. to replace the roof. During November 1991, Creech first met with Respondent to discuss the Beardsley's roof problem. At that meeting, Respondent advised Creech that he had been unaware until then that Bickerdike was unlicensed. On November 19, 1991, Al Shevy, an inspector and investigator with Petitioner, first met with Respondent in connection with the Beardsley complaint filed on October 8, 1991. At that meeting, Respondent advised Shevy that he thought that Bickerdike was responsible for the roofing problems experienced by the Beardsleys and that Bickerdike never advised him that he had gotten someone else to do the roof replacement. Respondent's proposal from RFP Roofing Company, Inc., predates his meeting with Creech and Shevy. Respondent contracted with RFP Roofing Company to have the roof replaced and other repairs done related to interior water damage and drywall for a cost of approximately $5,000.00. Respondent corrected, at his expense, the roof leak problems as soon as he realized that Bickerdike would not or could not correct the problems. The Beardsleys, although provided with an ERA home warranty, never reported their roof problems to the home warranty claims division for repairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 31st day of March, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 3, rejected, not probative and unnecessary. Paragraph 6, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 8, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 10, adopted as modified, Paragraph 5, Recommended Order. Paragraph 13, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 15 first sentence, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 17, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 15 and 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 18, adopted as modified, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Last sentence, rejected as being irrelevant. Paragraph 20, adopted as modified, Paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 20-22, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 25 and 26, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 27, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 35, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 17 and 21, Recommended Order. Paragraph 36(sic) second 35 and 36, rejected, irrelevant and not probative. Paragraph 39, adopted as modified, Paragraph 17, Recommended Order. Paragraph 40, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 41, rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 45-49, adopted as modified, Paragraph 7, Recommended Order. Paragraph 50, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 51-54, rejected, not probative. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, Paragraph 17, Recommended Order. Paragraph 11, adopted as modified, Paragraphs 12 and 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 15, adopted as modified, Paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 24, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 27, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick, Esquire Senior Attorney DPR - Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jacob I. Reiber, Esquire LINSKY & REIBER Post Office Box 7055 Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is David Michael Richey, holder at all times pertinent to these proceedings of registered residential contractor licenses RR-A039309 and RR 0039309 issued by Petitioner. His address of record is Tampa, Florida. Hometown Builders And Associates, Inc. (Hometown Builders) was formed in May of 1985. Respondent was the owner of 25 percent of the company's stock, president of the company and the qualifying agent for the company from inception until its bankruptcy on June 6, 1986. On or about October 31, 1985, Mary L. Robke entered into a contract with Hometown Builders for extensive remodeling repairs to a house owned by her and inhabited by her daughter. Under terms of the agreement, Hometown Builders agreed to accomplish the remodeling tasks in return for a total payment of $35,000. The agreement required a down payment of $13,000. While dates were not specified in the written agreement, the remainder of the $35,000 was paid by Robke in three payments, the last payment occurring around March 14, 1986. It is undisputed by the parties that construction work on the Robke project was never completed. Also, the proof establishes that the electrical and air conditioning subcontractor hired by Respondent's company was eventually paid by Robke, after the subcontractor filed a lien for nonpayment. Robke paid the subcontractor over $4,000 when Respondent's company failed to pay him. Robke paid off other subcontractors who filed liens. Her total payments to subcontractors filing liens was approximately $7,000. On or about December 12, 1985, Hometown Builders entered into a contract with a home owner named Mary Jane Parceneau to remodel her house for the total sum of $15,980. The work was to commence within two weeks and be finished within 30 days. Parceneau pulled the permits for the construction herself since the company had not obtained a local government license in her locale. Parceneau borrowed $16,000 to pay for the remodeling repairs. She paid $8,000 of this amount to Respondent's company. The company's workmen commenced the remodeling operation by entirely removing the inside plaster and all outside paint from the house. Respondent's workmen also removed at least two windows from the house. Then, the work ceased. The repairs were never completed and Parceneau, unable to meet payments on the remodeling loan, lost her home in the resultant mortgage foreclosure. Parceneau's attempts to regain some of the $8,000 paid to Respondent's company were rebuffed by Respondent who claimed that the work done by his company on this project equalled the amount previously paid. No proof was submitted by Respondent to support this assertion by him. Therefore, his testimony on this point is not credited. Respondent nor his company informed Parceneau why work on the project stopped. Her plaintive statement at hearing regarding the proposed remodeling of her home was "I would have been better off if I hadn't done anything". On or about February 10, 1986, Hometown Builders contracted with Rachel Lareau to do extensive repairs to her home at a total price of $29,500. The agreement provisions stated that work would commence within 30 days and be completed within approximately 90 days after commencement. Lareau insisted that the contract with Hometown Builders provide a payment schedule. That schedule reflects that Hometown Builders would receive an initial payment of $200, followed by 30 percent of the total $29,500 when block walls to the home's addition were erected. An additional 30 percent of the contract price would be paid when the roof was completed. Another 30 percent would be paid when the drywall to the new addition was installed. The balance of the contract price would then be paid upon completion of the project. At the behest of the salesman from Hometown Builders, Lareau borrowed $32,800 from a mortgage company recommended by him. Of that amount, $19,765 was left in escrow with the mortgage company. The escrow agreement, dated March 21, 1986 stated that $9,753 would be held until "block walls of addition are up." The remainder amount of approximately $10,000 would be disbursed only upon completion of all home improvements set forth in the contract between Hometown Builders and Lareau. Two to three weeks after the execution of the escrow agreement by Lareau, workmen from Hometown Builders came to Lareau's residence as a result of her repeated telephone calls to the company complaining about the lack of progress on the project. The workmen put four holes in the ground, approximately 12 inches by 12 inches, to hold support beams for the construction of the addition to the residence which was supposed to follow. No beams were placed in the holes. The process of digging the holes took approximately one day. The workmen did not return. Another two or three weeks passed. Lareau again became concerned. After repeated telephone calls, Lareau spoke with Respondent. Respondent explained that his company had been having problems, but that someone would be sent to do the work. He also disclosed that his company's employees had already received and spent approximately $10,000 of the escrowed funds. Respondent asked Lareau to provide another $10,000 for expenditure on the project. She refused. The telephone conversation concluded after Respondent told Lareau that other workmen would be sent to the site. Receipt of the funds by Respondent's company was in direct contravention of provisions of the contract between Lareau and Hometown Builders as well as the Essex Mortgage Corporation escrow agreement with Lareau. Other workmen sent to Lareau's home by Respondent were willing to do further work on the project only if they were provided additional funding. Respondent finally offered another workman who agreed to resume the project without additional finding being provided. However, Lareau was unable to confirm or elicit assurances from this individual that the amount of work would be consistent with what Lareau had been promised under terms of her agreement with Hometown Builders for the first payment of $9,753. In the absence of such assurance or confirmation, Lareau refused to permit this workman to commence work for fear she would unwittingly modify the original agreement and the workman left. In a later conversation with Lareau, Respondent confirmed that the amount of work he had contemplated the workman would perform was not quite as much as originally agreed upon with Lareau. No further work was undertaken on the Lareau project by Respondent. At hearing, he was unable to recall the exact amount of funds received from Lareau, but readily admitted to receiving a draw of approximately $7,000 to $8,000 for the project; an admission which lends further credence to Lareau's testimony that approximately $10,000 was paid to him by the escrow agent in violation of her agreements with the agent and Respondent's company. Funds received from the Robke, Parceneau and Lareau projects were used for general day to day operations of Hometown Builders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's license and, in view of the repeated offenses in this case, imposing an administrative fine of $5000 in accordance with disciplinary guidelines set forth in section 21E-17.001 (19)(b), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1. Rejected as obviously erroneous. 2.-10. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 220 E. Madison Street, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33617 David M. Richey 5124 Holland Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Richard Kondian, was a licensed real estate salesman having been issued license number 0302230 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The license is currently in an inactive status. His present address is 300 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida. In July, 1984, James E. and Janis Shand, who lived at 4940 S. W. 16th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, suffered extensive fire damage to their residence. Respondent approached the Shands, introduced himself as Dick Como, and offered to repair their home to its original condition. He also represented himself to be a contractor and that he was a principal in Apex Roofing, a local contracting firm. The Shands agreed to permit Kondian (Como) to perform the work, and they executed a contract prepared by Kondian on an "Apepco Corp." letterhead which authorized the work. A copy of the contract has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2. The document is a photostatic copy of the original, and is only partially legible. It does reflect July 24, 1984 as being the date of execution, and describes the repairs to be made as follows: To be effected to return Property to Pre- Fire Condition as per policy. (No extra charge to Home.) It also authorizes Allstate Insurance Company to pay for the repairs in accordance with the terms of the Shands' insurance policy. The contract was accepted by "D. Como." Como and Kondian were identified by the Shands as being one and the same. The owner of Apex Roofing and Insurance Repair Corporation was Michael Derhagopian, a licensed roofing contractor in Dania, Florida. Respondent told Derhagopian that he had procured a repair job on the Shands' residence and that he desired Apex to do the roofing portion of the work, and that a general contractor would perform the remainder of the project. He also advised Derhagopian that he needed to use Apex Roofing as the licensee on the project. Derhagopian agreed to do the work and pulled a permit for the roofing work. He also opened a checking account in which the insurance proceeds from Allstate were to be deposited. Both he and respondent had authorization to sign checks drawn on that account. On September 24, 1984, Allstate Enterprises Mortgage Corporation issued a check payable to Apex Roofing and Insurance and J. E. Shand in the amount of $18,150.66. The check was issued for the purpose of enclosing the house, cleaning it, and installing a new roof, trusses and windows. The check was endorsed by both the Shands and Richard Kondian who 'indicated on the endorsement that he was president of Apex. The check was then deposited into the Derhagopian Kondian joint account. Work began on the Shands' residence in September, 1984. Derhagopian completed a small flat deck in the rear of the house, and the general contractor began stripping the inside of the house and cleaning the premises. When neither was paid by Kondian they ceased work on the project. At that time Derhagopian learned that Kondian had spent the entire $18,150.66 within a week. According to Derhagopian, Kondian spent around $5,000.00 on a "nursing home" transaction, $500.00 for legal expenses, and an undisclosed amount for mortgage payments on his home. It is not known how the remainder of the funds were spent except that they were not used for their intended purpose of repairing the Shands' home. Despite demands for repayment of their monies, Kondian has never repaid the Shands. The Shands eventually had their home repaired, but still have liens on it to this date. They have pending a civil action against Kondian to recover the insurance proceeds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that his license number 0302230 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 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 16 day of December, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Richard Kondian 300 South Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Arthur R. Shell, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802
