Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0020923. On may 27, 1982, the Respondent, doing business as T & T Roofing Company, contracted with Jessie Reid, 1021 Abeline Drive, Deltona, Florida, to replace an existing shingle roof for a total contract price of $2,406.20. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as qualifying agency for A. L. Roofing Specialists. At no time has the Respondent qualified T & T Roofing Company. On August 26, 1982, when the Respondent completed work on Jessie Reid's roof, he was paid $2,406.20 which was the entire contract price for this job. The Respondent was to return to the job site to inspect the roof and correct minor remaining problems. However, when the Respondent would not return to the job, even after repeated calls, it was determined that there is a difference in shingle thickness at points on the roof, and the rain runs down over the gutters instead of into them. Further, the hip and ridge caps are of a different material than the major portion of the shingled roof; there are exposed nails; and the gutters are filled with roofing debris. The Respondent has not been responsive to communications and he has refused to make the necessary corrections to Jessie Reid's roof. The Respondent never obtained a permit for the reroofing work done for Jessie Reid at 1021 Abeline Drive, in Deltona. A permit is required to do reroofing work in Deltona, which is within the jurisdiction of Volusia County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Registered Roofing Contractor's license number RC 0020923 held by the Respondent, John W. Thorn, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 30th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John W. Thorn Post Office Box 1897 Deland, Florida 32720
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent LARRY DAVID COMES, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered specialty contractor and held license number RX00400762. Mr. Comes is the qualifying agent for D & L Enterprises. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent CHARLES J. GOREE was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified general contractor and held license number CG C007621. Mr. Goree is the qualifying agent for CJC Incorporated. In the beginning of the year 1985, the Island Village Association decided to reroof all six buildings located in the condominium project. At the time of the decision, all of the roofs were leaking. The existing roofs had been repaired and patched numerous times since the condominiums were built in 1973. On February 27, 1985, the Respondents COMES and GOREE submitted a joint proposal to the association to remove the existing built-up roof, apply a Neoprene/Hypalon roof, and remove and reshingle the mansard roof for $19,865.00. On April 15, 1985, a written contract was entered into between Island Village Condominium Association and David L. Comes, d/b/a D & L Enterprises, as contractor for the reroofing of Building "C." The Contract required the contractor to furnish all materials and labor to remove the existing built-up roof. Rotten wood on the deck was to be replaced on a time and materials basis. Damaged scuppers were to be replaced and other scuppers were to be cleaned out by the contractor. The Neoprene/Hypalon system would then be applied to the flat roof and the parapet walls. The mansard roof was to be removed and reshingled. Although Charles J. Goree, d/b/a CJC Incorporated, was not named in the contract, the omission was an oversight. At all times during the course of the reroofing project, the Respondent GOREE was responsible for the removal of the existing built-up roof and the application of new shingles to the mansard roof. The Respondent COMES was responsible for the application of the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system. The reroofing project was a joint undertaking in which Respondents GOREE and COMES exercised equal authority, joint control, or right of control. The Respondents had a community of interest in the performance of the contract with the association. Respondents GOREE and COMES were familiar with what was required of each of them under the verbal joint venture agreement as they had conducted business in the same manner over an extended period of time on several projects. On May 10, 1985, Respondent GOREE applied for and received a building permit for the reroofing of Building "C" at Island Condominiums. During the removal of the built-up roof, GOREE observed "an absolute mess and disaster." The roof had been patched in various ways on numerous occasions. GOREE observed a few "T nails" in a piece of metal stripping picked up with shovels on the roof. The "T nails" discovered were the type which are shot into materials from a nail gun. (See GOREE Exhibit #2) They are not used to secure plywood on a deck because of their short length. Another "T nail," such as GOREE's Exhibit 2, was found by GOREE lying on the area of the roof by the air conditioners. This area of the existing roof was not removed or disturbed during the reroofing process. In the application of his common sense and knowledge of good construction practices and in light of the material in which the "T nails' were located, Respondent GOREE was not put on notice that these "T nails" may have been used to fasten the plywood decking. The type of "T nail" which was used upon plywood roof decking a few years ago in Florida was longer, thicker, and shaped like an elongated wedge. (See GOREE Exhibit 4) None of the "T nails" formerly used for plywood decking were observed by GOREE on the roof. Once the built-up roof was removed, Respondent COMES acted within the terms of the joint venture agreement by applying the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system in full compliance with the specifications as set forth in the contract with Island Village Condominium Association. During the application of the system, COMES and his crew did not observe any conditions on the plywood decking which would alert them to the possibility of any future problems with the system. On May 17, 1985, Mr. Jim Peaks, an Inspector for Brevard County, completed a "dry in" inspection of the roof on Building "C" which had been requested by Respondent GOREE. Mr. Peaks placed a stop order on the project because the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system was not an approved product under the Southern Building Code which he believed was in effect in Brevard County on May 14, 1985. In actuality, the 1982 Standard Building Code was in effect at the time. Upon receipt of the stop order, Respondents COMES and GOREE went to the building department and met with Murray Schmidt, Mr. Peaks' supervisor. Mr. Schmidt had the authority to override Mr. Peaks' stop order. Mr. Schmidt, who was new to the county and his position, discussed the stop order with the Inspector. Mr. Peaks refused to remove his stop order because of the lack of code compliance. Mr. Schmidt verbally allowed the Respondents GORE and COMES to continue to work on the roof. Mr. Peaks was told to investigate the roofing system with the Southern Building Code Conference in Birmingham, Alabama. The Respondents were not notified again as to the status of the stop order, one way or the other. Because the Respondents had been told to continue the work on the roof by Mr. Schmidt, who had the authority to override stop orders, the Respondents reasonably assumed that a stop order was no longer in effect. In fact, the permit had the notation "See Murray" on it after the stop order notation. Upon completion of the project, Respondent COMES contacted the building department and requested a final inspection. In the usual course of dealing between contractors and the building department in Brevard County, a contractor is notified only if there is a problem with the project which needs correction before final approval. Neither COMES or GOREE received notification of a problem. Another recognized, usual course of dealing between a contractor and the building department is that the department notifies an owner or the contractor if a six month permit has expired and a final inspection has not been completed. GOREE was not notified of any permit expiration in this case. Again, the Respondents were given the impression by the inactivity in the building department that business was being conducted in the usual manner. The Respondents believed, based upon past and ongoing dealings with the department, that all of their obligations had been met on the reroofing project. On May 28, 1985, the final payment was received from Island Village Condominium Association and a limited warranty was issued in both Respondents' company names, pursuant to the contract with the association. Shortly after completing the job on Building "C," Respondent COMES was called to repair leaks in the new roof. COMES responded promptly and courteously, and placed the blame for the leakage on various factors such as: (1) The short "T" fasteners had begun popping through the Neoprene/Hypalon and destroyed its ability to prevent water penetration. (2) The roof had an inadequate drain system. (3) The plywood deck was bowed in a concave fashion due to the years of improper weight and excess water on the roof. During a meeting with the board of directors of the association requested by COMES, COMES offered to put on a new roof if the board would install sump pumps to remove standing water. The board rejected COMES offer and authorized the condominium property manager to seek other solutions. The Respondents were not contacted by the board again concerning alternative solutions to the problem. In June of 1986, Mr. Rex Lahr, the condominium property manager, began a review of the roof situation. After consulting with Mr. Tom Butler of the county building department, Mr. Lahr decided that an architect needed to be retained by the association to determine whether a structural deficiency or the new roofing system caused the leaks in the roof. An architect was not hired by the association. A traditional, built- up roof was applied over the Neoprene/Hypalon roofing system. In the application of the new roof, the drainage system was redone and the flat roof was given pitch, thereby redesigning the roof as well. Mr. Robert B. Hilson, who was tendered as an expert witness in the case, opined that the Respondents COMES and GOREE failed to properly determine whether the roof deck was in a condition to accept the Neoprene/Hypalon system. Mr. Robert H. Adams, who was tendered as an expert witness in the case, opined that the leaks which developed soon after the application of the Neoprene/Hypalon system indicated that the deck was not in a condition to accept the system. Although there is some basis in fact for the opinions rendered by the two experts, their opinions must be rejected for the following reasons: (1) The experts did not personally observe the building, nor was a determination made which would exclude the possibility that the roofing system failed as a result of structural or design defects. (2) There is ample evidence in the case to support a finding that the leaks were caused by structural or design defects, as well as latent defects not readily observable to the Respondents at the time the roofing system was applied, and outside the terms of the reroofing contract. Some examples of evidence which support a finding that the leaks were caused by structural or design defects are: (1) Mrs. Delores Hammels' testimony that all six buildings had to be reroofed as they all leaked periodically throughout their 12 years of existence; (2) the redesign of the drainage system and the placement of a pitch on the roof by Mr. Roush; (3) the testimony and sketch submitted by Respondent GOREE (GOREE Exhibit #5) which shows that an identical building with a pitch on the roof allows the drainage system, including the internal hidden piping system, to work correctly. The effective redesign of the roof by Mr. Roush confirms this theory as much as, or more than, Mr. Robert H. Adams' theory that the deck was not in a condition to accept the Neoprene/Hypalon system.
The Issue The issues are based upon an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Phillip E. Sheffield, Respondent. In particular, Respondent is said to have violated the building code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida by failing to obtain a building permit before commencing construction work related to a roofing project and building the roof to a slope that was contrary to that local building code. For violations of the City of Jacksonville building code, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willful or deliberate violation and disregard for the applicable building code of the municipality. Finally, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes by failing to subcontract roofing work.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a licensed specialty contractor in the State of Florida. He holds license number RX 0034241. He holds this license in his personal name. He does business as Rex Hawley Aluminum Contractor, of which he is the sole proprietor. He is not the qualifying agent for this entity. He is licensed in Pasco County, Florida, as a registered aluminum specialty contractor only. Respondent entered the aluminum contracting business in 1973. At that time, he bought shares in his brother-in-law's business, Dun-rite, Inc., which was then engaged in aluminum contracting. Respondent is one of 70 directors of the board of the Aluminum Association of Florida, which consists of 3000 members. He is the Secretary and Treasurer, as well as chair of the Code and Compliance Committee, of the Pasco County and Hernando County chapters of this trade association. From time to time, Herbert Wade ("Skip") Hunter works as an independent contractor for Respondent. Mr. Hunter initially met with Joyce E. Hamer in September, 1986, to begin negotiations concerning improvements to her mobile home in Pasco County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hunter acted as a duly authorized agent for Respondent when dealing with Ms. Hamer; however, Mr. Hunter had apparent but not actual authority to enter into a contract, on Respondent's behalf, to re-roof Ms. Hamer's mobile home with shingles. Mr. Hunter eventually submitted to Ms. Hamer a written proposal for the job. The proposal called for, among other things, a panel or pan roof, which is made of aluminum. Ms. Hamer never acted on this proposal. After several months, Mr. Hunter concluded that Ms. Hamer had no interest in the proposal that he had made. In February, 1987, Ms. Hamer contacted Mr. Hunter and expressed interest in the improvements that they had earlier discussed. Negotiations soon resulted in a new written proposal, which Ms. Hamer accepted on February 14, 1987. The new proposal differed from the old one in that, among other things, it called for a shingle roof rather than the more expensive pan roof. This provision was consistent with Ms. Hamer's concern during negotiations over the price of the job. Respondent had never met or communicated with Ms. Hamer prior to her acceptance of the second proposal. He was unaware that Mr. Hunter had proposed a shingle roof until Mr. Hunter returned to the office with the contract, which by that time had been signed by both parties. The contract was signed on February 14, 1987, which was a Saturday. On the following Monday or Tuesday, February 16 or 17, 1987, Respondent visited Ms. Hamer for the purpose of discussing her choice of roof. The parties disagree as to what was said during this discussion. Ms. Hamer testified that she had left the choice of roof to Mr. Hunter and that he selected shingles. Her testimony was unclear as to the purpose of Respondent's visit, although she implied that it was in preparation for the commencement of construction. Respondent testified that when he learned from Mr. Hunter that he had agreed to re-roof with shingles, Respondent told Mr. Hunter that they could not do such work. Respondent testified that he visited Ms. Hamer expressly for the purpose of convincing her that she should select a pan roof instead of shingles. Ms. Hamer's testimony is not credible on the selection of roofing materials. Her finances were tight. The job could not begin until she received a bank loan for the improvements. She had borrowed just enough to cover the improvements. The pan roof cost $2000 more than the shingle roof. Ms. Hamer naturally would have preferred the less expensive shingle roof, especially given her expressed preference for the appearance of shingles. On the other hand, Respondent's interests were better served by the installation of the more expensive pan roof, which he could do with his built-in profit margin. Respondent believed that he could not lawfully perform the shingle re-roofing job. Based on these facts, as well as the relative demeanor and credibility of the parties, as set forth below, the greater weight of the evidence supports Respondent's version that he tried to convince Ms. Hamer to agree to a pan roof, but was unsuccessful. Ms. Hamer had not lived in the subject mobile home at any time material hereto. When she first met Mr. Hunter, she was living with her elderly and infirm mother in a mobile home next door to the subject mobile home. Ms. Hamer desired the improvements so that she and her mother could move into Ms. Hamer's mobile home. Ms. Hamer testified that her mobile home was in habitable condition at the time of the negotiations. She expressly testified that the roof did not leak prior to the work performed by Respondent, although, after repeated questioning on this point, she admitted on cross examination that one wall in the bedroom had a single spot showing water damage prior to February, 1987. Respondent and Mr. Hunter disputed Ms. Hamer's testimony in this regard. They testified that the roof over the back bedroom showed evidence of serious leaking prior to the commencement of work. Mr. Hunter testified that the day that Ms. Hamer signed the contract they went into the back bedroom and discussed the water leakage from the roof and wall. He noted that the carpet was soaked and there were water stains on the ceiling. He also saw a plastic sheet on the bed. Respondent testified to seeing the same conditions later, but prior to the commencement of work. Respondent testified that the window frame in the bedroom was rotten. This conflict in testimony must also be resolved in favor of Respondent. Part of the reason is Ms. Hamer's demeanor and general credibility as a witness, as set forth below. In addition, Ms. Hamer testified reluctantly to any prior water damage in her bedroom. Although appearing to understand the questions, she tried on three or more occasions to avoid testifying to preexisting water damage to the wall. Ms. Hamer testified that she replaced the roof because it was seven years old and she wanted to coordinate it with the rest of the addition. She testified that when she first bought the mobile home she intended to replace the roof when it wore out with one of a lighter color in order to lower her cooling bills. She felt that seven years was the life expectancy of the roof. Respondent disputed whether the new shingles were lighter in color than the old shingles. Given her tight financial situation, Ms. Hamer probably would not have replaced the roof until it was necessary to do so--that is, when it began leaking. It is less likely that she would have prematurely replaced a serviceable roof merely for the sake of appearances or marginal savings on her cooling bills. On the other hand, Mr. Hunter's credibility on the issue of preexisting water damage was enhanced when he testified frankly on cross examination that he did not notice, prior to the re-roofing, all of the damage depicted in Petitioner's photographs. If he were lying, he would presumably have seized the opportunity to embellish the extent of preexisting interior damage. The work commenced as soon as Ms. Hamer received her loan proceeds, which was a few days after she signed the contract. The loan itself was based on an appraisal that was performed on January 22, 1987, and delivered on February 2, 1987. The appraisal found the value of the proposed improvements to be $17,399, which is considerably in excess of the $15,754 price of the first proposal (which included the pan roof) or the $13,895 price of the accepted proposal. Assuming that Ms. Hamer did not obtain the appraisal on the basis of the older proposal, the fair market value of the work performed by Respondent was about $3500 more than he charged her. On February 16, 1987, Kustom Koncrete applied for and received a building permit for the concrete work, which included the screened enclosure floor, a ramp to the carport, a carport floor, and the driveway. On February 18, 1987, C & H Jordan applied for and received a building permit for the electrical work. On February 25, 1987, Southern Pools applied for and received a building permit for the installation of the pre-plumbed spa. On the same date, Dun-Rite, Inc. applied for and received a building permit for the addition of screen walls. Dun-Rite, Inc. is the name that the Pasco County Building Department used for Respondent when issuing building permits. Respondent did not mark up any of the subcontractors' invoices in order to make a profit on their labor and materials. When inspecting the concrete foundation laid by Kustom Koncrete on February 18, 1987, Mr. Roger Groover, a building inspector for the Pasco County Building Department, noticed re-roofing activity for which no permit had been issued. He immediately issued a stop-work order. Respondent then applied for a building permit on Ms. Hamer's behalf, using a letter dated February 17, 1987, in which she had appointed him as her agent to obtain a permit to install shingles on her home. On February 18, 1987, a building permit for re-roofing was issued showing that the owner was the contractor. The testimony is in conflict concerning the circumstances surrounding the original re-roofing job. The dispute arises over what was agreed to at the meeting between Respondent and Ms. Hamer on February 16 or 17, 1987. Respondent testified that when he was unsuccessful in persuading Ms. Hamer to agree to a pan roof, even after he offered to do the work at his cost, he told her that he could not do the work. However, he testified that he agreed to obtain the shingles for Ms. Hamer and deliver them to the work site, but they would be installed by laborers who, although normally working for Respondent, would be working for her and not him. Consistent with Respondent's version, it was during this visit that Ms. Hamer signed the above-described February 17 letter. Respondent testified that he warned Ms. Hamer at that time that he would not be responsible for the roof. Respondent testified that he agreed to pay for the labor and materials on Ms. Hamer's behalf and then back out the amount of these payments from the contract price. Ms. Hamer disputed all of Respondent's testimony on this point. This dispute in critical testimony is the most difficult to resolve. Respondent's version lacks any internal inconsistencies. It is therefore necessary to rely upon the demeanor of the witnesses and their general credibility. Respondent and Mr. Hunter were frank and straightforward in their testimony. Not all of their testimony placed Respondent in the most favorable light and they recognized this fact. Ms. Hamer, by way of contrast, was evasive. Her answers frequently failed to respond to the question, even after warning. She contradicted herself many times in her own testimony. For instance, she testified unequivocally that Respondent was present when the contract was signed, then testified that he was not. She testified that she had not met Respondent prior to the signing of the contract, then testified that she had. She testified that she had not spoken with Respondent in the last eight months before the hearing, then testified that she had spoken with him within a couple of months prior to the hearing. Ms. Hamer's credibility was also damaged by her unsuccessful attempt to impose upon Respondent the responsibility for paying two invoices from Suburban Propane. Ms. Hamer produced these invoices from a carefully maintained notebook that she brought with her to the hearing. She testified that Respondent improperly failed to pay these bills. Upon further examination of the witness, it became clear that one of these items was for the filling of the tank that provided the fuel to heat her spa--an item for which Respondent was clearly not responsible. After much evasion, Ms. Hamer finally admitted that the second invoice was not to purchase the original propane tank but to replace it with a larger tank. Ms. Hamer's earlier testimony regarding Respondent's unsatisfied responsibilities as to these invoices appears to have been offered with either reckless indifference or conscious disregard to the facts. For these reasons, I expressly find Respondent's version of the facts in Paragraph 18 to be true. The re-roofing began on February 17, 1987, and was completed a few days later. There was no rain for the next six weeks. Although all the other work was completed during the greater portion of this time, Ms. Hamer did not move into the mobile home and offered no reason as to why she did not. One likely inference, given the circumstances, is that the interior had suffered such damage prior to the work that the mobile home was uninhabitable. When it finally rained on March 28, 1987, the roof leaked extensively. After several complaints from Ms. Hamer, Respondent contracted with Rathel's Roofing to re-roof the mobile home at Respondent's expense. Respondent paid Rathel's Roofing $1400 for the new roof. The re-roofing was accomplished on or about April 29, 1987. Ms. Hamer testified that there continues to be some leakage between the screened room and the main portion of the mobile home However, no evidence established the extent of this problem or that it was the responsibility of Respondent rather than the roofer, whom Ms. Hamer testified did all that she asked to be done. Mr. Hunter, who also works as a sales agent for one or more pool contractors in Pasco County, testified that it is the practice in Pasco County for a pool contractor to enter into a contract with a customer for the construction of a pool and then to enter into subcontracts with electrical and plumbing subcontractors for the electrical and plumbing work. Respondent testified that pool contractors in Pasco County and throughout the state customarily contract to build screened enclosures, even though not licensed to do so, and then subcontract the construction of the enclosure an aluminum contractor such as himself.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's name is Troy Griffin. The Respondent is now and was at all times relevant to the pending Administrative Complaint, a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0030688. The Respondent is not now and at no time material to the pending Administrative Complaint was the Respondent a certified or registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida. At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, the Respondent's license #RR 0030688 qualified Griffin Remodeling & Repairs, Jacksonville, Florida. In June 1978 the Respondent d/b/a Griffin Remodeling and Repairs contracted to repair the residence of June Moody, Jacksonville, Florida. The contracting work included work upon the Moody's built-up roof, which Respondent re-roofed pursuant to contract. Respondent built up the roof with more than one layer of felt in 1978. These layers were discovered by the city's inspector in 1982. Respondent returned in 1978 and patched the roof he installed. These patches were seen by the city's inspector in 1982. The owner, Moody, did not complain of leaks in 1982. There was no evidence of leaks in 1982. A roof poorly installed without sufficient tar and felt will leak within the time that has passed between 1978 and 1982. See inspector's testimony in response to Hearing Officer's question. Moody's home was a single family, one story residence. No evidence was received regarding whether the City of Jacksonville requires examinations of roofing contractors prior to their certification.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent did not commit the alleged violations, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed and no action be taken. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Buildina 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Troy Griffin 7443 Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Direetor Department of Professional -I Regulation. Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
