Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C003076. This license was suspended on March 4, 1977, for three years, and was reinstated in March of 1980. On March 21, 1980, the Respondent became the qualifier for WWRS Enterprises, Inc. This corporation had been formed in 1978 by the Respondent and his partner, William Rymers, for the purpose of engaging in the general contracting business. Mr. Rymers became president of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and the Respondent acted as secretary, supervisor of construction, and manager of financial matters. Although the Respondent did not hold any direct stock ownership, his share of the corporate stock was registered in his wife's name. The Respondent knew that under the law WWRS Enterprises, Inc., needed to have a qualifying agent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and the Respondent and his partner discussed this subject. Since the Respondent's license was under suspension during 1978 and 1979, it was proposed that a Max Dunaway would become the qualifying agent for WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but the necessary paperwork to register him as qualifying agent for the company was never filed. Thus, until March of 1980, the company was not qualified to engage in general contracting. In November, 1979, the Respondent negotiated a contract on behalf of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., with Wilhelm Hackenberg and his wife, for the construction of an addition to their home in Ormond Beach, Florida. Since the Respondent's license was suspended, Max Dunaway pulled the building permit for the company, but the job was supervised by the Respondent, not Max Dunaway. WWRS Enterprises, Inc., was the contracting company to which at least one subcontractor submitted invoices, Mr. Dunaway's company, Southwide Builders, Inc., was not involved in this transaction. At least four construction jobs were performed by WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but only the Hackenberg job was identified by a precise time-frame during which the company had no qualifying agent. The Respondent does not challenge many of these facts. Instead, he contends that he never held any stock in WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and was only a managing employee of the company, not responsible for its policies. These contentions, however, are not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, and have been discounted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CG C003076 held by the Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21 day of May, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire May, 1981. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Neil Wayne Smith 14 Rain Tree Drive Port Orange, Florida 32019
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0031831. During the times of the alleged violations, the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for J & J Construction Company (the company.) The principals of the company were the Respondent and a man named James Jimenez. Both men sold jobs for the company and were responsible for overseeing some of the work of the company. The Respondent pulled permits for, and was primarily responsible for, the roofing work contracted by the company. But sometimes, when the company had more than one job going at the same time, the Respondent would be primarily responsible for overseeing one, and Jimenez would be primarily responsible for overseeing the other. The Respondent thought that Jimenez held a license of some kind that enabled him to do some kinds of minor renovation construction. The Respondent restricted his work to roofing and did not mind Jimenez doing some renovation work on the side, separate from the business of the company. But the Respondent understood that Jimenez' "side deals" would be done separately under Jimenez' own license and would not be part of the business of the company. On or about August 14, 1986, Jimenez entered into a contract on behalf of the company to build an addition, remodel and reroof the existing structure and roof the addition of the residence of Ernest and Mercedes Riccio located at 3117 West Henry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price was $18,999. Jimenez telephoned the Respondent about the job but only told him about the part of the contract that called for the existing roof to be torn off and reroofed. He told the Respondent that the contract price for the job was $3,800. The Respondent pulled a permit for what he thought was the job and started and finished what he thought was the work to be done. The Respondent personally was compensated approximately $700-$800 for his part in the reroofing job. When the Respondent was finished, Jimenez continued with the rest of the contract, which was to include roofing the addition, without telling the Respondent about it. Jimenez did not get very far before a Tampa building inspector happened past and, seeing unfamiliar work in process, inspected the job site. He discovered that the building permit displayed at the site had been altered to expand the work purportedly permitted to include building, in addition to the roofing work for which the Respondent had obtained a permit. Someone other than the Respondent (probably Jimenez although he denied it) altered the permit. The Respondent knew nothing about the contract (other than the reroofing that he did), the alteration of the permit, or the work Jimenez was doing after he left the site. When he discovered the permit violations, the building inspector "red- tagged" the entire job, and work stopped. That was only the beginning of the Riccios' problems. Further investigation revealed that the job would require not only a valid permit but also zoning variances and utility easements. Although the contract had called for the company to obtain all necessary permits, Jimenez and the Riccios agreed that the Riccios would apply for whatever else was necessary in their own names and that Jimenez would assist them. By the time work stopped, the Riccios already had paid the company $12,666 of the total contract price. Nonetheless, when Jimenez' minimal assistance did not resolve the Riccios' problems quickly, Jimenez decided that he already had put too much into the job, and he began to lose interest and make himself scarce. The Riccios finally got their necessary permits on January 26, 1987. They then approached Jimenez about the work to be done under the contract (and the matter of the remaining $6,333 draw). The Riccios and Jimenez agreed that the Riccios would provide the materials and supplies necessary to complete the work and the company would provide the labor. Despite these alternate arrangements, the company did not promptly finish the job. Eventually, the Riccios gave up on Jimenez and in April or May, 1987, began to deal directly with the company's former job superintendent, a man named Ray. To improve their chances of getting the job done (and reduce some of their extra expenses), the Riccios agreed to allow Ray to live in the house free of charge while they were doing the work. The job still did not get finished. Eventually, Mrs. Riccio and some of her relatives finished the job themselves. Even so, the Riccios wound up spending about $20,000, in addition to the $12,666 they had paid the company, to complete the job which the company had contracted to do for $18,999, total. The Respondent was not aware of any of Jimenez' dealings with the Riccios after the Respondent completed his reroofing work. The Respondent assumed that Jimenez had called for a final inspection and that the job had been completed satisfactorily. But in approximately February or March, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by a DPR investigator in connection with the Riccios' complaint against the company. He learned at about that time about Jimenez' other dealings with the Riccios. He also learned that the roof over the addition that had been built had failed inspection. The Respondent eventually corrected the deficiencies, and the roof passed final inspection on August 19, 1987. The Respondent attempts to excuse himself of any wrongdoing, saying that he had a right to delegate the supervision of jobs such as the Riccio job to Jimenez and that he himself was victimized by Jimenez, along with the Riccios. Respondent nonetheless negotiated with Jimenez through the end of the year 1987 in an attempt to come to an agreement to continue to do business together, but the negotiations finally failed. The Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 7, 1988, for offenses which occurred during the same time frame in which the Riccio job took place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald F. Royal, pro se 8509 North 16 Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent John G. Gordon, Jr. was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor by License No. RC-0032501, first issued to Respondent, qualifying as an individual in 1978 and continually renewed as such since then. On June 4, 1981, Respondent was called by Ms. Allene S. Gilbert to give her an estimate on re-roofing the two flat portions of her house roof. When he went to the house, he went up on the roof by himself to look and, when he came down, he gave her an estimate of $1,400 to re-roof the two flat sections on either side of the gabled center section. He did not then, or any time thereafter, prior to doing the work, indicate there was anything wrong with the siding which connected down from the gabled roof to the flat roof. After making his inspection and giving the estimate which Ms. Gilbert accepted, he entered into an oral contract with her which, when reduced to unsigned memo form, provided that he would tear off the old roof down to the deck and replace it with a 15-year built up roof consisting of a total of five layers. He also agreed to replace the rock and all metal around the edges of the house. He specifically stated that the work he did, both materials and his workmanship, was guaranteed for 15 years against leaks. Respondent indicates he found that the metal flashing along the side of the house where the flat roof joins the siding was rusted out and he replaced it. He contends that this rust was due to the deteriorated (rotten) condition of the lap siding above the flat roof which allowed water to get in behind the flashing. In any case, during the first rain after the completion of the work, the preexisting leaks in the bedroom which prompted the roof replacement were worse and additional leaks developed inside the house. The leakage was so severe, the bathroom ceiling caved in. Ms. Gilbert called Respondent many times to get him to come out and repair the leaks, but never was able to speak with him personally. Each time she called, she would leave a message with whomever answered the phone, requesting that he come out or call, and was assured that these messages were getting relayed to Respondent, but he never returned any call and, to the best of her knowledge, he never came to her house again. However, she works during the day and would not know if he was there or not. No neighbor told her they saw someone there, and she received no note or other indication that the Respondent had come. Respondent admits that having once responded to her earlier call and seeing that the leaking was caused by the condition of the siding for which he was not responsible and about which he had previously done nothing, he was satisfied that his work was done properly and he did not call back or ever respond to any of Ms. Gilbert's other calls. He contends that the problem was not caused by him or a part of the work he had done. Therefore, he was not responsible for it. Ms. Gilbert contends, after trying to get Respondent to honor his guarantee for six months, she gave up and had someone else to do the job. The leaks are now repaired and the siding which Respondent stated was rotten, though painted once since then, has not been replaced or repaired. Respondent having entered into the contract with Ms. Gilbert, began and completed the entire project without either (1) having an occupational license as required by Section 14-39, Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach; or, (2) securing a permit for the repair as required by Section 106.1, Standard Building Code, incorporated into the Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $250 and that he be placed on probation for six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John G. Gordon Post Office Box 498 Destine, Florida 32541 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Pedro P. Landera, was a certified general contractor having been issued license number CG C005371 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), in March 1973. In January 1986 the license was suspended by the Board for three years and, except for the charges pending in this proceeding, Landera would be eligible to have it reactivated in early 1989. Thus, Landera has been without authority to use his license for the last three years. Landera did not contest the Board's suspension action and, in a settlement stipulation, admitted he violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (m), Florida Statutes (1981), by certain conduct taken in December 1983. On August 11, 1986, an individual using the name of James Burke entered into a construction contract with Charlie E. Mincey, the owner of Charlie Tires Service, 1700 N. W. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. The contract, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4, called for Burke, "in a timely manner," to make the following additions to Mincey's tire shop: construct a 34' X 40' room onto the existing building, erect an aluminum shed across the front of the building, including a four foot concrete slab floor, and add a five foot wall across the back side of the building. Burke represented on the contract that he held license number 254514-4. However, a search of the Board's records revealed Burke held no state license. The total price for the work was $15,650. On August 13, Mincey paid Burke $3,000 as a down payment on the job. According to Mincey, Burke began work on the additions several weeks after the contract was executed and continued to do so on and off for a few months. Eventually, a concrete block wall for the 34' x 40' room was built, but it had no roof, windows, doors, electric wiring, plumbing or paint. The aluminum shed was never built nor did Burke construct a five foot wall at the rear of the building as required by the contract. During October and early November 1986 Mincey made additional payments to Burke in the amount of $3,175, 1,000, $500, $400, $300, $300, and $40. This made a total of $8,715 paid by Mincey to Burke. Despite these payments, several subcontractors came to the job site during the same time period to unload materials but requested payment from Mincey before they would release them. Mincey paid the subcontractors $2,593.64, as evidenced by receipts received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. When Burke did not return to the job site, and the project was still far from completed, Mincey attempted to contact Burke but could not find him. When he left the job site for the final time, Burke gave Mincey no notice of his intention to leave the job unfinished or any reason for doing so. Burke's whereabouts are still unknown, and there is now pending an outstanding warrant for his arrest. On September 30, 1986, a building permit application was filed with the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department seeking a permit for work to be done on Mincey's business. The application was filled out with three different colors of ink and in more than one person's handwriting. A carbon copy of the application has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9. The document was authenticated by a permit clerk of the Metropolitan Dade building and zoning department who identified the cashier's validation stamp, issuance date and permit number affixed to the document, all being indicia that the application was received and processed by that department. Further, the clerk attested to the fact that the carbon copy was a document normally kept in the regular course of business by her department. The application carries the signature, license number and social security number of respondent. The authenticity of respondent's signature was confirmed by a questioned document examiner whose testimony has been accepted as being credible and persuasive and was corroborated by respondent's own admission that the signature was his own. The author of the remaining writings on the document is unknown. Pursuant to the above application, a building permit was issued on October 1, 1986, for the work performed by Burke. The inspection record, which has been received as petitioner's exhibit 8, reflected that the job site was inspected by a Dade County inspector on October 1 and November 12, 1986. Also, the inspection record reflected that Gila Construction Company (GCC) was the contractor on the job. GCC is a Miami firm that Landera qualified in March 1984. Its owner is Gilbert Castillo. Mincey's building remains unfinished as of this date, and he contends the value of the work is less than the $11,308 that he paid to Burke and the subcontractors. In attempting to resolve the matter, Mincey learned that Landera's license number was on the permit application, and a complaint was eventually filed with the Board. However, prior to hearing, Mincey had never seen or talked to Landera, knew nothing of GCC, and considered the business transaction to be between he and Burke. Landera denied knowing Burke or authorizing him to use his license. Also, he maintained that he has not used his suspended license since the Board's action in early 1986. He denied signing the application in question and had no explanation as to how his signature got on the application except to suggest that someone may have obtained one with his signature and then fraudulently used the same to obtain a permit. Even so, there was no reason for Landera to sign an application during this period of time since his license was under suspension. Castillo, who owns GCC, denied knowing Burke or Mincey or having any knowledge of or participation in the Mincey job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law, that he pay a $3,500 fine, and that his license be suspended until January, 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 3. and 5. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 1. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 5. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 5. 4-5. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 2, 5 and 6. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 9. Covered in finding of fact 6. 9 Covered in findings of fact 9 and 10 COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis F. DeLaCruz, Jr., Esquire 300 Sevilla Avenue Suite 313 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carl F. Doyle, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, is licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB C015518 in the State of Florida. At all times material to this action the Respondent was licensed, and his address of record is Palm Harbor, Florida. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was and is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent has never been the qualifying agent for Plantara Building Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Plantara. Janet Lee Valente was the qualifying agent for Plantara from December 1986 until October 1987. Respondent is and was the registered agent and director for Plantara at all times material to this action. Respondent negotiated the construction contract between Plantara and Jackie Evans and her daughter, Michelle Renee Evans. Respondent's license number was used to obtain the building permit for the Evans' home. The Evans and Plantara entered a contract to construct a new home in Pinellas County on March 29, 1986. In August 1986, construction of the Evans home began. Mrs. Jackie Evans noted a discrepancy in the plumbing which was corrected prior to pouring the slab. The plumbing discrepancy related to changes in the kitchen and bathroom requested by Mrs. Evans. Mrs. Evans had presented her request for changes to Respondent in March 1986. As construction proceeded, Mrs. Evans noted that her kitchen had a wall where an "island" should be. This was not corrected. A tub was put in the master bathroom and had to be removed because Mrs. Evans had requested a shower. In May of 1987, Mrs. Evans "closed" on the house but submitted to Respondent a list of several items to be repaired or completed. Plantara had access to Mrs. Evans home to complete the job but would often not keep appointments as scheduled. Prior to closing on her home in May 1987, Mrs. Evans had advised Plantara of items she desired to be corrected. After the May 1987 closing on the home, Mrs. Evans wrote Plantara again regarding items to be corrected or finished on her home. The gas dryer vent terminated in the attic, and not through the roof; a leak in the fireplace and the reversal of hot and cold water in the guest bathroom were three of the items to be corrected. Plantara corrected the problem with the water in the guest bath, a code violation, immediately. However, they failed to correct the gas dryer venting violation. As of the date of the hearing, there were numerous items still not corrected or repaired by Plantara. However, Mrs. Evans and Plantara reached a monetary settlement in April 1989 in which Plantara waived its claim of $5,000 under the contract in exchange for the Evans' release from liability. A letter of commitment for FHA financing was not received until December 23, 1986. The home received a certificate of occupancy on February 24, 1987. (T. pg. 20). There were numerous items to be corrected as of the closing date in May 1987 and as of the hearing date there remained items from the "list" which had not been corrected and/or repaired. Larry Wilson, Pinellas County Department of Consumer Affairs, observed leaks in the fireplace, uneven tile in the bathroom shower, closet doors not fitting properly, sloppy painting, bedroom windows not closing properly, siding loose, and patio concrete cracked when he inspected the home in November, 1987. Mr. Wilson stated that Mrs. Evans complaints were legitimate. Mr. Jerry Hicks, an expert in construction practices in Florida, testified that a "punchlist" such as Mrs. Evans list is usually completed within 30 days or sooner after the "closing" The contractor is responsible to complete the punchlist as the contractor is "charged with supervising the work.' Mr. Hicks opined that Respondent should have immediately responded to the problem with the dryer vent. In fact, when Mrs. Evans contacted the subcontractor, the problem was immediately corrected by the subcontractor. This indicates that Respondent had exercised little supervision over the subcontractors. (T. pg. 104, 116). Respondent had from February 1987 (the date of the certificate of occupancy) until May 1987 (the date of the "closing") to correct the punchlist. Respondent was unresponsive to the customer, and was not reasonably timely in completion of the punchlist. Respondent did not supervise the job as industry standards require. Respondent has been previously disciplined twice by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent offered in mitigation that the job was undertaken as a "favor" to the Evans and therefore they should have expected low priority treatment. However, as a mitigation gesture, the Respondent waived his right to receipt of the remaining $5,000 payment from the property owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and 489.119, Florida Statutes by failing to qualify a firm and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Rule 21E-17.001(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by gross negligence and misconduct in the practice of contracting which caused monetary or other harm to licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $1,500, and that his contractor's license be suspended for three (3) months. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1166 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,4,15,16,17,18,19 (1st sentence), 20, 22,23,24,25,26,27 (in part), 29 are accepted, except as is irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 21, 28 are not supported by the evidence Paragraph 27 (in part is rejected as a conclusion of law. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraph 1 and 3 accepted and incorporated in findings Paragraph 2 rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 accepted in part as grounds for mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Carl F. Doyle 5 Stiles Lane Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32301 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Did respondent fail to properly supervise, direct and manage the contracting activities of the business of which he is the qualifier, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against respondent's contracting license?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the respondent was a certified building contractor licensed by the State of Florida and the qualifying agent for Custom Concrete of Naples, Inc. (Custom Concrete). Rodney Velez was the president of Custom Concrete and licensed only in concrete--concrete forming, placing and finishing. Susan Velez, Rodney Velez's wife, was an officer of Custom Concrete. On April 23, 1983, Custom Concrete, by and through Rodney Velez, entered into a contract with Mark and Penny Paterson to construct a home for $38,550.00. Mrs. Paterson had previously met Rodney Velez in the course of her work, and Velez had told her that he was a builder. Mrs. Paterson had suggested that Velez look at a floor plan that she and her husband had, and after certain negotiations, including a change of floor plan, the contract was entered into. During the course of the negotiations Mrs. Paterson never talked to the respondent and was unaware that the respondent was involved or would be involved in the construction of the home. Mrs. Paterson believed that Rodney Velez was the "builder"; however, the construction of the Paterson home was beyond the scope of Velez's concrete license. The respondent signed the application to secure the building permit for the Paterson residence, although he did not personally appear to procure the building permit. The clerk of the contractor's licensing section of the building code compliance department relied on the signature on the application because it was notarized. The notary was Susan Velez. Respondent did not supervise or direct the construction of the Paterson home. Neal Jackson, president of the company who did the electric work on the home, was unaware that respondent was involved in the project until well after the house was finished. Although it is usual for a supervisor or superintendent to be at the job site some of the time, Jackson never saw the respondent or Velez at the job site. Jeff Allain, the carpenter who did the framing and certain other work, was on the job site five or six days and saw the respondent once during the framing of the structure "just generally looking around." The respondent didn't say anything to Allain. David Isom did drywall work on the house. He had no contact with the respondent and did not see him at the construction site. Mrs. Paterson went by the construction site quite often and realized that the job was not being properly supervised. Velez was rarely there, and Mrs. Paterson never saw the respondent. The workmen on the site would ask the Patersons when Velez would be there because they had questions concerning the work. Neither of the building inspectors saw anyone supervising at the job site, although usually no one is at the job site when an inspection is made. Two days after the Patersons moved into their house, they compiled a "punch list" of the items that needed to be completed or corrected. The list was given to Velez, but the work was not corrected to the Paterson's satisfaction. Although Velez did not give the "punch list" to respondent, Velez discussed the problems with the respondent. Respondent did not take any steps to remedy the problems and said he thought "a lot of it was nonsense." Velez told respondent that he, Velez, would take care of it. Because of the unresolved problems with the house, Mrs. Paterson finally called the licensing board to file a complaint against Rodney Velez. At that time, she was informed that Rodney Velez was not the contractor; the contractor was the respondent. This was the first time that Mrs. Paterson was aware that the respondent was involved with the construction of the house. All of the Patersons dealings had been with Velez, and all checks for construction payments were made out to Velez personally. 2/ Even though the Patersons had not received satisfaction from Custom Concrete for the problems with the house, they signed the closing papers because Velez threatened to evict them. At closing the Patersons received a lien release from Custom Concrete which released all work prior to March 9, 1984. Subsequently, Velez filed a claim of lien against the Paterson property for work completed on February 9, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000.00, and that his license be suspended for 60 days from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 30th day of January, 1985.
