The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, set forth in an Administrative Complaint signed May 19, 1987. At the hearing the Respondent stipulated to several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Thereafter, the Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered five exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. The Respondent did not testify on her own behalf, but did present the testimony of one witness. The Respondent did not offer any exhibits in evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given 20 days from the date of the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed on October 15, 1987, and the Petitioner thereafter filed a timely proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As of the date of this recommended order, the Respondent has not filed a proposed recommended order nor any other document containing proposed findings of fact. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing I make the following findings of fact. Stipulated findings At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent held license number RC 0060128 issued by said Board. The Respondent's address of record is in Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent did, through the contracting business Respondent was then associated with and responsible for in her capacity as a licensed contractor, contract with Darryl Debow, hereinafter referred to as the "Customer," to perform certain contracting work for the Customer. The details of the contracted work were generally as follows. The contract was entered into on or about April of 1986. The contract price was $5,900.00. The job was located in St. Augustine, Florida. The job generally consisted of repairing the roof of the Customer's commercial buildings. After entering into the contract, the Respondent's contracting business began work on the job. The rest of the facts The Respondent's business began work on the job described above without obtaining a permit for said work from the local building department and without assuring that someone else had obtained a permit for the work. There was no permit posted on the job site when Respondent's business began the job. The Respondent did not ask the local building department to inspect the work done on the subject contract. The Respondent was not licensed as a roofing contractor in St. Johns County, Florida, at any time from the beginning of 1985 until the day of the hearing. At all times material to this case, the applicable building code required permits for roofing work.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the violations charged in subparagraphs (b) and (c), of paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 1st day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2672 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is a proposed conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding. Paragraphs 2 through 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted in part and rejected in part. Accepted that no inspection by the local building department was requested. Portion which states such inspections were required is rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 9: Rejected as addressing matters which are not clearly placed in issue by the Administrative Complaint and which, in any event, are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Dorothy Homesley 35 Norde Drive, West Number 18 Jacksonville, Florida 32224 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, 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 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX 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 of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street 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.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Manuel Lanz graduated from the University of Illinois School of Architecture in December of 1971, with honors and high distinction in the area of design. He is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in the State of Florida. The architecture examination in Florida is composed of two parts. The written portion of the exam (Part B) is given in December, and petitioner passed this portion. The design and site portion of the exam (Part A) is given in June and consists of a twelve-hour sketch problem. Petitioner failed this portion of the examination in June of 1982, as he has done on two previous occasions. Part A of the examination is supplied to participating states by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and involves the design of a structure by an applicant, including requirements for placing the structure on the site, elevations, cross sections, and floor plans. Applicants are provided with a preexamination booklet which sets forth the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which are to be addressed in order to achieve a passing grade. At the time of the examination, the applicant is given other information to enable him to more adequately design the structure and perform the necessary technical adjustments. Each participating state sends a number of graders to an intense two- day grading session sponsored by the NCARB. The purpose, of such sessions is to standardize the graders' conceptions of the minimal competence required for a passing grade. Each examination is graded on a blind basis by at least two independent architect graders. If the two separate grades received, when considered together, do not result in a definite pass or fail, a third, and on some occasions a fourth, independent grader will review the applicant's solution. The project to be designed in the 1952 Site Planning and Design Test was a municipal airport terminal building in a small city in the northwest. Applicants were provided with information as to the applicable topography and climate of the area, code requirements, space requirements, site circulation requirements and the various areas to be included within the building. The candidates were required to provide a site plan, a ground level plan-north elevation; a second level plan and a cross-section of the facility. Petitioner's solution to the problem was weak in many areas. Service, baggage and aircraft traffic were co-mingled. Accessibility for handicapped persons was not addressed. His solution failed to comply with the applicable building code requirements with regard to the number of exits required, the location of stairs and a fire sprinkler system. Petitioner also failed to comply with the requirements regarding square footage. His exit doors swung in the wrong direction and there was no means of exit from the kitchen other than through the dining room of the restaurant. His cross-sectional failed to indicate the location of beams and ducts for heating and cooling. There was no indication in the solution that petitioner gave any consideration to the program requirements of natural ventilation or natural lighting, or that he made any provision for noise from the aircraft. The flat roof provided by the petitioner would not accommodate the precipitation experienced in the area as described in the program. While an effort was made by the petitioner to comply with the program requirements, he failed in several material areas and some minor areas to achieve sufficient clarity in his presentation and to observe program requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioner's application for licensure as an architect on the ground that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (304) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Silvio Lufriu, Esquire Suite 817 412 E. Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Herbert Coons Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a registered general contractor should be disciplined?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. His license is number RG 0001015. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has held license number RG 0001015. The Respondent has been in the construction business for 51 to 52 years. During the Fall of 1985, Mr. Edward J. Ashley discussed a construction project at Mr. and Mrs. Ashley's residence with the Respondent. The Ashley's residence is located at 2353 Hampshire Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Ashleys and the Respondent, on behalf of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc., agreed on the construction work to be performed and the price to be paid for the work. The agreement was memorialized on October 7, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal"), by the Respondent and presented to the Ashleys. Pursuant to the agreement between the Ashleys and the Respondent, Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc., was to construct a room addition to be used as a porch in the back of the existing residence, extend a master bedroom and bathroom, replace the tile in the bathroom, remove a partition between the kitchen and the living room and replace the existing roof with fiberglass shingles with a 20-year warranty. The Ashleys agreed to pay the Respondent's corporation $28,300.00 in consideration of the work to be performed. The Proposal presented to the Ashleys by the Respondent was never signed by the Ashleys but they did agree verbally to the work to be performed. The Ashleys and the Respondent agreed verbally that the construction price would be paid in two installments. One installment was to be made when half the construction was completed and the other half was to be paid when the construction was completed. The Ashleys made the first payment on December 5, 1985. The payment was for $14,000.00. Although the project was not completed, the Ashley's made a partial payment of $6,000.00 on January 10, 1986. The second payment was made earlier than agreed upon at the request of the Respondent. The Respondent told the Ashleys that the payment was needed so that the project, which was already late, could be completed. The Ashleys and the Respondent agreed verbally that the construction would be completed by December 15, 1985. Construction began at the Ashleys on November 14, 1985. On November 22, 1985, the concrete slab for the addition to the Ashley's home was poured in the morning. That afternoon a hurricane struck and rain associated with the hurricane washed away the top layer of concrete. The loss of the top layer of concrete caused the slab to be rough and uneven. It was especially unsightly in the area where the new room was being added as a porch. The Ashleys planned to leave this area uncovered. When they complained to the Respondent he told them not to worry, that he would take care of it. It was not repaired, however. The slab was also uneven in the bathroom and approximately 1 and 1/2 inches higher than the existing slab in the master bedroom. These problems were also not corrected. The area where the new slab joined the existing slab in the master bedroom was ground down but a bump still remains. The trusses of the addition to the residence were higher than the existing trusses. Although some of the problems associated with this problem were corrected, there remains a bump on the roof of the addition. The wall between the bathroom and the master bedroom did not match the existing wall. This problem was not corrected and is still visible. The Respondent filed an application for a building permit with the City of Tallahassee on November 12, 1985. The permit was issued on November 13, 1985. The Respondent was required to arrange slab, framing, and insulation inspections and a final inspection of the construction at the Ashley's residence. The Respondent had the slab inspection completed on November 19, 1985. The framing inspection was conducted on December 11, 1985, by Mr. Rackley. The construction did not pass this inspection because there was no "header" over one door and the ceiling joists were not adequately attached. It was the Respondent's responsibility to correct the problems found as a result of the framing inspection before proceeding with construction. The fact that the construction failed the framing inspection was noted on the copy of the building permit which is displayed at the construction site. Ms. Ashley was the only person present during the inspection other than the inspector. On December 17, 1985, Mr. Rackley saw the Respondent at a party and mentioned the door header and the failure of the residence to pass the framing inspection. The ceiling joists were not mentioned. At the time the framing inspection was completed, the construction was 40 to 50 percent complete. By letter dated February 12, 1986, Mr. Rackley asked the Respondent why the Respondent had not requested a re-inspection. The Respondent proceeded with construction without passing a framing inspection. Therefore, in the February 12, 1986 letter from Mr. Rackley the Respondent was directed to uncover the areas which had failed the inspection so that they could be re-inspected. The Respondent did not respond to Mr. Rackley's letter of February 12, 1986. Therefore, on February 24, 1986, the Respondent was contacted by Mr. Rackley by telephone. The Respondent agreed to open the areas necessary to complete the framing inspection. On February 26, 1986, the framing inspection was completed. An opening had to be cut in the existing roof for the inspection to be completed. The Respondent did not fail to arrange a re-inspection of the property in order to hide anything or cover-up improper work. The construction passed the insulation inspection. No final inspection of the construction has ever been requested or completed. As a part of the Respondent's agreement with the Ashleys, the Respondent was to remove the roof on the existing structure and cover it and the new roof with fiberglass shingles with a 20-year life. The shingles used by the Respondent were Temko shingles. Manufacturers of roofing materials generally recommend how to apply their products in writing. Therefore, Temko included instructions for the application of the shingles used by the Respondent. The instructions were written on the paper used to wrap the bundles of shingles. In order for the manufacturer's guarantee of the Temko shingles to be effective, the shingles must be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions. The Southern Building Code, which applies in Leon County, also requires that manufacturer's instructions be complied with. The following pertinent instruction, among others, was included with the shingles used on the Ashley's residence: LOW SLOPE APPLICATION: On pitches of 2" per foot to 4" per foot, provide a double underlayment of asphalt saturated felt by applying a 19" wide felt strip along the eaves and over this apply a full 36" wide sheet. Continue with full 36" wide sheets, lapping each 19" over the preceding course. If winter temperatures average 25 F or less, thoroughly cement the felt to each other with Temko plastic cement from eaves and rakes to a point a [sic] least 24" inside the inside wall line of the building. This instruction is consistent with roofing industry standards. The roof of the Ashley's residence pitches at 2" to 2 1/2" per foot. Therefore, the Respondent should have applied two layers of felt to the roof as specified in the "Low Slope Application" instruction. The Respondent's crew, however, only applied one layer of felt to the Ashley's roof. The instructions for the shingles also specified that each shingle be attached with four nails placed in a particular pattern. The Respondent's crew did not follow these instructions. Along the edges of the roof, the felt should have been cemented to the roof. It was not, however. Shingles placed in the valleys on the roof were not attached in any manner to the roof. The manner in which the roof was installed was incompetent. After the roof was placed on the Ashley's residence, water leaked in at several locations. The Respondent did not return the Ashley's telephone call. One of the Respondent's work crew when informed about the leaks told Mr. Ashley that the roof was not leaking; that it was blowing in from outside. Some of the problems with the roof were corrected by the Respondent. They were corrected, however, only after a building inspector was called in by the Ashleys. Even then, the leaks did not stop. The Ashleys subsequently paid another contractor $560.00 to correct problems with the roof. Throughout the period of time that the Respondent's crew worked at the Ashley's residence, whenever a problem arose, the Ashleys would be told not to worry about the problem; that it would be taken care of. Many of the problems, however, were not taken care of by the Respondent. Throughout the period of time that work was being performed at the Ashley's residence, there were numerous times when no one would perform any work at the Ashley's. Weeks would often go by without the Ashley's seeing the Respondent and without the Respondent's presence at the Ashley's. During the period that work was being performed at the Ashley's residence, there was a great deal of rain and the temperature dropped below 40 degrees. These weather conditions slowed progress on completing the job. These weather condition were not unique, however, and the Respondent admitted that he knew it rains and gets cold often during the period of time involved in this proceeding. One weather problem that the Respondent could not have reasonably foreseen was the hurricane which struck Tallahassee on November 22, 1985. As a result of damage to property caused by the hurricane, roofing and other materials were more difficult to obtain. Rain associated with the hurricane washed away the top layer of the concrete from the slab that was poured the day the hurricane struck. The Respondent checked with the weather service that morning. Based upon the projected weather, the hurricane was headed away from Tallahassee and rain was not expected until that afternoon. The concrete was poured in the morning and would have been dry before the afternoon. The weather forecast was incorrect, however, and the rain struck earlier than expected. After work had commenced on the Ashley's residence, the agreement was modified. The Respondent indicated that he could not do the tile work in the bathroom. Therefore, the agreed upon price for the project was reduced by $2,000.00. The Ashleys also had the Respondent perform other work not originally agreed upon; 2 skylights and a door were added and additional brick work was performed. These changes caused some delay in completion of the project. The evidence did not prove, however, that all of the delay was attributable to the changes in the work to be performed. Much of the delay was caused by the fact that the Respondent's crew simply did not show up to work at the Ashley's residence. The delays in completing construction at the Ashley's residence were on the whole not reasonable. Although days were lost because of weather conditions, including the hurricane, and changes in the work to be performed, the days that no work was performed were not reasonable or caused by these factors. The Respondent failed to properly supervise the work performed at the Ashley's residence. Although the Respondent indicated that he relied upon the men who worked for him, he was ultimately responsible for the proper completion of the project. The project was not completed and some of the work performed was not performed in a satisfactory manner. The Respondent was not allowed to complete the project. The Ashleys eventually got so fed up with the Respondent's failure to correct problems and to complete the project that they would not allow the Respondents onto the property. Sometime after 1981, the Respondent received forms from the Petitioner which could be used to register his contracting license in the name of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. He asked his former attorney to complete the forms for him. The forms were completed and placed in the Petitioner's mail. The Respondent's license has not been registered in the name of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. The Respondent believed that his license was being switched to the corporate name. He knew or should have known that the change had not been completed because he did not receive a copy of a license with the corporate name. The Respondent's license had previously been held in a corporate name. The heading of the Proposal indicates that it is a proposal of "Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc." The Proposal was signed by the Respondent and was also signed "Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. by Welton Smith." Mr. Ashley understood that the agreement he was entering into was with Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. The two payments made by the Ashleys were made by checks. The checks were made out to Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. The building permit on the Ashley's residence was applied for and issued in the name of Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc. Big Bend Builders Corp., Inc., was not qualified with the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d), (g), (j) and (m) and 489.119, Florida Statutes (1985). It is further RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $2,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2641 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been generally noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 and 2. 2 56. 3 4. 4 5. 5-6 6. 7 7. 8 18. 9-10 18 and 61. 11-12 10. 13 39 and 41. 13 The first sentence is hereby accepted. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. This state- ment was made to the Ashleys but in regard to the problems they had with their roof. 14 43. 15-16 44. 17 21. 18 21, 23 and 25. The building inspector informed the Respondent of the failed framing inspection on December 17, 1985, and not December 7, 1985. 19 28. 20 26. 21 33 and 34. 22 Hereby accepted. 23 37 and 38. 24-25 Hereby accepted. 26 38. 27 37. 28-29 39. 30 38-39 and 42. 31-35 Cummulative. 36-37 57. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. 2 2. 3 28 and 29. There was no "final inspection" performed on the project. There was a final framing inspection, however, that indicated that the work that originally failed the inspection had been performed correctly. 4-7 These proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47-48 and 50. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10-11 Hereby accepted. 12 62. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elwin Thrasher, Jr., Esquire 908 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
