The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is a building contractor. He obtained his license (License Number CB C028158) to engage in the contracting business in the State of Florida in 1984. Respondent's license expired on August 31, 1996, without Respondent having made any effort to renew it. On September 1, 1996, the Department placed Respondent's license on "a delinquent status for non-renewal." 5/ It considers the license to be invalid for the 1996-98 licensing period. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for Loma Linda Homes Corporation (Loma Linda). In late 1993 or early 1994, Loma Linda entered into a written contract (Contract) with Carmen Bennett and her daughter-in-law, Virginia Bennett, in which it agreed to construct a residence for the Bennetts at 5403 Loma Vista Loop in the Loma Vista subdivision in Davenport, Florida. The Contract had a "[t]ime is of the essence" provision. 6/ The Contract further provided that is was "conditioned upon Purchaser[s, the Bennetts] obtaining a mortgage loan commitment within sixty days from the date of this contract for a term not to exceed thirty (30) years at the prevailing market interest rate at time of closing." The Bennetts timely obtained such a commitment. Prior to the execution of the Contract, Loma Linda had received a $1,000.00 deposit from the Bennetts. At or around the time the Contract was executed, the Bennetts provided Loma Linda with an additional deposit in the amount of $9,813.00. The Contract provided that "[i]f Seller [Loma Linda] fails, neglects, or refuses to perform this Contract, the Purchasers [the Bennetts] shall receive the return of all sums paid to the Seller." Loma Linda failed to meet its obligations under the Contract. Construction of the residence that Loma Linda agreed to build for the Bennetts never commenced. All that Loma Linda did in furtherance of its contractual obligations was to clear the lot on which the home was to be built. The Bennetts have not received back any of the $10,813.00 in deposit monies that they paid Loma Linda.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, III and V of the Administrative Complaint; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by imposing on him a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and requiring him to pay $10,813.00 in restitution to the Bennetts and to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs, excluding attorney's fees, associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in Counts I, III and V of the Administrative Complaint; 10/ and (3) dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of January, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1984, a probable cause panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board met to receive and review an investigative report resulting from complaints received from Carl Mayer Forrest Morgan, and Walter Booth concerning certain activities of Ronald D. Nutt, Petitioner. The panel found probable cause that Petitioner's activities had violated applicable statutory and rule provisions, and subsequently, on or about July 19, 1984, a five-count Administrative Complaint was issued against Petitioner charging him with disregarding an applicable building code, abandoning a construction project, making misleading and false representations, and engaging in fraud and misrepresentation in the practice of contracting. Petitioner disputed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and requested a hearing. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to issue a Recommended Order based thereon. The matter was given Division of Administrative Hearing's Case Number 84-2920, and a hearing was held on March 27, 1985 before R. T. Carpenter, Hearing Officer. At the hearings one count arising from the Booth complaint was voluntarily dismissed. On June 13, 1985, a Recommended Order was issued in Case Number 84-2920 which recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Ronald D. Nutt. On or about July 11, 1985, the Board considered the Recommended Order, and after a review of the complete record adopted the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendation contained in the Recommended Order. The Board issued its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 84-2920 on August 7, 1985. In pertinent part, the following facts were found in Case Number 84-2920 by both the Hearing Officer and the Construction Industry Licensing Board: The principal disagreement (between Nutt, who was the Respondent in this prior case, and Mayer, the complaining witness) concerned the roof design, which Respondent contends was improper. Mayer initially refused to agree to modifications suggested by Respondent and would not retain an architect to clarify his intended design. Other disagreements led to Mayer's withholding of scheduled draw payments. Mayer refused to pay the first draw on completion of the foundation, even though it had been approved by the Melbourne Building Department. By August, 1983, Respondent's firm had completed work to the approximate point of the third draw, but had still received no draw payments. By this time Mayer had retained an attorney, and several unproductive meetings had been held regarding difficulties in completing the project. Mayer subsequently contacted the Melbourne Building Department to complain that the roof was being constructed according to plans not filed with the Building Department. This complaint was verified and a stop work order was placed on the project on August 10, 1983. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Respondent had changed Mayer's roof design to one he believed was correct, but had failed to obtain Mayer's approval or file the change with the Building Department. The change made by Respondent was, according to his testimony, necessary to correct Mayer's design deficiency. Mayer's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Mayer refused to retain an architect as suggested by Respondent, and demonstrated no expertise in building design. Respondent's testimony on this point is, therefore, accepted. Further efforts to resolve disputes were unsuccessful. On February 1, 1984, Hallmark Builders, Inc. filed a claim of lien on the Mayer property for $28,559. Mayer counter-claimed, and the suits were ultimately settled through payment of $21,000 by Mayer to Hallmark Builders, Inc. Based upon these findings of fact, the following conclusion of law was reached by the Hearing Officer and Board in Case Number 84-2920: Respondent is guilty of violating a local building code by failing to file his change in plans prior to commencing construction under the change. He acknowledged this, but believed it was sufficient com- pliance to file such plans before the next inspection. This violation is not a serious one, and no disciplinary action was taken by local authorities other than the stop work order. Therefore, the charge under Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., should be dismissed. The parties stipulated that at the conclusion of the Department of Professional Regulations Construction Industry Licensing Board's case-in-chief in Case Number 84-2920, Nutt moved for a directed verdict on the four counts remaining in the Administrative Complaint on which evidence was presented and this motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. Petitioner herein has established that his reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs associated with Case Number 84- 2920 were $13,153.28. Petitioner has established that he is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, since he operated as a professional practice and also a corporation with his principal office in Florida, and did not have more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of more than two million dollars when the action in Case Number 84-2920 was initiated by the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board on or about July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel. Petitioner has established that he was a prevailing small business party in Case Number 84-2920 since the Board's Final Order dismissing the charges in the Administrative Complaint was clearly in his favor and was not appealed. Petitioner has not established that the actions in Case Number 84-2920 of Respondent herein constituted unreasonable governmental action. This prior proceeding was therefore substantially justified at the time it was initiated on July 12, 1984 with the finding of the probable cause panel.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered general contractor and registered roofing contractor in Florida, having been issued licenses numbered RG-0025491 and RC-0046293. Respondent has been a registered general contractor in the State of Florida since 1976, and there is no evidence in the record of any prior license disciplinary action involving Respondent. The Department is the state agency with responsibility to file and prosecute administrative complaints alleging violations of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On or about March 15, 1988, the Respondent executed a contract and agreement with Fred and Patricia Rogerson for the construction of a residence to be located at 9800 Indian River Drive (Lot 10, Block 6), Hobe Sound, Florida. The contract amount for this job was stated to be $70,000, and the time of completion was specified to be 15 weeks from commencement on April 11, 1988. While Respondent did redraw and improve the structural adequacy of the construction plans which the Rogersons provided, the contract amount and time of completion stated in his contract with the Rogersons were never modified by change order. Based upon the expert testimony offered by John Fix, called on behalf of the Department, and Donald Corbett, called on behalf of the Respondent, the true price to construct the Rogerson's residence in 1988 would have been between $105,000 and $114,700. There is no possibility that Respondent, or any other general contractor, could have completed this residence for the $70,000 contract price. The evidence clearly establishes that he substantially underbid this job, and that underbidding a job to the extent that Respondent did in this case constitutes incompetence in contracting. It is the responsibility of the general contractor to complete a job for the contracted amount, or to obtain written change order approval from the owner, prior to performing any work which will result in an increase to that contract price. This finding is based upon the expert testimony of Fix and Corbett presented at hearing. Respondent began work on the Rogerson residence in July, 1988, and proceeded until January, 1989, when the Rogersons terminated their contract with him. At the time of that termination, Respondent had not completed work on their residence, but he testified at hearing that if the Rogersons had continued to work with him, he could have completed the job at less cost to them than they subsequently had to pay in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy in March, 1989. During the course of construction, the Respondent complained to the Rogersons that the job was costing him more than he had estimated. When they brought apparent deficiencies and problems in construction to his attention, Respondent complained of not having enough money to complete the job, and that if he had known what he was getting into with this job, he would have submitted a higher bid. Despite the fact that Respondent contracted with the Rogersons to complete their residence for $70,000 within 15 weeks from a stated commencement date of April 11, 1988, he fulfilled none of these commitments under his contract with the Rogersons. Therefore, his assertion that he could have completed this job for less than the Rogersons subsequently had to pay is not credited. The Rogersons had paid a total of $45,732.20 to Respondent at the time of his termination in January, 1989. In addition, their bank had disbursed $10,710.80 to subcontractors and suppliers for work and supplies provided for this job. Subsequent to terminating Respondent, the Rogersons have spent an additional $18,981.31 for materials and supplies to complete additional work on their residence in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Specifically, they have repoured the driveway, replaced insulation batting, installed drywall, finished the siding sub-barrier, applied siding, restapled roofing, finished plumbing, and installed appliances. The Rogersons have also paid $4,894 for legal fees and to satisfy liens placed against their property by suppliers who were not paid by the Respondent. Thus, the Rogersons have had to pay a total of $80,318.31, for which receipts were introduced in evidence, for work on their residence. In addition, they credibly testified that they have also spent $5,000 for supplies for which they have no receipts, and that there are an additional $8,000 to $9,000 in outstanding liens which have been placed against their property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine on the Respondent in the amount of $3,000 and suspending his licenses for a period of six months, or until such time sooner as the Respondent makes full and complete restitution to the Rogersons for all funds which they have expended in excess of $70,000 in order to complete this residence and to remove liens placed against this property. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 5. Adopted, substantially, in Findings of Fact 2 and 5. 6-7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 8-10. Adopted, substantially, in Finding of Fact 7. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: (Note that the Respondent included two paragraphs numbered 5 and the rulings shown below follow in the sequence of the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact.) This is an introduction and not a proposed finding. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted, in part, in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted, substantially, in Findings of Fact 2 and 5. Adopted, in part, in Findings of Fact 5 and 7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 7, and as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 David J. Chesnut, Esquire 215 South Federal Highway Suite 200 Stuart, FL 34994 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact James A. Bryington is duly licensed by the FCILB as a general contractor aid as a registered pool contractor holding licenses c 00 1353 and RP 0021851 respectively. In late 1974 or early 1975 he was approached by officers of Trend to qualify their corporation as a duly licensed contractor. At the time Trend was bidding on school projects arid offered Bryington control of one of the schools if their bid was successful plus a small percentage ownership of Trend. On March 4, 1975, Bryington submitted Request for Change of Status (Exhibit 9) to FCILB with the necessary attachments to qualify Trend as a licensed corporate contractor in Florida and Trend was duly certified. Part ownership of Trend was never given to Bryington and no evidence was presented what, if any, other consideration was received by Bryington for his role in qualifying Trend as a licensed general contractor. The school bid was not obtained by Trend and at no time thereafter was Bryington involved in any operations or supervision of the construction projects undertaken by Trend. By contract dated March 31, 1976, Hal H. and Carolyn S. Gill entered into a contract with Trend to construct a residence for them. The contract was executed by Edwin Porter, the president of Trend, on behalf of the contractor. Bryington was unaware of this contract, or of several other construction contracts entered into by Trend, until after the complaint filed herein had been received. Following routine delays in completion of the residence, it was finally completed; and, prior to making the final draw, Porter executed an affidavit of no lien (Exhibit 4) which, when presented to Gill and the bank loaning the money, resulted in the final payment being made. A few days thereafter the Gills learned that at least one contractor and one material man had not been paid in full. Claim of liens (Exhibits 5 and 6) were subsequently filed against Gill's property. Porter was initially contacted by Bryington after the latter became aware of the problem and told Porter to take care of the liens. A few days later Porter advised Bryington that the liens had been taken care of. The subcontractor and the material man made several efforts to collect from Porter the sums owed them for work and materials but without success. Porter has been unavailable and his whereabouts unknown for several months to all persons who testified at these proceedings. No evidence was presented that the draws collected to complete the Gill contract were used on another project or diverted to any other purpose. The only evidence offered was that upon completion of the dwelling and collection of the final draw subcontractors and material men were unpaid. Evidence was presented that Trend failed to satisfy a subcontractor on another residence constructed for Norman Scoggins and Scoggins had to pay the subcontractor to keep from having a lien filed against his property. Since no reference was made to this transaction in the Administrative Complaint this evidence is irrelevant to these proceedings and is disregarded.
