The Issue Does the unsatisfied civil judgment in ABC v Millman et al, Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB relate to practice of Respondent’s profession, thus establishing that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,(2009)? If he committed the violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board has certified Millman as a General Contractor and a Roofing Contractor under the authority of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In 2009 and 2010, he held license numbers CGC l1522 (General) and CCC 1327057 (Roofing). Millman’s licenses are presently inactive. Millman has actively practiced the licensed professions of general contractor and roofing contractor in Florida since 1977. The Department and its predecessor agencies have never taken any disciplinary action against him. At all times material to this proceeding, Affiliated was a Construction Qualified Business in the State of Florida, certified under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, holding license number QB45287. Millman was the Primary Qualifying Agent for Affiliated under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, at all times material to this proceeding. On December 26, 2005, Millman signed a credit application with American Builders and Contractors Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Supply Co. Inc. (ABC), on behalf of Affiliated. Millman listed his Certified General Contractor’s License (CGC 011522) on the credit application and personal guarantee Although Millman provided his General Contractor’s license number on the application, ABC did not require a license number. The application indicates that the account is related to “low and steep slope roofing.” The account was for the purchase of roofing materials and supplies. On December 29, 2005, Millman signed a personal guarantee of the Affiliated account with ABC. Millman’s personal guarantee made him personally liable for Affiliated’s obligation to pay ABC. ABC granted the application and opened a line of credit for Millman and Affiliated. Millman and Affiliated used the account to purchase roofing supplies on credit. They purchased and paid for over $800,000 worth of supplies from 2006 into 2009. This is separate from the goods and materials that were the subject of the lawsuit described below. Most of the materials and supplies that Affiliated purchased on the ABC account were for specific roofing projects. But some, as Millman acknowledged in his testimony, were to maintain roofing materials in the Affiliated warehouse. He used these on small jobs and to supplement materials purchased for larger, specific jobs. All the goods and materials purchased related to Millman’s practice of the roofing contracting profession. In 2007 Millman and Affiliated started having financial difficulties. Millman’s business began failing. The failure of a lender that took over a construction project it was financing resulted in the lender not paying Millman for approximately $500,000 worth of his company’s work. This contributed to Millman’s business failure. In addition to Millman’s problems paying ABC, his landlord was evicting him. Millman worked hard during these difficulties to meet his obligations to ABC. He liquidated his Individual Retirement Account and his life savings to make sure he paid for all charges for supplies used for specified customers. He did this to protect customers from the risk of liens being placed on their properties. Millman advised ABC that he was being evicted from his warehouse. He told ABC that the warehouse contained materials obtained with his line of credit that had not been paid for. Millman did not have the ability to return the materials to ABC. As eviction neared, he urged ABC to retrieve the materials before eviction. ABC did not act to retrieve the materials. The landlord evicted Millman. What happened to the materials is not known. On March 4, 2008, ABC sued Millman and Affiliated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. ABC sought payment for goods and materials purchased on the account and delivered to Millman and Affiliated between January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008. The court assigned the action Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB. The goods and materials for which ABC sought payment were roofing goods and materials. They included roofing felt, roofing cement, shingles, plywood, lumber, roofing nails, lead sheets, insulation, roof tile cement, lead boots for pipes, roofing paint, asphalt, and galvanized roof edging. Much, although not all, of the material was delivered to roof tops. Many invoices for the material describe the roof for which the material is intended by height and pitch. The goods and materials related to Millman’s profession of roofing contractor. On June 17, 2008, barely three months after ABC filed suit, Millman entered into a Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default with ABC. Millman agreed in the Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default, that both he as an individual and Affiliated are indebted to ABC in the amount of $45,617.02. This amount included interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The stipulation included a schedule of eight payments starting with a payment of $2,500.00 on May 30, 2008, and ending with a payment of $22,720.02 on December 30, 2008. Millman made payments from January 1, 2007, forward, even during and after the collection litigation. Millman made over $16,000.00 of those payments. But he did not make all of them. As Millman made payments, he took care to designate payments for supplies allocated to a specific customer and job. He did this to protect his customers from liens and to make sure that documents he signed attesting that supplies for specific jobs had been paid for were honest and correct. On August 3, 2009, the court rendered a Final Judgment After Stipulation in ABC’s collection action. The court adjudged that ABC recover $29,617.02 together with interest at the rate of 11 percent per annum accruing from May 31, 2008, from Affiliated and Millman, jointly and severally. The judgment is for debt incurred relating to Millman’s practice of his licensed profession of roofing contracting. It is not related to Millman’s licensed profession of general contracting. ABC continued to actively pursue collecting the judgment. It garnished Millman’s bank account with Bank Atlantic and obtained $662.61. Millman and Affiliated have not fully satisfied the judgment within a reasonable period of time. The Department incurred $216.00 in costs for the investigation and this action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: Payment of an administrative fine of $500.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. Payment of costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $216.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James S. Stroz, held registered roofing contractor license number RC 0034849 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was first licensed in November, 1979, and at that time qualified under the name of Stroz Roofing. A change in status application was later filed to qualify Stroz Roofing, Inc., 13696 Exotica Lane, West Palm Beach, Florida. Although licensed as a roofing contractor, respondent's firm only performs work on wood shakes or shingles. He does not do hot roofs or flat roofs, which is another speciality in the roofing business. While working for a roofing firm in1979, Stroz became acquainted with Lacy Davis, an unlicensed individual who specialized in flat roof work. When Stroz started his own roofing company in 1983, he began contracting out the flat roof work to other licensed roofing contractors. Lacy Davis learned of this and approached Stroz offering his services on the flat roof work. Stroz knew Davis was unlicensed and would not initially hire him, but Davis gave him a business card of Henry Haywood, a licensed roofing contractor in Palm Beach County and explained he and Haywood were partners and that the work and permitting would be done under Haywood's license. In actuality, Haywood had not authorized Davis to use his business cards, or topull permits under his name. Indeed, Haywood had no knowledge of Davis' activities. Without verifying the truth of Davis' representations, and accepting them instead at face value, Stroz agreed to hire Davis to perform his flat roof work. Between January 20, 1983 and September 30, 1984, Stroz performed some twenty-one jobs using Davis for the flat roof work. At all times, Stroz was under the impression that the work was being done under Haywood's license and that his activities were lawful. Stroz made all checks for the work payable to Lacy Davis or Lacy Davis Roofing. He did this because Davis told him he frequently had difficulty reaching Haywood to cash the checks, and because the business bank account was in Davis' own name. A few of the checks carried a notation at the bottom that payment was for work by Haywood Roofing, but most made no reference to Haywood. Stroz pulled all permits on their jobs reflecting that Haywood Roofing was the licensed contractor. Of the twenty invoices given by Davis to Stroz for the twenty-one jobs, only four were on invoices printed with Haywood's name. The remainder had various other names including "Lacy Davis Roofing," "Lacy Davis" and "Lacy Davis and Benny Guy Roofing Contractors." None of these were licensed as roofing contractors by petitioner. In June, 1984, a member of Davis' crew was injured and it was discovered Davis had no insurance. Stroz's insurance paid the claim, but an investigation ultimately determined that Davis was unlicensed and had no authority to act on Haywood's behalf. This led to the issuance of the administrative complaint herein. Respondent has fully cooperated with petitioner, and in fact voluntarily disclosed one job with Davis that petitioner's investigation had failed to uncover. He admits he was negligent in not checking out the representations of Davis, but he never intended to violate the law. No consumer was harmed in any way by Davis' work, and there are no complaints concerning the quality of the jobs in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and that he be fined $500 to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order rendered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license should he revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on charges that he violated Ch. 455, Florida Statutes (1979), by (1) abandoning a construction project; making a misleading, deceptive or untrue representation in the practice of his profession; (3) violating local building codes in two instances; and (4) engaging in the business of contracting in a county or municipality without first complying with local licensing requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held registered roofing contractor's license, number RC 0033215, issued by the State of Florida. The license has been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Between October 1, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respondent held an occupational license issued by the County of Indian River, Florida, which enabled him to engage in the business of roofing contracting in that county. However, this occupational license expired on September 30, 1980. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9). In February, 1981, respondent entered into a verbal agreement with Ezra Grant to repair, for compensation, all leaks in the front and rear sections of the roof on Grant's home, which was located in Sebastian, Florida. (Testimony of Grant). When respondent and Grant entered into this verbal agreement, respondent gave Grant one of his calling cards. On the face of the calling card, in the lower right corner, was written "licensed and insured." (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Testimony of Grant). At all time material hereto, respondent was not licensed to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Pursuant to the agreement, respondent performed roof repairs on Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent failed to obtain a permit to perform such roof repairs in violation of Section 105.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8a and b). On February 19, 1981, respondent submitted a bill in the amount of $800.00 to Grant for the roof repairs. The bill described the work performed and stated that the "work is guaranteed for 1 year." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Testimony of Grant). On February 20, 1981, Grant paid respondent, in full, for the described roof repairs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Approximately two weeks after respondent performed the roof repairs, the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home began to leak, again, in the area where it was repaired. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent returned to Grant's home, on two occasions1 after the discovery of continuing leakage in the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home. However, respondent did not perform roof repairs on either occasion. On the first occasion, he merely removed equipment which he had left at Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). After Grant complained to petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, respondent returned a second time. He inspected the rear portion of Grant's roof, removed two layers of slate from the roof, and tested it by pouring water over it. Although this test revealed that Grant's roof still leaked, Grant made no effort to repair the leakage. (Testimony of Grant). Arthur Mayer, then the Building Official for the City of Sebastian, observed respondent removing the slate from the roof. He instructed respondent that, upon finishing the work, he should go to the Sebastian City Hall and apply for a roofer's license and a permit for the roof repairs already performed on Grant's home. Respondent promised to comply. (Testimony of Mayer). But, despite his promise, he failed to apply for and obtain a license to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. He also failed to apply for and obtain a roof permit, and pay the proper late fees, as required by Section 107.2, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida, in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Testimony of Mayer; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 8a and c). Grant, eventually, had his roof repaired by another contractor at a cost of $150.00. (Testimony of Grant).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry E. Smith Route 1, Box 111B Fellsmere, Florida 32948 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton, was licensed as a roofing contractor in Florida under license number RC0030867, but at the time of the misconduct alleged herein, the license was delinquent and invalid. Respondent's license was placed on delinquent status for non-renewal when it expired on June 30, 1987 and was considered invalid until reinstated in April, 1988. The Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for the licensing of contractors in this state. On August 27, 1987, John M. Mack and his wife contracted with Respondent, doing business as Roofing Enterprises, to replace the roof on their 70 year old house in Clearwater. The contract called for Respondent to remove the old roof, replace all rotten wood, and install fiberglass shingles as well as all other actions part thereof, including cleanup. For this, the Macks agreed to pay Respondent $2,930.00 to be paid one- third at commencement, one-third when dried in, and the balance due upon completion. The term "dried in" means to cover the roof base with felt and secure it so as to prevent moisture incursion. This constitutes the subsurface for the final roof surface. The contract did not provide a completion date. Respondent guaranteed his work for five years. Respondent started work on September 9, 1989 and was paid the first $1,000.00 by check. He started tearing off the existing roof and five days later, when only one quarter of the existing roof had been removed, requested the second installment of the contract price. Mr. Mack was out of town at the time, but Mrs. Mack gave him a second $1,000.00 check. At that time, far less than one third of the project had been completed. After that second payment was made, Respondent did "minimal work" on the project. He would appear at the job only intermittently and when he did, would leave after only a short while. When Mr. Mack asked about this, Respondent indicated it was too hot to work after 11:00 in the morning. He also complained that because the sub-roof was made of hard, old white pine, it was very difficult to remove the old nails. For several days in early November, 1987, Respondent did not show up for work and Mack's efforts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful. He finally filed a complaint with both the Better Business Bureau and the Department of Professional Regulation. Finally, on November 14, 1987, Respondent came to the work site and left after two hours indicating he had a meeting with other contractors on other jobs. The next day, when Respondent did not show up, Mr. Mack went to his house whereupon Respondent stated he had spent most of the $2,000.00 the Macks had given him on other projects and to pay his workers and did not have enough funds to finish the job. Mr. Archer, the only employee to work on the Mack property has not been paid at all for his work. Nonetheless, Mr. Mack instructed Respondent to do what he could with what was left and when that was gone, he would pay the balance. Though Respondent had previously indicated to Mr. Mack that he had secured all required permits, the day after the above discussion, he stated he had not done so and left the job site to get it without doing any work that day. Over the next 11 days, Respondent spent a total of 20 hours on the job. On November 17, 1987 it rained and because the roof was not secure, water leaked into the house. The following day, Respondent did not arrive for work until 10:00 AM. On November 19, 1987, when Mr. Mack called the lumber yard from which Respondent had ordered the shingles, he was told they were scheduled for delivery COD and were on their way. When they arrived, Mr. Mack refused to accept them and pay for them because he had already paid Respondent $2,000. Respondent, when told of this development, agreed to borrow the money for them from his brother but was unable to do so, and in order to get the job finally done, Mr. Mack agreed to pay approximately $200.00 for them. They were ultimately delivered. The next day, Respondent telephoned Mr. Mack and said he was coming to the site and would stay until the job was done. However, he did not get there until after 10 and left at 3:30 PM with the job incomplete. At 8:00 AM the following morning, Respondent again called Mr. Mack and reported he did not have enough money for the required flashings. He indicated he would come to work and finish up the shingling, but did not show up at all that day. On the day after, Respondent came with his wife who worked with him for a short while. On this occasion, Mack gave Respondent some more money for supplies, but Respondent left again before the job was complete. Respondent neither showed up for work nor called on both the next two days, but on the following day, November 25, 1987, he finally finished up the job except for the gravel roof on the rear house and the front part of the main house. Because the Macks had a tenant in the rear house who they did not want disturbed, they did not permit Respondent to work there, but he did finally finish up the front of the main house roof and the work that was accomplished was done satisfactorily. There was, however, an unused chimney on the main house which Respondent should have removed and roofed over. Instead, he improperly attempted to roof around it and since he was unable to make the area water tight, it resulted in severe leakage into the house which caused damage to several ceilings and some furniture. Throughout the entire course of the work, Respondent applied improper pressure to the Macks. He repeatedly threatened to file for bankruptcy and not complete the work, prompting the Macks to pay him before contractually called for. At the time for final payment, when Mr. Mack indicated he wanted to have the job checked before making that last payment, Respondent became angry and walked off. He has not been seen or heard from since. As a result of Respondent's failure to properly manage his funds and accomplish the job in a timely and professional manner, the Macks have sustained substantial damage to their property and have had to expend additional funds to get the work done properly. Respondent should have identified the unused chimney at the time he bid for the job and provided for its removal. If this would cost more, he should have so indicated. His failure to identify the problem and correct it constitutes negligence since it is impossible to properly roof around such an obstruction without leaks. Based on the information available to him, Mr. Verse, the Department's expert, concluded Respondent was guilty of gross negligence because: He was required to get a permit for this project and failed to do so, He was required to request inspections of the project as it progressed and failed to do so, He took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the job, (roofs are usually replaced in an expedient manner because re-roofing generates exposure of the house and contents to weather conditions), He failed to properly place the felt and thereafter cover it with the final coat in a timely manner (qualified roofers recognize that felt is insufficient roofing to prevent leaking), He diverted funds from this project to others for which they were not intended, He failed to properly supervise his employees, He did not complete the work called for under the contract, He failed to honor his warranty, and He failed to properly remove the old chimney as a part of the re-roofing process. With the exception of the failure to complete the job which was caused by Mr. Mack's refusal to allow Respondent to complete the roofing project on the gravel roof, Respondent's actions as outlined herein constituted gross negligence. In addition, he violated existing local law by failing to get a permit and have the required inspections made; he failed to perform in a timely manner; he diverted funds; he abandoned the job without it being completed; and he failed to honor his warranty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton's, license as a registered roofing contractor be suspended for three years under such provisions for reinstatement as may be deemed appropriate by the Board, and that he be fined $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 11th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce D. Gayton 15010 113th Avenue #32 Largo, Florida 34644-4305 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations obtained herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RV0010136 issued by the State of Florida. His address was Route 4, Box 48-M, Lake City, Florida. On April 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract with Michael D. Allen of Route I, Box 453, Live Oak, Florida, for the construction of a single- family residence on the Allen property for a contract price of $75,476. The contract was finished sometime in January 1983, and the Allens moved in that month. During some high winds shortly after they moved in, several shingles blew off the roof, exposing the underlying tar paper. The next day after the storm, Allen went out and saw approximately three or four shingles on the ground. When he picked them up and looked at them, he saw that they had no nail holes or staple holes in them. Allen immediately pulled his tractor up to the house and stood on the seat so he could take a close look at the roof. When he did so, he found that he could not see a nail, staple or hole in the roof where these particular shingles had come from. In addition to that area denuded of shingles by the storm, Allen also lifted up a few other shingles and found what to him was evidence of improper installation. As a result, Allen went to a building supply house in the area and bought a package of the same shingles previously installed on his house by the Respondent in order to get the nailing instructions that came with them. Allen bought the shingles from the same supply house where Respondent had purchased the ones installed on his property. After examining the instructions which came with the shingles he purchased, Allen then called the office of the building inspector and spoke with the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Pat Sura, who came out to inspect the roof. Allen went up on the roof with Sura and lifted several shingles in different places to see how they were affixed. In most cases, he found two staples in each shingle, but in some cases he found none. Of the 20 or so tabs he lifted (each shingle having three tabs), he found that some, but not many, were nailed in three places. Sura confirms the fact that he was called by Allen. After the call, Sura checked his files and found that the permit for construction of the house was issued to Allen with Respondent listed as the contractor. When the complaint came in from Allen, Sura asked Mr. Cherry, a Department investigator, to go out and look at it with him, as is his standard practice. Sura does not recall exactly when this was done, but it was shortly after the call from Allen. Sura went up on the Allens roof with Cherry and pulled up a few tabs to look for the nailing pattern. He found that the nailing pattern was misaligned, that a stapling gun was used, and that both staples and nails were, in his opinion, too short. Based on this viewing, Sura called a Mr. Canepa, who was a representative of the shingle manufacturer at the time, and asked him to inspect the roof himself. Canepa also found both nails and staples and pulled at least one of each out of the roof. He did not take many, however, because most of the shingles had only one or two fasteners per shingle. The ones that were pulled, however, were pulled from shingles that had four nails or staples in them. Sura also went into the attic on the first visit with Cherry and examined the roof from the inside. He found very few staples or nails protruding through the inside of the subroof. Approximately 40 percent of the nails were not showing through. Based on his examination, Sura concluded that approximately 70 percent of the shingles were not properly fixed, having three or less fasteners per shingle. Only 30 percent had four. These figures were based on spot samples from different sections of the roof. In Sura's opinion, it appeared to him that the staple gun used to apply the staples was out of order. The top of the staple is supposed to be horizontal to and flush with the top surface of the top shingle. Many of the staples and nails which he observed were not horizontal. In some cases, the cross piece on top of the staple extended as much as an eighth of an inch above the tab and had not been hammered down. In Sura's opinion, at least 70 percent of the staples he examined were in that condition. Unless the staple is flush with the roof, the result is that the staple does not go in far enough and also makes a raised area on the shingle. According to the standards of the National Asbestos Roofing Manufacturer's Association (NARA), either nails or staples are supposed to be inserted below the glue tab on the shingle approximately five-eights inch above the top of the cut-out. A fastener is supposed to be above the top of the cutout and on each end. This would result in four fasteners per shingle. Sura found that in most cases the fasteners were on the glue tab or above it, very few were below it. An examination of 24 separate shingles revealed that those which had four fasteners were either crooked, raised or in the wrong place and, of these, 40 percent were in the wrong place. The building code of Suwannee County does not contain detailed specifications of how shingles are to be installed. The code refers to other specifications, such as the NARA standards, and incorporates them by reference. On one of the visits Sura made to the Allen home, the Respondent was also present with at least one of his sons. At Sura's request, Respondent or his son gave Sura some staples which he said are the type used on this job. However, Sura's examination revealed that these staples are not like the ones he took out of the roof. The staples used in the roof were three- quarter inch staples. Sura contends the ones given him by the Respondent were one-inch staples. At the hearing, Respondent and both his sons testified that they used three-quarter inch staples and did not give Sura one inch staples. The likelihood is that the proper sized staples were used. The roofing of the Allen house was accomplished by using a one-half inch plywood decking (actually 15/32 inch). A sheet of felt is laid over the decking and the shingles laid over the felt. In some cases, the fastener is driven through all of that plus an additional tab as well. As a result, the fact that no staple or other fastener was protruding through into the attic is not necessarily pertinent, and the use of a three-quarter inch staple could be acceptable if it was installed properly. As to the flush nature of the staple, a slight variance is accepted. It was recognized that it is impossible to get an exactly flush installation. The degree of acceptable variance is a subjective call, however. The staple that was removed by either Sura or Canepa (there is some uncertainty as to who pulled the staple but no uncertainty that one of the two actually accomplished that task) was protruding approximately one-eighth inch above the surface of the shingle. Gordon K. Perry, Respondent's son and employee, worked on the Allen house as the roofer. He, another brother, and a third employee worked as a team to install the roof, with his brother on the lower line, himself in the middle, and the other employee-on the upper line. As he and his associates laid the shingles, Perry, as the man in the middle, affixed them to the roof with a stapling gun. Perry indicates that he installed the shingles exactly as called for in the instructions contained on the wrapper around the shingles as they come from the manufacturer. Perry contends he used four staples to each shingle, and always does, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. Perry tried to affix the staples so they are flush with the shingles, but admits he might have missed one once in a while. If the gun misfires and leaves it protruding above the shingle, he and his team members all had hammers with which they would hammer the protruding staple down flush with the shingle. He contends he had no trouble installing this roof and that the gun he used was working properly. This testimony was confirmed by that of the other son, Frederick L. Perry, who also indicated that the crew followed the instructions on the wrapper for the installation of the shingles with one exception at the corner a staple was driven through two shingles instead of one. This procedure would however, in his opinion, at least meet the requirements and he feels even exceed them. He observed the way his brother was stapling the shingles on the Allen roof and could see nothing wrong with the procedure followed. His father, the Respondent, came to the job site frequently during the three days it took to install the Allen's roof and actually came up on the roof to observe but did not do any of the actual installation work. He explains the reason for the four or five loose shingles dislodged by the wind as being the result of the air hose for the staple gun getting caught under the tabs of these several shingles while the crew was working with the gun on the other side of the roof. When Mr. Perry observed what had happened he told the employee to go back to that area, put the tabs down and tack them down. Unfortunately, he did not check to see if that was done. He subsequently found out that the employee put the tabs back down but did not affix them as instructed. When he, on this later occasion, checked this area, he saw that where the shingles had broken loose, the nails were still in the roof and the felt was still there. Finding some broken shingle pieces on the lawn, he used them to make a temporary patch for the roof fully intending to report this situation to his father immediately. He did not have an opportunity to make the permanent repair did not feel he should do so without his father's instructions. Not withstanding his father's knowledge of the situation, he received no instructions from his father to make the repairs. The final and permanent repair was accomplished approximately a week prior to the hearing after the granting of the first continuance. On that occasion when he checked the other shingles, Perry found four staples in every shingle that he checked and they were, for the most part, properly flushed. Ron W. Williams, a building contractor registered in Lake City and coincidently a member of the Board of County Commissioners, also examined the Allen's roof on June 19, 1984. Independently he went up on the roof, pulled back tabs and looked at the shingles and their method of affixing in five different locations on the roof. He could see nothing wrong with how the shingles were installed and attempted to pull several staples using a pair of pliers and screwdriver. The difficulty he experienced in extracting the shingles is, in his opinion, an indication of how well they were installed. None that he saw were raised up. Some were at a permissible angle. Mr. Williams found anywhere from 7 to 8 staples in each shingle consisting of 3 or 4 staples across the top of each shingle plus fasteners from the higher shingle as well. In his opinion the roof looked good. The lines were straight, there was no waving. He could see no indication of any problem with the shingles or of weakness or that the shingles would be subject to wind removal. Another contractor who made his inspection at the same time was D. B. Espenship, a 35 year building contractor in Lake City, who has during his career constructed in excess of 500 homes. Mr. Espenship also independently went to 5 or 6 different areas on the Allen roof and pulled up the shingle tabs. He saw nothing to indicate any problems with the way the shingles were applied. The roof looked good, the lines were straight, staples flush and the angles not bad. David Morgan, a licensed roofing contractor in Lake City for more than 15 years does mostly residential roofing including shingles. On the same date as the others described, supra, he also went up on the roof .and watched Mr. Williams do his inspection. He also did his own inspection as well. When Mr. Morgan lifted the tabs he saw the staples and could see nothing to indicate that they were improperly installed. He could see no code violations nor could he see any potential problems. The roof was in excellent shape. In fact, "about as good as you could get." Mr. Perry, Respondent, first learned of the problems with the Allen roof when he was contracted by Mr. Cherry to go out and look at it. This was shortly after the storm which removed the shingles. Cherry asked Respondent to meet with Mr. Allen and Mr. Sura at the premises. When he arrived, no one showed up. However, at approximately a half hour later, Mr. Sura came up without Mr. Cherry. Mr. Sura would not go up on the roof. He said that at that time it was "out of his hands". The matter was in the hands of Mr. Allen and Mr. Cherry. In any case, Respondent went up on the roof as requested and lifted several shingles, but could find no problem. Thereafter, when Respondent called Mr. Cherry, Cherry said he would have to talk to Mr. Sura about it. Mr. Sura indicated he would ;nail respondent a copy of Mr. Canepa's report, but he never received it. In fact until he got the administrative complaint through the mail, he contends he could never get a straight complaint from anyone. He tried to get together with Mr. Allen on several occasions, but in his opinion, could not seem to satisfy him. Respondent also went up on the roof June 19 to make another inspection. At this late date, even in light of the administrative complaint he can still find nothing wrong with the roof. The lines are straight, the proper number of staples are installed and they are installed properly. The roof is in his opinion good and he, on the record, guaranteed to replace it if, with the exception of tornado damage, the roof blows off within the next 18-20 years. Mr. Perry has been a building contractor since 1966. He does all types of construction including the construction of between 300 and 400 homes over the years. Normally he does all the work within the firm. If they are very busy however, he subcontracts some. In this case, the Allen home was built "in-house" and he, himself, worked along with his workmen. He is, in addition to being a contractor, an ordained minister in the Baptist church in Lake City and has been so for the past 20 years. He does not know Mr. Canepa and knows of no reason Mr. Canepa would have to lie. The same is true of Mr. Sura. He feels that both individuals just did not examine the roof closely enough. He contends they are mistaken in their description of the roof's condition. Mr. Sura contends that the building code in this case was violated by respondent in the following particulars; violation of the provisions of the Southern Standard Building Codes: The use of 3 or less fasteners; Placing the nails or fasteners either on or above the glue tab, Failure to have the tops of the fasteners flush with the surface of the shingle; and Failure to have the top of the staple parallel to the shingle line. All these defects were brought to the attention of the Respondent in August, 1983. No corrective action was taken until one week prior to the hearing. On balance, considering the relative probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony of the witnesses and their interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or their lack thereof, it is found that Respondent, through his roofing crew, improperly installed a large number of shingles on the Allen roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore. RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Fred Perry, be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.90 which fine shall be remitted up a positive showing by affidavit of the owner or County Building Inspector that the roof defects have been corrected. DONE and RECOMMENDED THIS 10th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 10th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-0062 Terry McDavid Post Office Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32056 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
