Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0034898. He operates a business known as B & P Roofing at 244 Tollgate Trail, Longwood, Florida. The Respondent has appropriately qualified the business name of "B & P Roofing" with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with regard to licensure of building contractors, the regulation of their licensure status and methods of operation and practice. During June of 1981, the Respondent, doing business as B & P Roofing, contracted to perform a re-roofing job with Mr. Jack Mewhirter, whereby he was to put a new roof on a residence at 137 Variety Tree Circle, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The construction of the roof was contracted for and completed during June, 1981. The Respondent failed to obtain a building permit before or during construction of the roof and also failed to obtain a final inspection of the roof when it was finished in June, 1981. The Respondent's testimony establishes that the Respondent was familiar with the building code adopted in Seminole County and familiar with the requirement that he was responsible as the contractor, to obtain a permit before commencing construction of the roof and that he was also responsible for obtaining a final inspection by the Seminole County Building Official. In response to a complaint from Mr. Mewhirter, the owner of the residence, the Seminole County Building Officials, Mr. Flippent and Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer became aware that no building permit had been obtained for the re-roofing job and that no final inspection had been obtained pursuant thereto. Accordingly, Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer inspected the roof in November, 1981, and Mr. Flippent informed the Respondent of the necessity to obtain a building permit and a final inspection. Thus, on November 10, 1981, the Respondent obtained the building permit and called for the final inspection. Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer was unable to sign the final inspection document as "satisfactory" because he was unable to adequately inspect the roof once it was finished. He had been unable to inspect the method by which it was installed during its construction due to the Respondent failing to inform him or his superiors that the roof was under construction and that inspections were needed at that time. hen the Respondent entered into the contract with Mr. Mewhirter, he informed Mr. Mewhirter that he would not obtain a building permit because that would "drive the cost up." The Respondent, in his testimony, denied that he made such a statement, but Mr. Mewhirter's testimony is here found more credible because of the facts established by Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer's testimony that a random check of the roof after he finally was able to inspect it in November, 1981, revealed that all the shingles he examined were nailed with only three nails and were nailed too high up near the upper edge of the shingle, which is a substandard method of installing the roof and which permits storm winds or rain to raise the shingles, causing possible damage to the roof. The fact that the roof was installed in this fashion and that fact that the Respondent admittedly knew of the requirements of the building code and the requirement that a permit be obtained and inspections be made during the course of and at the conclusion of the job, indicated that the Respondent was knowingly trying to avoid the necessity of obtaining a permit and a final inspection and thus lends sufficient credibility to Mr. Mewhirter's testimony regarding the reason the Respondent obtained no permit. In any event, the roof was shown to not be constructed in accordance with the building code. In summary, it was established that the Respondent knew of the appropriate building code, was thoroughly familiar with it and and indeed had installed an excess of seven hundred roofs since he entered the business. He was aware, in connection with the need for obtaining a building permit, that he should also obtain inspections during the construction and a final inspection when the roof was finished, which he failed to do until reminded of his violation by the building department five months after the roof was completed, at which time it was too late to perform the appropriate inspections. Thus, the roof could not be approved by the building department of Seminole County. The Respondent admitted to only being present on the subject job site for approximately an hour and a half during the entire construction of the roof and he admittedly did not bother to look to see if a permit was on the job site at that time, or any other time. Finally, although the Respondent remonstrated that his failure to get a building permit at the appropriate time was inadvertent and due to his assumption that other office personnel had taken care of the obtaining of the permit, that testimony is not found to be credible since it was established, through the testimony of Mr.. Mewhirter, that the Respondent consciously decided not to obtain a permit prior to starting construction of the roof.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George G. Vincent, be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 23rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Siegel, Esquire 292 U.S. Highway 17-92 P.O. Drawer 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. DPR Case No. 0017669 DOAH Case No. 82-1341 GEORGE C. VINCENT B & P Roofing RC 0034898 244 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Roger S. Williams, held registered building contractor license number RB0026339 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing board, authorizing him to perform contracting under his individual name. Respondent, Frederick S. Schreiner, held certified general contractor's license numbers CG C004811 and CG CA04811 also issued by Petitioner authorizing him to perform contracting under his individual name and under Cape Development Corporation. Williams served as president of Architectural Builders, Inc. (ABI), a development firm located in Palm Bay, Florida. Schreiner was engaged in the contracting business generally in the Brevard County, Florida area. He has done construction work for ABI and Williams for the past eight or nine years. ABI held no licenses from either the state or local governments. On October 31, 1979, ABI entered into a construction contract with Jack and Stella Oleksy to construct a home at 842 South Becker Street, Palm Bay, Florida. The contract was approved by R. S. Williams as president of ABI. At a later undisclosed date, Williams attempted to pull a City of Palm Bay building permit on behalf of ABI. Whether the City gave formal or informal approval at that point is not clear; in any event the construction of the home began shortly thereafter. Several weeks later the City's chief building official told Williams that because he did not have local competency with the City, he could not pull a permit for a job. Williams was also advised that a recent change in state law required ABI to qualify to do business if ABI intended to construct homes within the City. When told that Frederick Schreiner would be constructing the home for ABI and that Schreiner held an appropriate license, the City official told Williams to have a construction contract executed between ABI and Schreiner to build the home. Thereafter, Schreiner pulled a permit for the job and posted it on the building site. He also gave the City a contract executed by he and ABI and which was dated November 29, 1979. During the course of the construction, Schreiner visited the building site approximately six to eight times. The work was done entirely by subcontractors who had been used on other construction jobs by Williams and Schreiner. The subcontractors were paid by ABI but worked under the supervision of Schreiner. When the job was completed Williams signed the final payment affidavit on which it was indicated that Williams was the contractor on the job. Oleksy was on the site daily to inspect the work. He complained periodically about various aspects of the job to Roger Williams. His main complaint concerned the trusses on the roof which he contended were out of alignment causing a wavy and uneven roof line. After the house was essentially completed, Oleksy lodged a complaint with Williams concerning the workmanship on the roof. Williams sent a carpenter to visit the premises who found some "variations" and worked for approximately three hours to correct the problem. He was then told by Oleksy it looked okay. Within the next few days, Oleksy again complained to Williams that the roof was wavy. Williams then sent out a roofing crew to attempt to correct the problem. After they completed their work, Williams received no further indication that the owner was unhappy. Williams later had a local relator familiar with the subdivision and an experienced carpenter who had framed more than 150 homes to view the roof. Both concluded the roof was of good workmanship and of similar quality to other homes in the neighborhood. Oleksy later filed a complaint with the City of Palm Bay concerning his roof. The City sent its chief building official to inspect the home. He described the roof as being of "poor workmanship". The same conclusion was reached by the city building inspector who also inspected the property. Because of this, the City made the notation "Hold problem roof" in its file and did not issue a certificate of occupancy to Oleksy. However, the City did not construe the roof to constitute a violation of the building code. Respondents asserted that a 1979 change in the law as to the qualification of agents caused doubt and confusion as to what was required by ABI and Williams. They also point out that if indeed a violation occurred, it was not intentional. Rather, Respondents simply desired to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations so that their construction businesses could continue to operate in a lawful manner. Other than the alleged violations herein, Respondents were not shown to have been subject to any prior disciplinary proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Roger S. Williams, be found guilty as charged in Count I, and be given a public reprimand. the remainder of the charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Frederick L. Schreiner, be found guilty as charged of all allegations except willfully and deliberately violating a state law, and be given a public reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not the business Respondent was associated with exceeded the scope of his contractor's license concerning the type of work undertaken, as described in the Amended Administrative Complaint, thereby violating Sections 489.129(1)(j), 489.115(1) and 489.117(2), F.S.? Whether or not Respondent failed to properly supervise the job site activities on that job, thereby violating Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j); 489.119, and 489.105(4), F.S.? Whether or not Respondent committed gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in connection with said job in violation of Section 489.129 (1)(m), by failure to supervise the contracting activities of the contracting business he was responsible for, so that Jorge Otero, President of Deluxe Construction Co., could obtain a building permit, exceed the scope of Respondent's license, and perform work that exhibited numerous defects? BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At the commencement of formal hearing, the parties stipulated ore tenus that Paragraph 6 of the Amended Administrative Complaint would be further amended to read: The business Respondent was associated with exceeded the scope of his license concerning type of work, violating Section 489.129(1)(j); 489.115(1)(b); 489.117(2). Thereafter, they entered into certain stipulated facts which are reflected among additional facts as found in this recommended order. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Lolv Jaramillo, Herbert Gopman, Jorge Otero, and Frank Abbott, and had admitted four exhibits. Respondent presented neither oral testimony nor offered any exhibit. No transcript was provided. Respondent late-filed its post-hearing proposals, but each party's proposed findings of fact have been considered and are ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a licensed certified building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CB C002799 and was listed as the sole qualifying agent for Deluxe Construction Company. Deluxe could have had more than one qualifying agent but it did not. Jorge Otero was the sole owner, officer, and director of Deluxe Construction Company (Deluxe). He is not now, and never has been, a licensed contractor. Deluxe was formed in 1986, and Otero operated the company out of his home. In August 1986, Deluxe contracted with Lolv Jaramillo to remodel the Jaramillo residence in Miami for $23,800. Prior to the Jaramillo job, Deluxe had remodeled or added to several other residences. On those jobs, Respondent signed the building permit applications brought to him by Otero and made periodic inspections of the work, but Respondent never accepted any compensation from Deluxe for his services as qualifying agent of the company. Respondent was employed full-time otherwise. Before the Jaramillo job, Otero had had similar relationships with other contractors. Prior to beginning construction, Respondent met the Jaramillos at their residence at the request of Otero to discuss the possibility of the Jaramillos arranging a second mortgage through the brokerage firm which was Respondent's regular full-time employer. The Jaramillos were not told, and were not aware, that Respondent was affiliated with Deluxe. They relied on no representations of Respondent in eventually selecting Deluxe to do their construction job. The eventual contract between the Jaramillos and Deluxe was not conditioned on borrowing from Respondent's regular employer, and, in fact, the Jaramillos did not borrow from Respondent or his employer and obtained their financing elsewhere. The Jaramillos eventually instructed Otero to begin work, which he did. Otero first obtained the necessary building permit by going to the building department, filling in Respondent's contractor's license number on the application there, and signing his own name as qualifier. When Otero signed for the building permit, Respondent was out of town. Otero did not inform Respondent in advance of what he was going to do nor did Respondent discover Otero had done this until much later. On all previous contracts, Respondent had signed the permit applications and made the inspections in the manner described in finding of fact 5, supra. Respondent had done nothing to encourage Otero to think he could obtain a building permit as he did for the Jaramillo job. After Deluxe began construction at the Jaramillos' home, Otero was the sole supervisor on the job. After the Jaramillos paid Deluxe $14,000 of the contract price, they became dissatisfied with the pace and quality of the work done by Deluxe and they terminated the contract. According to Harry Gopman, structural engineer, the work done by Deluxe contained violations of local construction codes, but there is no evidence that Otero, Respondent, or anyone associated with Deluxe was convicted or found guilty of any crime. The work undertaken by Deluxe included plumbing work which Respondent was not licensed to perform. The work done by Deluxe and subcontractors under its supervision contained deviations from acceptable industry practice, including rendering a major load-carrying girder useless by penetrating it for the insertion of an air duct for the central air-conditioning system; cutting a concrete doorway lintel for insertion of another air duct, thus destroying the structural integrity of that lintel; and creating a structural hazard by placing a flat roof on the rear addition which severely "ponded" in rainstorms. From the evidence as a whole, it may be inferred that Respondent originally knew he was the sole qualifying agent for Otero/Deluxe. Otero did not affirmatively tell Respondent he had another qualifying agent for the job. However, since Otero kept telling Respondent that the Jarmillos were still having trouble getting financing, it was reasonable for Respondent to believe a building permit was not needed and construction would not begin until financing was found. It was after the commencement of construction, but prior to the termination of the contract by the Jaramillos, that Otero finally informed Respondent that he had begun work on the Jaramillo residence. It is not clear whether Respondent knew that the building permit bore his license number until after the termination of the contract. Respondent never visited the Jaramillo job site during construction. Respondent did not monitor the company finances, did not review subcontractual agreements, did not review invoices from subcontractors and materialmen, and did not call for inspections on the Jaramillo job. There is unrefuted expert testimony by Frank Abbott, architect and licensed general contractor, that a qualifying agent should do the things, but there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent had a clear understanding that such was his position for the Jaramillo job.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 31st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0654 The following constitute rulings pursuant to S. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner PFOF: 1-7, and 9-15. Accepted as modified to more exactly reflect the unrefuted testimony. 8. Accepted except for hearsay and subordinate and unnecessary material. Respondent's PFOF: 1-5, 7, 9. Accepted as modified to more exactly reflect the unrefuted testimony. 6. Rejected as stated. FOF 7 and 12 more correctly reflects the state of the record as a whole. 8. Rejected as stated because as stated it is a legal conclusion. A finding of fraud requires a finding of an affirmative intent which cannot be made upon the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 103 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lance Armstrong, Esquire 1035 Northwest 11th Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Robert O. Bartholomew is registered as a general contractor and as a residential contractor holding licenses No. RG0025081 and No. RR0035491. Be was so registered at all times here relevant. Neither Carl Robinson nor his company, Atlas Associates, Inc., is registered as a building contractor in Pasco County. Robinson, acting for Atlas Associates, Inc., entered into a contract with Betty Valdez to construct an addition to her mobile home in Lutz, Pasco County, Florida, and requested Respondent to pull the building permit as neither Robinson nor Atlas Associates, Inc., is registered in Pasco County. Respondent pulled the permit, as contractor, for the work to be done on Valdez' home although he was not a party to the contract. Both Robinson and Respondent testified they worked under a verbal arrangement as partners in several projects; however, Respondent has no ownership interest in Atlas Associates, Inc. The work was started by Robinson's foreman, Hubbard, but after a short period on the job Hubbard was fired and Respondent took over the construction. Disputes arose between Ms. Valdez and the contractor and the work was not completed by Atlas Associates, Inc. Part of the contract provided for a roof over the existing roof on the trailer. Pasco County requires this work, like electrical and plumbing, to be done by one licensed in that field. No licensed roofer was used and no permit to have such work done by a licensed roofer was pulled. Following unsatisfactory termination of the contract between Atlas and Valdez, liens were filed by Atlas Associates, Inc., and Respondent against Valdez' property and countersuits were instituted by Valdez before both sides agreed to drop their claims. Respondent's contention that Ms. Valdez' agreement to drop all claims in settlement of the dispute somehow precludes this action, is without merit. In a separate proceeding Robinson was disciplined by the Board for his violations of the Construction Industry Licensing Law in contracting with Ms. Valdez when not properly licensed to do so.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified air conditioning contractor, holding License No. CAC009065, and has been the qualifying agent for Residential Air Conditioning Corporation (hereinafter "Residential Air") in Miami, Florida. On October 1, 1985, Residential Air entered into a contract with June Davidson to install air conditioning in her mother's house in the City of Miami on a rush basis because of the health needs of the elderly mother and because Davidson needed to return to New York. Residential Air's salesman was told by Davidson that a medical emergency situation existed for the Davidson job. The following notation appears in the comments section of the contract signed on October 1, 1985: "Please rush this job--woman needs a/c for health ... woman going back to New York--mother needs job." In the contract addendum signed on October 2, 1985, it was noted that Davidson was waiving her 3-day rescission rights because of the medical situation in the family and that the air conditioner needed to be installed immediately. Respondent was out of town on vacation at the time and was not scheduled to return for several days. Respondent has done job drawings and pulled permits for the company over its 16 years of existence. It was Respondent's practice to pull all permits necessary to cover the next several weeks before going on vacation. As a special accommodation to the customer in an emergency situation, Richard Vanni, a part-owner of Residential Air with 30 years of experience in air conditioning installation, assembled a crew to install the system for the Davidson job on October 2, 1985. Mr. Vanni assumed that Respondent would pull the permit on a late basis when he returned from vacation. The ordinance adopting the South Florida Building Code in the City of Miami provides for a late fee in the event an application for job permit is filed after the job begins. It was Mr. Vanni's understanding that in rush or emergency situations legitimate contractors could proceed with work and file late for the permit, that this was acceptable to the various municipal building departments in the south Florida area, and that most building departments are fair in the administration of permit laws and allow appropriate latitude to responsible contractors proceeding in good faith. No evidence was presented that Mr. Vanni or Residential Air had any intent to avoid paying a permit fee, including the appropriate late penalty, or to evade final inspection when the job was completed. Respondent, as qualifying agent for Residential Air, regularly procures permits for all of the company's jobs, and the company is a highly responsible air conditioning contractor. Conner Adams, the Chief Mechanical Inspector for the City of Miami, is aware of no code violations or previous late penalties regarding Respondent or Residential Air and recalls no problems of any kind with Respondent or with the company. Respondent's only previous violation of the state contracting laws involved payment to the Department of Professional Regulation of a small stipulated fine to settle a highly technical charge of using the word "company" instead of the word "corporation" on its contract form prepared by its attorney. The air conditioning unit for the Davidson job was installed with a temporary hook-up which was to be followed by an audit inspection by Florida Power & Light Company and an increase in the electrical service by the electrical subcontractor. The increased service was not done because the customer stopped payment on her check and would not let the company back on the premises. When Respondent returned from vacation a few days later, he immediately became immersed in accumulated office problems and the problem created by the Davidson job. He tried to pacify and accommodate Davidson by visiting the premises and proposing compromises. No one called to Respondent's attention the fact that the Davidson job was not yet permitted. Respondent was not focusing on that issue, and with the other problems engrossing him, it simply slipped his mind to inquire or to check. 12. As Respondent explained, it would be absurd for him to intentionally not procure a permit for a job involving electrical service increase or customer problems. Lack of a permit is readily discovered in such instances and may provide an excuse for the customer to try to avoid payment. Mrs. Sylvia Vanni, wife of co-owner Richard Vanni, is and has been the office manager of Residential Air. Her system has been to place pending job orders and contracts into a "3-day rescission file." After the 3-day rescission time has elapsed and payment arrangements have been made, the job orders or contracts are routinely given to Respondent to pull permits for those jobs. Because Respondent was not present when the Davidson job was undertaken, the contract was not then given to him to pull a permit. When the job was started, Mrs. Vanni mistakenly placed the contract into the "jobs in progress" file, and it was never presented to Respondent to pull a permit after he returned from vacation. The electrical subcontractor also did not notify Respondent of the need for a permit. Since the company was not allowed back on the premises, the electrical subcontractor was not called upon to apply for an electrical permit to increase the electrical service, which would have called Respondent's attention to the need for a mechanical permit. The system and procedures normally relied upon in the office did not function to alert Respondent to apply for a permit on the Davidson job. When the City of Miami Building Department contacted Respondent pursuant to Davidson's inquiry whether a job permit existed, Respondent immediately made application, paid the late fee, and obtained a mechanical permit on November 5, 1985. Respondent's plans and drawings for the job were deemed satisfactory by the City of Miami Building Department. No evidence was presented of any intentional or willful disregard of, or obstinate indifference to, the building permit laws. Respondent's delay in obtaining a late permit after he returned from vacation was caused by simple oversight in the midst of trying to satisfactorily resolve a difficult customer problem in that no one advised him that a permit had not been pulled or that the Davidson job was not one for which he had pulled a permit prior to going on vacation. The initial charging document in this cause is an Amended Administrative Complaint signed on August 24, 1987. The charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint are the same charges that were contained in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against Respondent on July 24, 1986. That complaint was voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner on February 10, 1987, just before the final hearing scheduled in that case for February 16, 1987. Petitioner's probable cause panel met on August 12, 1987, and approved the filing of the Administrative Complaint which became the initial charging document in this cause. The probable cause panel was not told that charges related to the same matter had been dismissed by the Department six months earlier. Indeed, no explanation or discussion of the charges occurred at all. There was only an approval of the prosecutor's recommendation, and the entire discussion of the probable cause panel regarding the existence of probable cause to file the Amended Administrative Complaint consists of the following exchange: MR. SHROPSHIRE [agency attorney]: The next case is against Mr. Heisler, No. 65634. Prosecutor recommends a finding of probable cause and the filing of a formal complaint. MR. CARSON: I'd like to make a motion we accept the prosecutor's recommendations. MR. SUTTON: Second. MR. CARSON: All in favor say aye. MR. SUTTON: Aye. MR. CARSON: All opposed? MR. SHROPSHIRE: The next case is ... Whether probable cause was properly determined was reserved in the Prehearing Stipulation as a issue for determination at the final hearing in this case. No evidence bearing on the probable cause determination was offered by the Department. The charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint were brought (signed) on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation by Douglas A. Shropshire, an attorney and the Tectonics Section Chief. Whether Mr. Shropshire had authority to institute the complaint on behalf of the Department was also reserved as an issue for final hearing. Mr. Shropshire is not the head of the agency. The Department offered no evidence of his designation to act for the Secretary in regard to instituting disciplinary charges.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4452 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10 have been adopted in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-27 have been adopted in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 M. Stephen Turner, Esquire Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3300 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified building contractor, a registered mechanical contractor and a certified air conditioning contractor in the state of Florida having been issued license numbers CB-CA09793, RM-0031246 and CA-C024348, respectively. At all times material hereto, Respondent's building contractor and air conditioning contractor licenses qualified George E. Bonsino and Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. In February 1984, Respondent contracted with Carl and Patricia Powers of 4530 Victor Street, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The contract was presented to the Powers by Peter Stamires. Mr. Stamires was, at the time, acting as sales manager for George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The contract price was approximately $13,000.00 and construction of the Powers' room addition was estimated to be completed by March 30, 1984. On March 20, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers a payment of $6,850.00 on the contract. On May 4, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers an additional payment of $5,000.00 on the contract. The contract called for a "dry-in room" only, i.e., the room was to be put to a stage where water would not penetrate it. The contract also included: (1) covering the existing asbestos shingles with a cut brick and stone veneer; (2) the installation of aluminum windows; (3) the installation of aluminum gables and eaves; (4) re-roofing the entire home; and (5) the installation of overhead lights, light switches and electrical outlets. Respondent's contract with the Powers contemplated that electrical work would be done, but did not include any plumbing. Respondent sub-contracted the Powers' project to two (2) individuals, Mr. Walker and Mr. Todd. Respondent did not know what type of license Mr. Walker or Mr. Todd held and was never shown a license by either individual. Mr. Walker agreed to obtain permits for the Powers' project, to submit building plans and specifications, and to request the mandatory building inspections. Neither the Respondent nor the sub-contractors obtained a City of Jacksonville building permit prior to commencing construction of the Powers' room addition. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors submitted building plans and specifications for approval by the, City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction at the Powers' residence as required. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors requested the City of Jacksonville Building Department to perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction, as required. On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7048 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the Powers' project. Shortly after construction commenced, the Powers became concerned with the quality of work being performed. Respondent, while at the project site near the end of March, told Mr. Powers that a building permit had been obtained for the project. However, at that time, no building permit had been obtained. Mr. Theron Brannan, a building inspector for the City of Jacksonville, became involved with the Powers' case when Mrs. Powers called in May 1984 and complained about ;he work being performed by Respondent. Mr. Brannan checked and found that no permit had been issued. He then went out and inspected the construction site. Mr. Brannan found that the walls were approximately 3 or 4 inches out of alignment and that the floor was spongy and needed repair. Major work would have been required to straighten the walls. In Mr. Brannan's opinion, the work was well below average and was of very poor quality. Electrical and plumbing work was performed at the Powers' project site. Ten (10) electrical outlets, six (6) overhead lights and six (6) light switches were installed. The electrical work also included a 220 volt outlet for a clothes dryer. Mrs. Powers is a housewife and was present during the time the electrical work was performed. The individual performing the electrical work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent and was being paid on an hourly basis. The plumbing work performed at the Powers' project included: (1) installation of hot and cold water lines for the bathroom sink, which were tied into the existing water supply; (2) a water line to the toilet, and (3) a drain pipe from the toilet to the existing septic tank. The individual performing the plumbing work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent on an hourly basis and that he was a licensed plumber. When Respondent was advised of the problems at the construction site, he immediately obtained the necessary permits and offered to correct some of the building problems. The Powers refused Respondent's offer to correct the problems because they were concerned as to whether the remedial measures proposed by Respondent were actually feasible. From an appearance standpoint, the measures contemplated by Respondent were not feasible. In April 1984, Respondent contracted with Glenn and Debora Blanchard of 521 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The total contract price was $6,780.00. Respondent received $3,390.00 as a down payment on the contract; the balance was due upon completion. The contract called for the construction of a room addition between the existing home and the garage. The room addition was to be completed to the "dry-in" stage only. The contract also included re-roofing the entire residence. The Respondent sub- contracted the Blanchard project to a person by the name of A. Rhoden. Mr. Rhoden agreed to obtain all permits, draw all plans and specifications and obtain all required inspections with the exception of the roofing aspects of the project. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor obtained a building permit prior to commencing construction at the Blanchard's residence as required. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor submitted building plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor requested the building department perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction In May 1984, Ms. Blanchard became concerned because the concrete slab appeared uneven and had developed a crack. She contacted the City of Jacksonville Building Department because she was concerned with the quality of the work being performed. On May 30, 1984 the City of Jacksonville Building Department and Zoning Inspection Division issued a stop work order on construction work being performed at the Blanchard residence. The Notice of Violation cited the failure to submit building plans and failure to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction at the project site. On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7047 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the construction work at the Blanchard residence. Such Permit was obtained after commencement of the project. Shortly after commencement of construction, Respondent met with Mr. Blanchard at the project site to discuss a few changes to the original plans. In late April, 1984, Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that a building permit had been obtained, when in fact, no building permit had been obtained. Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that the permit needed to be kept at his office. The construction of the room addition included the forming and pouring of a monolithic slab. The City building department inspects the excavation of the slab prior to the pouring of concrete. A tie-beam inspection is required after the foundation is poured and the masonry walls are erected. Neither inspection was performed nor requested. The Respondent told Mrs. Blanchard that two (2) inspectors had inspected the property, when in fact no inspectors had inspected the property because no building permit had been applied for at the time Respondent made such statement. Unless a building permit is obtained, the City is generally not aware that a construction project is being undertaken and, therefore, does not conduct building inspections. Lewis D. Franks, an expert in residential construction inspected the work done at the Blanchard's home on behalf of the City of Jacksonville Building Department. Several problems existed in regard to the Blanchard project. There was a large crack in the concrete which resulted from the settling of the southeast corner of the building. The settling of the southeast corner resulted from either an inadequate footing or none at all. Also, the roof rafters were not centered properly and were about fourteen (14) feet off. The Blanchard project was of very poor workmanship, the construction was not structurally sound, and the project failed in several respects to meet requirements of the City of Jacksonville Building Code. When Respondent found out that no permit had been obtained he promptly drew up plans and specifications and obtained a permit from the City of Jacksonville Building Department. The Blanchards, thereafter, refused to allow Respondent to continue working on the project. The roofing portion of the Blanchard project was sub- contracted by Respondent to Richard Davenport. Mr. Davenport holds a state license as a roofing contractor and a local occupational license. Mr. Davenport's sub-contract called for him to tear off the existing roof, carry off the rotten wood and put on a new roof. Respondent was not satisfied with the roofing job done by Mr. Davenport and failed to pay him for such roofing job. Thereafter, Mr. Davenport demanded payment from the Blanchards but they also refused to pay him. Mr. Davenport filed a Claim of Lien against the Blanchards' property. However, the Blanchards hired an attorney and the Claim of Lien was dismissed. Respondent's failure to pay Mr. Davenport was based on his good faith belief that the roofing job was not done in a satisfactory manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Count Three of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed, the Petitioner failing to introduce any evidence in regard to Count Three and requesting that it be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's building contractor's license be suspended for a period of 6 months and that an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 October, 1985. * Count Three of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner and, in any event, was not established by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Carolyn Givens 8741 Free Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph Ruling (general finding) Accepted; see paragraph 1, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 2, R.O. (DPR Case #0049083) Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 & 11 Petitioner's proposed finding "the individual performing the electrical work was Respondent's employee and was being paid on an hourly basis" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay which did not fit within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4, 7, 11 and 12, R.O. Petitioner's finding that "the plumbing work was performed by Respondent's employee" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay. Accepted; see paragraphs 9 and 10, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 10, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. (DPR Case #0049788) Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 23, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 17 and 22, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraph 17, R.O. Facts not covered by paragraph 17are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraphs 18 and 19, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 21 and 23, R.O. Facts not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 4 and 5, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 13. Partially accepted; see paragraph 13. Findings not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Respondents claim that the contract called for the construction of a dry-in addition and not a "room addition" is considered immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 26, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Rejected as a conclusion of law. ================================================================ =
