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. /
The Issue By its Administrative Complaint filed on January 15, 1985, the Department of Professional Regulation charged Respondent with violations of Section 489.129(1)(h)(k) and (m) Florida Statutes, relating to diversion of funds, abandonment of a construction project and gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct. The issue in this proceeding is whether any violation occurred and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken. The Respondent generally denies the charges. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented two witnesses: Don Riordan, the home-owner; and Stephen Douglas Gates, an employee of Brooks Glass Company who did an estimate of cost of completion for the project. Four Petitioner's exhibits were admitted without objection: a check for payment by Don Riordan to A1 Ruocco, the Brooks Glass estimate, letter from William Bambach to A1 Ruocco and letter from Bob Bambach to Donald Riordan. A fifth exhibit was withdrawn. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented no other witnesses. His eight exhibits included the contract and a series of letters between himself and Robert Bambach. At the outset of the hearing, Petitioner moved for leave to file the testimony of Robert Bambach at a later date, due to unsuccessful attempts to serve a subpoena. The Respondent objected and the motion was denied. Petitioner waited until two days before the hearing to attempt to serve the prospective witness even though the hearing had been scheduled since June and the location of the hearing had been established for two weeks. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended Order on November 1, 1985; none was filed by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact have been primarily adopted herein but are addressed more specifically in Appendix A, attached to this order.
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are virtually uncontroverted, with the exception of the months and sequences of some events. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a registered building contractor holding license number RB0030112, which license qualified River's Edge Construction Company, Inc., Melbourne, Florida. On March 11, 1983 a contract was entered between Albert Ruocco, President, River's Edge Construction Co., Inc. ("Ruocco") and Don Riordan, Jr., ("Riordan") to enclose a balcony with bronze awning windows and bronze tinted glass at Riordan's townhouse residence in Melbourne Beach, Florida. Ruocco and Riordan knew each other socially as Ruocco was a neighbor of Riordan's parents. Ruocco was recommended for the job by Riordan's parents. On March 31, 1983, Riorden paid Ruocco $1300.00 or the $1853.00 contract price. Riordan testified that Ruocco was doing him a favor because it was repair work and the principal amount of money was being paid up front to avoid a cash-flow problem on materials. (T-18). The idea was to get the work done as soon as possible. (T-16). Sometime around May or June 1983, the construction started with removal of existing screening and the installation of an aluminum kick plate and posts to hold the awning window frames. Sometime later the windows were put in for the first time. The actual work on the project was done by a Mr. Bambach, rather than Ruocco. What followed the first installation was a series of misadventures culminating in a lawsuit by Riordan and an $800.00 civil judgment against Ruocco. The work was never completed. The first windows installed were clear glass rather than tinted bronze. Riordan complained to Ruocco and the windows were removed within twenty-four hours. The windows were installed again, this time with film rather than tinted glass and Riordan called Ruocco the next day. Again the windows were removed immediately. Some time passed (by now it was early August) and bronze-tinted windows were installed. However, after a rain storm it became apparent that the installation was faulty, as the structure leaked. The metal strips had been damaged from the several removals. Riordan complained the third time and the windows were removed a third time. They were never replaced. Throughout this period Riordan was dealing with Ruocco, with whom he had the contract and Ruocco was dealing with Bambach, to whom he had given $800.00 as partial payment for the work. Relations between the individuals deteriorated as months passed and the windows were still not finally installed. Riordan called Ruocco about getting the work done and was told that Ruacco was having trouble with his worker. By the end of 1983 Riordan's attorney called Ruocco and said that the money had to be refunded. In the meantime, a stand-off had developed between Ruocco and Bambach, with Ruocco insisting that the work be completed prior to final payment and Bambach insisting that he be paid prior to re- installation of the windows. Bambach had taken the windows to a glass company to be fixed. Bambach alleged in his correspondence that Ruocco did not have the money to pay him, while Ruocco alleged that he tried to meet Bambach to give him the money but Bambach didn't show up. Ruocco testified that he possibly could have installed the windows himself but was trying to get Bambach to complete the job. (T-57). He further testified that he had two other persons look at the job but they wouldn't touch someone else's work. (T-58). Sometime in early 1984 Ruocco was made to understand that Riordan was not interested in waiting any longer for the project to be finished and wanted his money back.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing, I recommend that the Respondent be found guilty of misconduct as provided in Subsection 439.129(1)(m) Florida Statutes, and be reprimanded in accordance with Subsection 489.129(1) Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 12th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX In accordance with Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, the following are recommended rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by Petitioner in this case. The numbered paragraphs below conform to the paragraphs proposed by Petitioner. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraph 1. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraphs 2 and 6. These finding are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraph 3. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraph 5. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraph 5. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraph 5. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order, paragraph 7. The findings related to the estimate of Brooks Glass Company are irrelevant. The estimate was done approximately one and a half years after the contract was entered between Riordan and Ruocco. The witness from Brooks Glass who testified about the estimate could not relate the quality of Brooks' windows to those intended by Ruocco for the project. (T. 41-43). To the extent that these findings are proposed to show the extent to which the project was left uncompleted, the fact that the windows were never re- installed was admitted by Ruocco and is reflected in Recommended Order paragraphs 4 and 5. These findings are incorporated in Recommended Order paragraphs 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Roche, Seeretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Albert J. Ruocco 604 Citrus Court Melbourne, Florida 32951
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be revoked or suspended, or some other discipline imposed, for the reasons alleged in a multi-count Administrative Complaint. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint may be summarized as follows: Count One--failure to properly qualify a company under which Respondent was doing business and acting in a name other than that on his license; Count Two--abandoning a construction project without just cause and willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable local building codes; Count Three-- diverting funds received for the completion of a specified construction project when as a result of the diversion the contractor is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on matters officially recognized, I make the following findings of fact: Admitted and stipulated facts The Respondent is a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C007067. The Respondent's last known address is DeMaria & Sons Construction Company, Inc., 4451 N.E. 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334. On July 14, 1982, Respondent, doing business as Big D Construction, contracted with Jolly Libo-on of 312 S.E. 22nd Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to build an addition to Libo- on's house for a contract price of $17,500.00. At all times material herein, Respondent qualified DeMaria & Sons Construction Company, Inc. At no time did Respondent properly qualify, nor did any licensed contractor properly qualify, Big D Construction. The Respondent began work on Libo-on's house on August 23, 1982, and continued construction until at least the last week of September of 1982. Libo-on has paid the Respondent $13,500.00 as called for by their contract. The following subcontractors or suppliers filed claims of lien against Libo-on's property because of Respondent's failure to pay them for services or supplies: Minute Men Associates, Inc. $1,752.47 Apachee Roofing 885.00 Meekins, Inc. 439.53 Greenlee Plumbing Service, Inc. 795.00 Total liens $3,862.00 7. The Respondent has not satisfied the liens filed against Libo-on's property, but the liens were later satisfied by Libo- on. Other relevant facts established by the evidence of record After September 27, 1982, the only work performed by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Libo-on residence was by employee Shawn Brannigan on November 16, 1982, and by employee Bob Walters on November 21, 1982. The work performed by Brannigan and Walters in November was de minimis in nature and did not significantly advance the completion of the contract. From September 27 through November 25, 1982, Libo-on called the Respondent by telephone on a daily basis to inquire about why no work was being done on the project. The Respondent would promise that someone would come the next day, but with the exception of the de minimis efforts on November 16 and 21, no work was done on the project after September 27, 1982, by or on behalf of the Respondent. Libo-on quit trying to make telephone calls to the Respondent after the Respondent told Libo-on on the telephone that he had reached a wrong number. The Respondent's services were terminated on December 7, 1982, via letter from Libo-on's attorney, Linn Brett. At no time prior to the termination of his services did the Respondent inform the Libo-ons that he could not do any more work nor did the Libo-ons dismiss him from the work at any earlier date. At the time Respondent's services were terminated, the addition was approximately 75 per cent completed. In addition to the subcontractors and suppliers listed in paragraph 6 above, the Respondent also failed to pay the sum of $2,393.00 which was due to International Drywall Systems, a subcontractor who provided services and supplies on the Libo-on project. Abandonment of a construction project constitutes a violation of Broward County Ordinance 78-9, Section 9-14(b)(8). Libo-on paid the lienors $3,441.00 in satisfaction of the liens. Libo-on contracted with Robert Hobart to finish the construction, at an additional cost of $4,000.00. Libo-on paid $2,200.00 for lawyers fees, $3,441.00 for liens, and $4,000.00 to Mr. Hobart. These costs minus the $4,000.00 remaining under the Respondent's contract resulted in Libo-on expending $5,641.00 above the original contract price. Of the $13,500.00 which was paid to him by Libo-on, the Respondent can establish that he spent only approximately $9,000.00 on the project. The Respondent was unable to complete the project because he did not have on hand the money to pay the subcontractors and suppliers.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of five years and providing further that the suspension will be reduced to one year upon the Respondent's demonstrating to the Board that he has made restitution to Libo-on in the amount of $5,641.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4450 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties to this case. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: The findings of fact included in this Recommended Order include the substance of all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner with certain minor modifications and additions in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The unnumbered paragraphs of the Respondent's letter of October 22, 1985, have comments, arguments, legal conclusions, and factual assertions all interspersed. Nothing in the letter constitutes a proposed finding of fact per se. Were it not for the fact that the Respondent is unrepresented by counsel, I would decline to attempt to address the issues raised in the Respondent's letter of October 22, 1985, due to both its tardiness and its failure to separately state proposed findings and proposed conclusions. Nevertheless, giving the Respondent more process than is perhaps his due, I have specifically ruled on each of the contentions which relates to factual matters and have also attempted to address his legal contentions. In the rulings below I have referred to the unnumbered paragraphs in the order in which they appear on each page of the letter. Page one, first paragraph: No ruling required. Page one, second paragraph: No ruling required. Page one, third paragraph: Respondent's version of the facts on this issue is rejected for several reasons, including the following: (1) competent substantial evidence supports the finding that from September 27 until December 7, 1982, only "token" or "de minimis" work was performed on the Libo-on project, and (2) the Respondent did not offer into evidence the documentation mentioned in this paragraph. Page one, fourth paragraph: There is competent substantial evidence for the Petitioner's version of the finding addressed by this paragraph. The Libo- on testimony on this subject is not hearsay. Page one, fifth paragraph: To the extent that in this paragraph the Respondent attempts to dispute the fact that he abandoned the Libo-on project, such a finding is rejected because the persuasive competent substantial evidence compels an opposite finding. Page one, sixth paragraph: With regard to the issue of the percentage of completion of the project at the time the Respondent abandoned it, there is conflicting evidence. The more persuasive evidence is that the project was approximately 75 percent completed. Page one, seventh paragraph (which also continues at top of page two): This paragraph contains a mixture of legal and factual contentions. With regard to the factual contentions it is sufficient to note that the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the amount paid to Hobart to finish the work on the Libo-on project was a reasonable amount because, in fact, it was exactly the same amount that remained to be paid to the Respondent on his unfinished contract. No one is trying to charge the Respondent for additional work that was not in his contract. The amount to which the Libo-ons are entitled in restitution is the sum of their expenses incurred for legal fees and for obtaining satisfaction of liens placed against their property because of the Respondent's failure to pay subcontractors and suppliers. Page two, first full paragraph: The Respondent's contentions in this paragraph are contrary to the persuasive competent substantial evidence. These contentions are also contrary to Respondent's admission at hearing that he could account for only approximately $9,000.00 of the $13,500.00 he was paid by the Libo-ons. Page two, second full paragraph: This paragraph requires no comment other than to note that there is a significant difference between imposing a fine and providing for a reduced suspension in the event of restitution. Page two, third full paragraph: Contrary to the Respondent's assertion, there is persuasive competent substantial evidence to establish the amount of the financial injury suffered by the Libo-ons as a result of the Respondent's misconduct. Page two, last paragraph: No ruling required. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Vincent A. DeMaria 4451 N.E. 16th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Sections 489.119(2), 489.124(2), 489.129(1)(n) and (p), and 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes (1999) (hereinafter, "Florida Statutes"), respectively, by: engaging in contracting as a business organization without applying for a certificate of authority through a qualifying agent and under a fictitious name; failing to notify Petitioner of the mailing address and telephone number of the certificate holder or registrant; committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; proceeding on a job without obtaining applicable building permits and inspections; and failing to provide a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund (the "Fund").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a contractor with license number CC C018992. At all relevant times, Respondent was registered or certified with Petitioner as the qualifying agent for Earl Benjamin and Company, Inc. ("EBCO"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of EBCO's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority from Petitioner. On April 4, 1998, EBCO entered into a contract with Mr. Joseph Chapman ("Chapman") to repair a leak in the roof of Chapman's residence at 1880 Jessica Road, Clearwater, Florida. On the advice of Mr. Dale Edwards, a representative of EBCO, Chapman entered into a second contract with EBCO to repair the entire roof for an additional cost. None of the contracts or other documentation provided by EBCO to Chapman contained a notice explaining the consumer's rights under the Fund. The contract prices for the first and second contracts were $4,500 and $7,500, respectively. After completing the work, Respondent sent another bill to Chapman for $1,750 for additional materials and repairs. Chapman paid, and Respondent accepted, $13,210 as payment in full of all amounts owed to Respondent. The checks signed by Chapman were made payable to "Earl Benjamin and Company and/or EBCO." After EBCO completed the work on the Chapman residence, the roof leaked in four places and continued to leak as of the date of hearing. Chapman contacted Respondent and other EBCO representatives repeatedly in attempt to stop the leaks. EBCO has been unable to stop the leaks in Chapman's home. The Pinellas County Building Department (the "Building Department") never performed a final inspection approving the work performed by Respondent. The Building Department issued building permit number 175919 to Respondent on April 23, 1998. On May 26, 1998, Chapman indicated to the Building Department that the roof leaked, and an inspector for the Building Department inspected the roof on the same date. The inspector found that the birdcage was not reassembled, some flashing was too short, and other eaves and rates were not constructed properly. The inspector issued a red tag for the violations. On June 16, 1998, the inspector inspected the roof again and issued a second red tag for some violations that remained uncorrected. On November 16, 1998, the inspector inspected the roof again and issued another red tag because the roof still leaked. On January 14, 1999, the inspector met with Chapman and representatives for EBCO to address the continuing problems with the roof. The inspector instructed Respondent to update his address and licensing information. On January 26, 1999, the inspector inspected the roof for the last time. The roof still leaked. On May 9, 1998, EBCO entered into a contract with Jack and Dawn Wilcox ("Wilcox") to repair the roof and install roof vents in the Wilcox residence at 247 144th Avenue, Madeira Beach, Florida. The contract price for the Wilcox job was $1,800. The Wilcoxes paid, and Respondent accepted, $1,800 as payment in full of all amounts owed to Respondent. The checks signed by the Wilcox's were made payable to "EBCO" or "EBCO Roofing." After EBCO completed the work on the Wilcox residence, the roof leaked around the vents installed by Respondent. The work performed by Respondent suffered from incompetent workmanship including ragged and non-uniform holes cut into the roof for the vents. Mr. Wilcox attempted to contact Respondent and other EBCO representatives repeatedly in an attempt to correct the leaks in the roof. No one from EBCO returned the messages from Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox attempted to physically locate Respondent at Respondent's business address, but Respondent's address was incorrect. The Wilcoxes incurred additional expenses of $1,500 to correct problems caused by Respondent. On October 24, 1998, Mr. Wilcox entered into a contract with Kurt Dombrowski Roofing Contractor ("Dombrowski") to repair the leaks in the roof and to re-install the vents in the roof. Dombrowski correctly performed the work, and Wilcox paid Dombrowski $1,500. The Wilcoxes have no further problems with the roof. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the work performed on the Wilcox roof. The Wilcox home was located within the jurisdiction of the City of Madeira Beach (the "City"). The City no longer has a building department. The Pinellas County Building Department assumed the responsibilities of the City. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the Wilcox job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.119(2), 489.124(2), 489.129(1)(n) and (p), and 489.1425(1), imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,200, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Chapman and Wilcox in the respective amounts of $13,210 and $1,800, and requiring Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $690.40. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Earl Henry Benjamin 9914 Connecticut Street Gibsonton, Florida 33534
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: During times material hereto, Respondent was a certified residential contractor having been issued license number CR C018874 since 1981. Respondent, during late 1986, was approached by a Mr. Marlar, owner of Pinellas Builders, who requested that Respondent affiliate with Pinellas Builders using his licensure to qualify Pinellas. Respondent tentatively agreed to a business arrangement with Marlar, however, prior to the time that Respondent formally qualified Pinellas, the negotiations broke down and Respondent never formally qualified Pinellas. During January, 1987, Pinellas entered into a contract with a customer, John Kane of Clearwater, Florida, to build an addition to Mr. Kane's residence for a sum of $33,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pinellas was required to obtain a permit to construct the addition to Kane's residence. Pinellas obtained the permit and utilized Respondent's license to do so. Kane encountered difficulty with Pinellas as the subcontractors were not paid and liens and/or notices of intent to file liens were placed on his home. Mr. Kane ultimately had to rehire the subcontractors and pay them directly resulting in an additional expenditure by Kane of approximately $10,000 over and above the amount that Pinellas agreed to complete the addition to his home. During June of 1987, Kane filed a complaint with Petitioner and in connection therewith, Petitioner's investigator, H. Dennis Force, spoke to Respondent via telephone respecting the fact that permits were being pulled under his name. Respondent was unaware that Pinellas was utilizing his name as a qualifier to obtain permits nor was Respondent aware that Pinellas had obtained contracts to perform work utilizing his name as the licensing authority. As a result of Investigator Force's conversations with Respondent, Respondent revoked the letter of authorization given to Marlar during April, 1987. Respondent distributed copies of the revocation of authorization given to Marlar to the various local cities in the surrounding area. Respondent acknowledges his liability as a qualifier and accepts that responsibility. Respondent is not presently affiliated with any corporate entity in that he prefers to work as an individual such that he can insure the quality which he strives for comes to reality. Mr. Kane acknowledges that he never saw Respondent on the jobsite and had never met him during any of the negotiations with Marlar (Pinellas). Respondent received no monies from Kane or any other persons who had entered dealings with Pinellas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a civil penalty of $500 payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days and issuing a written letter of reprimand to Respondent based on his authorization of an unlicensed person to use his name to obtain permits. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 7th day of April, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and IV of the amended administrative complaint, and guilty of misconduct by affixing his signature and number to air-conditioning plans in Count VI. All other charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given the penalty set forth in paragraph 45 of this recommended order. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Clarence Kimball, is a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Florida, holding license number PE 0009427. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing standards and principles of professional engineering practice imposed upon licensed professional engineers in Florida and enumerated in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (1981), and with monitoring and regulating the licensure status of professional engineers in Florida. The Respondent was retained to draft engineering design drawings for a multi-family residential project known as Westwind Villas, to be constructed in Lee County, Florida. The project consisted of two two (2) story buildings each containing four residential units. The drawings depict the first floor of the two buildings as built in place out of concrete block. The second floor of the building as depicted in the drawings, would be built of prefabricated modular units mounted on top of the concrete block, first floor construction. The purpose of these engineering drawings was to define the scope of the work to be done by the building contractor, who would do the actual construction, and to define the materials to be used by the contractor and the manner in which those materials were to be assembled. These permit drawings contain an inconsistency as to which way the buildings are to face. Sheet 1 of the drawings depicts a plot plan and drainage plan for the Westwind Villas. That sheet indicates that the units are all facing west. Sheet 2 of the drawings also shows the units facing west. Sheet 5, however, depicts the units as both facing to the north. This fact was established by Petitioner and indeed, was acknowledged by the Respondent in his testimony. Sheet 2 depicts the elevation and design of the foundation of both buildings. There are a number of areas of the foundation design where the drawing depicts an increase in the width of the concrete slab involved, but with no indication of the Respondent's intent as to what the dimensions of the widened portion of the slab were to be. The Respondent acknowledged that the failure to indicate the width of the slab as widened with regard to the drawing on Sheet 2, was a mistake on his part. Sheet 2 also contains a note that says "number 5 bars in the concrete fill are indicated by a little square." Indeed there are numerous small squares on the foundation plan indicating that number 5 reinforcing bars are erroneously sticking out of the floor of the structure. The Respondent admitted that the filled squares indicate reinforcing bars out in the floor of the structure, as opposed to the foundation, and that those are mistakes. Sheet 2 also provides no indication or direction to the building contractor as to the degree of compaction of soil required, the grade of lumber to be used, nor the grade and type of reinforcing steel to be used in the concrete portion of the construction. Sheet 4 of the permit drawings contains details and cross sections. Section AA calls for an 8" x 16" concrete tie beam and in depicting the typical cross section of that same beam, the Respondent shows it as an 8" x 12" concrete tie beam, which would have less "shear load "or weight bearing ability. Section CC of Sheet 4 illustrates a section of the wall for which the Respondent indicates that a single wall is to be constructed of interior type wall materials. Due to the offset of the two units in their alignment arrangement with each other however, there should have been two "stud walls" designed with the exterior portions of those walls constructed out of exterior materials, since, as designed in an offset pattern, portions of the walls would indeed be exterior walls. The Respondent acknowledged here again that he should have designed the two walls providing for materials suitable for exterior wall construction. As Respondent admits, Section CC also does not indicate how the contractor is to anchor prefabricated units consisting of the second floor structure, to the beams on which they are to rest. There is no indication as to what material is to be used for the attic floor of the structures. Section 5 depicts cross sections, trusses and framing details. There is inconsistency between the elevation depicted on Sheet 2 and the roof rafter plans shown on Sheet 5. The roof after plan indicates that the prefabricated second story unit is 14 feet wide without overhang on the sides. The elevation drawing, however, shows an overhang of 1' 4" on each side. There is thus an inconsistency there, and also an inconsistency between the ceiling plan above the second floor and the truss detail both of which are shown in Sheet 5. The ceiling plan indicates that the ceiling joists are to be 2" x 6". In truss detail "A" the ceiling joists are shown to be 2" x 8". Additionally, the 2" x 6" ceiling joists are overstressed in that the attic was designed to have a pull down staircase and thus is clearly intended for storage use. The standard building code in effect for this structure, requires that an attic space to be used for storage should be designed with a live load capacity of thirty pounds per square foot. The Respondent designed this attic space with a live load capacity of fifteen pounds per square foot, and thus has failed to meet building code standards. Sheet 5 contains illustrations of "Sling and Jack Points" thus showing a method for lifting the fabricated units onto the concrete block first floor structure. The owner of the building ultimately decided not to use this method for lifting the prefabricated units atop the first floor, but the Respondent failed to notify the Lee County Building Department of this decision and did not file a revised sheet showing the elimination of the use of sling and jack points for lifting in the design. The drawing with regard to placement of the second floor units on top of the first floor concrete block structure was incomplete. The Respondent referred to a temporary support beam to be used during the lifting operation and indicated the specification for that beam "as depicted by reference on another sheet of the drawings. Respondent, however, did not indicate what other sheet the contractor was to refer to. The permit drawings for this project, signed and sealed by Respondent, are to some extent an amalgamation of drawings from other previously designed projects, some of which are inconsistent when an attempt is made to combine the drawings into a single new design. There are a number of construction problems the Respondent failed to resolve with his drawings, and while many of the errors and inconsistencies standing alone would not be significant, the sum total of all the inconsistencies, ambiguities and inaccuracies in the drawings result in a final product which would, if used to construct the building, result in a poorly constructed, and possibly unsafe building, because of the substandard and ambiguous nature of the drawings at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers suspending the license of Clarence Kimball, the Respondent herein, for a period of four years, provided however, that if, within one year from the date of such final order, the Respondent, through enrollment and successful completion of appropriate continuing engineering educational courses, can establish that his engineering skills have been remediated and rehabilitated, then the remaining three years of suspension should be abated and his licensure reinstated to its former status. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32391 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1984.
Findings Of Fact From May 1, 1985, through June 30, 1987, Respondent, John Gonzalez, was a registered general contractor and qualifying agent for Le-Go Developers, Inc., license-number RG-A02757. On his application for qualification of Le-Go Developers, Inc., respondent was required to list his individual address and the address of the business entity. To this end, respondent provided an individual address of 8435 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida, and a business address of Le-Go Developers, Inc., of 9840 S.W. 81st Street, Miami, Florida. On March 25, 1986, Ms. Selma Roberts contracted, through respondent, with Le-Go Developers, Inc., for certain repairs to an apartment complex owned by her, and located at 8415 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida. At the time, respondent was a tenant of Ms. Roberts. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Le-Go Developers, Inc., was to repair an existing dock for $700 and paint the railings in the apartment complex for $400. Ms. Roberts paid Le-Go Developers, Inc., $1,100 in advance for the work. At no time did Ms. Roberts and respondent discuss the need for a building permit to undertake the agreed upon work, and no permit was secured for the project or posted on the job site. The building regulation pertinent to this case provide: PERMITS REQUIRED It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof. . . without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building official.... EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following sections, for general maintenance or repairs...the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building official. Permits, to be issued by the Building Official, shall be required for the following: (a) The erection or construction of any building or structure, the adding to, enlarging, repairing, improving, altering, covering, or extending of any building or structure. Respondent repaired the dock and painted the railings in the apartment house. The work was not, however, apparently to Ms. Roberts' satisfaction and she paid a third party $100 to correct the deficiencies she perceived. While the work may not have satisfied Ms. Roberts, there is no competent proof that respondent did not comply with the terms of the agreement, that the work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, or that the work did not conform to existing building codes. At some point during the spring of 1987, respondent moved from the apartment at 8415 Crespi Boulevard to a new residence, and permitted his license to lapse. Respondent did not notify petitioner of his new residence address until he applied to reinstate his license in April 1988, as discussed infra. The petitioner's records demonstrate that respondent's license was on a delinquent status for non-renewal from July 1, 1987, until his application to change the status of his license and reinstate his license was approved May 23, 1988. In his application, dated April 4, 1988, respondent listed his residence address as 8440 Byron Avenue, Miami, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a reprimand and administrative fine in the sum of $250 against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. 2 & 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. 3. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 1. 5-7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 8-9. Addressed in paragraph 5 and paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law. 10. Addressed in paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. John Gonzalez 8440 Byron Avenue, #1 Miami, Florida 33167 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was a certified residential contractor, holding license no. CR-C018860, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Sometime prior to May, 1985, Respondent verbally contracted with Stavros Kountanis (Kountanis), owner of a commercial building located at 658 North Dixie Highway, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, to furnish labor and materials for work to be performed on the commercial building. The contracted work included installation of a sink, a toilet, a new back door, a dropped ceiling with light fixtures, partitioning off restrooms and covering a drain used as a grease trap with concrete. The contract price of the project, based on Respondent's calculation for labor and material, was $1,500.00 which Respondent received from Kountanis in the form of a loan. Respondent did not obtain a building, plumbing, or electrical permit for the work performed on the commercial building identified in paragraph 2 above and contracted for by the Respondent. At no time material to these proceedings was Respondent licensed other than as a certified residential contractor. Along with Respondent, Cardy Moten, Respondent's partner and Cardy Moten's helpers performed the work for which Respondent had contracted for with Kountanis. The limitations placed on Respondent's license by statute prohibited him from contracting for, or performing, the type work which he had contracted for and performed. At no time material to these proceedings was Cardy Moten or his helpers on the Kountanis job licensed to perform commercial contracting, plumbing contracting or electrical contracting. At all times material to these proceedings Sections 105.1 and 106.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida were in full force and effect. Respondent's failure to obtain a permit to perform the work contracted for with Kountanis before performing the work was in violation of Section 106.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of New Smyrna Beach, Florida and Section 10-96, Building Regulations, New Smyrna Beach Code. Respondent was aware that Kountanis had not obtained a permit for the work which Respondent had contracted for with him. The work depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4A thru 4D was work that Respondent had contracted for and performed or performed by Cardy Moten and his helpers at Respondent's direction.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is RECOMMENDED that the Board suspend the Respondent's certified residential contractor's license for a period of one (1) year and assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one (1) year, provided the Respondent pays the $500.00 fine within ninety (90) days of the final order. Respondent's failure to pay the $500.00 fine within the time specified will result in his certified residential contractor's license being suspended for a period of one (1) year with the requirement that when the fine is paid and the suspension lifted, the Respondent must appear before the Board for reinstatement of his license. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 25th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2638 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Respondent did not submitted any Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred L. Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Suite 504 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lagran Saunders, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Vernon Eubank Post Office Box 9269 Glenwood, Florida 32722
