The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since 1981, a Florida- licensed general contractor (holding license number CG C019787). At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been licensed as an individual in his own name, not as a qualifying agent 3/ or under a fictitious name. At no time has Respondent been licensed in the State of Florida as a roofing contractor or as any other type of contractor other than a general contractor. Larry Thomas is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the sole owner and president of Home Improvement Time, Inc. (HIT), a corporation that he formed in or around December of 1995. Mr. Thomas, in naming his company, hoped that the public, when hearing the company's name, would associate it with the popular "Home Improvement" television program. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any other owners, officers, or directors of the company. Until late in 1998, HIT was actively engaged in the business of soliciting home improvement work, including room additions and the installation of roofs, hurricane shutters, and screens. To solicit such work, HIT used telemarketers who contacted homeowners over the telephone from HIT's office (located in a shopping center in Jensen Beach, Florida and having the mailing address of 867 Northeast Jensen Beach Boulevard, Jensen Beach, Florida), and it also employed salespersons who visited homeowners at their homes. Among the salespersons who worked for HIT were Vince Ketchum and Bob Andrews. At no time material to the instant case did HIT have a licensed contractor serve as its certified qualifying agent. 4/ Mr. Thomas has never been licensed as a general contractor. Some time after 1996, he obtained aluminum structure and concrete contracting licenses from the City of Port St. Lucie and from Martin County. In or around January of 1996, shortly after the formation of HIT, Respondent met with Mr. Thomas at HIT's office and observed HIT's operations. As a result of this meeting, Respondent hired HIT, on a commission basis, to solicit home improvement work for him. Respondent was the only general contractor for whom HIT solicited business. When a HIT telemarketer made contact with a prospect, the telemarketer indicated that he or she was with HIT. If asked who would be doing the home improvement work, the telemarketer advised the prospect that the work would be done by Respondent. If a prospect contacted by a HIT telemarketer was interested in having home improvement work done, a HIT salesperson was dispatched to the prospect's home. Respondent provided HIT salespersons with training and instructions as to what to do when calling on prospects. On their visits to prospects' homes, the salespersons brought with them preprinted form contracts for the prospects to sign. These form contracts were jointly developed by Mr. Thomas and Respondent (using, as a model, a form contract that was published in a "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine article). On the top right hand corner of these form contracts were the words "licensed" and "insured." To the left of these words, in large, stylized lettering, were either the words "Home Improvement," "Home Improvement Inc.," "Home Improvement Time, Inc.," or "Home Improvement by Richard Kosalka" (depending on the time frame). These words were included on the form because Respondent wanted homeowners to make the connection between him and HIT and the television program after which HIT was named. Underneath these words appeared the following: 667 N.E. Jensen Beach Boulevard Jensen Beach, FL 34957 Richard Kosalka State License # CGCO19787 Among the provisions in the form contracts was the clause, "This agreement subject to office approval." When they returned from their sales calls, the salespersons brought any signed contract to Mr. Thomas at HIT's office. Depending on the nature of the work involved, Mr. Thomas approved or disapproved the contract himself or he gave the contract to Respondent 5/ to approve or disapprove (pursuant to the "subject to office approval" clause in the contract). Any contract that Respondent approved became Respondent's contract to perform. Although he did perform some contract work himself, most often he used subcontractors who worked under his general supervision. HIT received a commission for every approved contract its salespersons procured for Respondent. Its commission (the amount of which was established by agreement between Mr. Thomas and Respondent) was included in the contract price offered to the homeowner. Typically, payment from the homeowner was not due until the contract work was completed. Payment was made by the homeowner to HIT, which then paid Respondent by check in an amount equal to the contract price minus HIT's previously established commission. In an effort to make the public aware of the services it offered, HIT, in or around August of 1996, placed an advertisement in the Bell South Yellow Pages for Port St. Lucie and Stuart. In the advertisement, which was placed without Respondent's knowledge or authorization, HIT's name and telephone number appeared, along with a listing of home improvement services. Among the services listed was "roofing." Appearing at the bottom of the advertisement was the following: "Licensed & Insured KOSALKA CGC 019787." Among the homeowners who had signed the above-described preprinted form contracts that HIT's salesperson's brought back, for "office approval," to the HIT office in 1996 were the following three Port St. Lucie residents: Larkin Dunbar (whose residence was located at 114 Dorchester); Clara Masters (whose residence was located at 246 Northeast Mainsail); and Rita Maciuba (whose residence was located at 733 Southwest Curry Street). The Dunbar, Masters and Maciuba contracts were dated February 19, 1996, May 28, 1996, and June 14, 1996, respectively. On the top of the Dunbar contract, in large stylized lettering, were the words "Home Improvement Inc." On the top of both the Masters and Maciuba contracts, in the same large stylized lettering, were the words "Home Improvement by Richard Kosalka." The Dunbar contract provided for the "furnish[ing of] the following materials, improvements, labor, and/or services" for the price of $3,600.00: the installation of a "new fascia and soffit system," the "repair [of the] master bedroom walls," the "repair [of] roof leaks," and the "paint[ing of the] gutter and garage door to match [the] fascia and soffit." No work was performed pursuant to this contract (nor is there any evidence that the homeowner made any payments for the performance of such work). The Masters contract was signed by Ms. Masters and Vince Ketchum, the HIT salesperson who had negotiated with her at her home. At the time she signed the contract, Ms. Masters was approximately 85 years of age. The contract provided for the "furnish[ing of] the following materials, improvements, labor, and/or services": installation of a "new roof" with "shingles to be selected by Clara Masters" for $3,255.00; the repair and painting of the "interior ceiling" for $627.00; and the "pressure clean[ing] and paint[ing] of [the] exterior of [the] home" and the driveway for $2,628.00. After his mother had signed the contract (and before any contract work had started), Ms. Masters' son, Joseph Masters, who lived next door to his elderly mother and looked after her business affairs, telephoned Respondent, who was an acquaintance of his. Mr. Masters asked Respondent to come by his mother's home to discuss the contract his mother had signed. Respondent went to Ms. Masters' home as Mr. Masters had requested. Upon Respondent's arrival, Mr. Masters informed Respondent that he (Mr. Masters) and his mother wanted the roof work to be done first. Respondent and Mr. Masters then discussed the matter further. Their discussions lead to the contract being modified to provide that only the roof work would be done (for a price of $3,255.00). The modification was made by lining out the other work listed in the contract, having Ms. Masters put her initials next to the line-outs, and adding contract language to reflect that the total contract price was $3,225.00 for the "roof only." Before leaving Ms. Masters' home, Respondent told Mr. Masters that he would have "some roofers [come] around to get the estimate on the roof." Mr. Masters assumed that these roofers would be subcontractors. Respondent brought the modified contract back to the HIT office. The Sunday after his visit to Ms. Masters' home, Respondent's wife suffered a stroke and was hospitalized. Respondent remained in the hospital with his wife and stayed there for three days. David Harris is a licensed general, residential, and roofing contractor and the owner of David Harris Construction (DHC). He has had his roofing license (for work in Martin and St. Lucie Counties) since 1992. In 1996, and for several years prior thereto, Respondent used Mr. Harris as a subcontractor for concrete and roofing work (mostly on new residential construction). At the time he reviewed the modified Masters contract, Mr. Thomas was familiar with Mr. Harris and DHC. Mr. Harris used HIT to follow up on leads generated by DHC's Yellow Pages' advertising. Moreover, Respondent had spoken favorably to Mr. Thomas about Mr. Harris as a roofer. Accordingly, Mr. Thomas telephoned Mr. Harris and told him about the Masters re-roofing project. On the Monday after Respondent's wife was admitted to the hospital, DHC workers went to Ms. Masters' home and began to remove the old roof. A young child (around nine or ten years of age) was on the roof with the workers. Some time later that day, while the workers were still removing the old roof, Mr. Masters came by his mother's house and noticed the workers and the child on the roof. Mr. Masters was dissatisfied with the manner in which the workers were acting and with the quality of their work. He therefore "chased" them off the roof and told them to leave the property. Mr. Harris was not at the site at the time the workers (and the child) were directed to leave, but he later telephoned Mr. Masters "want[ing] to know what was wrong." Mr. Masters told Mr. Harris why he had removed the workers from the property. He further advised Mr. Harris to "not come back anymore," explaining that he would hire another roofer to complete the job (which he subsequently did). Mr. Masters assured Mr. Harris that payment would be made for the work that had been done by DHC on the roof that day, but there was no agreement reached as to the amount of the payment. A few days later, Mr. Harris telephoned Mr. Masters again, inquiring "if he [Mr. Harris] was going to get paid." In response to this inquiry, Mr. Masters replied that he was "going to get with [Respondent] to figure out the amount of work that was done" and he (Mr. Masters) would pay Mr. Harris accordingly. Subsequently (some time on or after June 4, 1996), Mr. Masters received in his mailbox a copy of an "invoice" (in an unstamped, unsealed envelope) from DHC which read as follows: DAVID HARRIS CONSTRUCTION TO: Home Improvement Date: 6/4/96 RE: 246 NE Mainsail, PSL (Masters) DESCRIPTION: Labor & Materials 1 DAY PRICE: $863.39 Thereafter, Mr. Masters telephoned Respondent and told Respondent about the bill he had received (the amount of which Mr. Masters thought was excessive). In response to Mr. Masters' telephone call, Respondent, on June 18, 1996, visited with Mr. Masters and his mother at the latter's home. There, Mr. Masters showed Respondent the copy of the "invoice" he (Mr. Masters) had received. Based upon his knowledge of the prices that Mr. Harris typically charged, Respondent determined that a fair price for the work that the DHC workers had done on Ms. Masters' roof was only $480.00. Respondent so advised Mr. Masters and then telephoned Mr. Harris (from Ms. Masters' home) in an effort to persuade Mr. Harris to accept that amount. Respondent and Mr. Harris, however, were unable to reach agreement on the matter. After hanging up, Respondent told the Masters that he and Mr. Harris "would work something out and get it straightened out." Thereafter, at Respondent's suggestion, Ms. Masters made out and signed a check to "Home Improvement" in the amount of $480.00, which she gave to Respondent, who told the Masters that he would "take care of" the matter. In addition to giving the Masters this assurance, Respondent also provided Ms. Masters, in exchange for the $480.00 check, a receipt marked "paid in full" and a release of lien signed by him. In the release of lien, Respondent identified himself as "Richard Kosalka of Home Improvement, a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida." Respondent delivered Ms. Masters' $480.00 check to Mr. Thomas and asked Mr. Thomas to issue an HIT check in that same amount payable to DHC. Mr. Thomas did as he was requested by Respondent. The $480.00 check signed by Mr. Thomas was received and deposited by DHC. Nonetheless, thereafter, on August 19, 1996, DHC filed a claim of lien for $383.39 (the difference between $480.00 and the amount of DHC's original invoice) on Ms. Masters' home. The $383.39 (which DHC claimed it was owed) was never paid; however, DHC took no action with respect to the lien and the lien expired. The Maciuba contract was signed by Ms. Maciuba and Bob Andrews, the HIT salesperson who had negotiated with her at her home. It provided for the "furnish[ing of] the following materials, improvements, labor, and/or services" for the price of $3,600.00: "Tear off existing shingles- Replace rotten facia and roof sheets. Shingle color: Shasta white (lightest color). 4 lengths of ridge vents." HIT contacted DHC to do the work described in the contract. DHC obtained a re-roofing permit for the work on June 21, 1996. DHC hired Jerry Poston to work as subcontractor on the project. Mr. Poston and his crew worked on the project during the period from June 21 through July 29, 1996. Mr. Harris also made an appearance at the work site. Ms. Maciuba made an initial down payment of $300.00, which she gave to Mr. Thomas. Subsequently, after the work had been completed, she gave Mr. Thomas three checks that were payable to herself and which she endorsed. Two of these checks were for $1,000.00, and the remaining check was for $800.00, for a total payment, including the down payment she had made, of $3,100.00, which was less than the $3,600.00 contract price. Ms. Maciuba refused to pay any more because of the damage she claimed her property had sustained as a result of re-roofing work. On August 23, 1996, Mr. Harris filed a claim of lien on Ms. Maciuba's home, in which he alleged that, "in accordance with a contract with Home Improvement Time, Inc.," he had "furnished labor, services or materials" in the amount of $2,565.00, and had not received any payment therefor. On October 15, 1996, Mr. Harris executed a Sworn Statement of Account acknowledging that he was owed only $1,873.18 inasmuch as the "contractor" had made direct payments to Mr. Harris' suppliers, thereby reducing the amount he (Mr. Harris) was owed. Ms. Maciuba, in small claims court, sought to have the lien removed. On November 19, 1996, a mediation session was held at which Ms. Maciuba, Mr. Harris, Mr. Thomas, and Respondent were present. At the session, Mr. Harris agreed to remove the lien in exchange for $1,450.00, of which amount $800.00 was to be paid by Ms. Maciuba and the remaining $650.00 was to be paid by HIT. That very same day, November 19, 1996, Ms. Maciuba and HIT made these agreed-upon payments, and Mr. Harris executed and recorded a release of lien. Ms. Masters and Ms. Maciuba filed complaints that were investigated by Edward Garcia, an investigator with the Department. As part of his investigation, Mr. Garcia spoke with Respondent by telephone on November 7, 1996. Respondent told Mr. Garcia that HIT was a telemarketing business owned by Mr. Thomas; he (Respondent) hired HIT to solicit business for him; he (Respondent) advertised as "Home Improvement" in order to "play off the name of Home Improvement Time"; the contract with Ms. Maciuba was for a re-roofing project and he (Respondent) subcontracted the work to DHC; and he (Respondent) was not aware, that he was not authorized, as a licensed general contractor, to enter into contracts for re-roofing projects. Mr. Garcia also visited HIT's office and met with Mr. Thomas. During this meeting, Mr. Thomas signed a document agreeing not to violate the provisions of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes, by engaging contracting activities without an appropriate license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, V, VIII, and IX of the Administrative Complaint; (2) disciplining Respondent for having committed these violations by requiring him to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of these charges; and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of September, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The exam is administered by the Department of Professional Regulation. The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. In October of 1988, Petitioner took the examination and achieved a passing score on Part I of the exam but received a failing grade on Part II and Part III. In February of 1989, Petitioner again took Part II and Part III of the exam. This time he achieved a passing score on Part II, but failed Part III. In June of 1989, Petitioner took Part III of the exam for a third time and received a grade of 69. A score of 69.1 was necessary for Petitioner to receive a passing grade on Part III. A correct answer to either of the two challenged questions would give Petitioner a passing grade on Part III. There is no dispute that the answers deemed correct by Respondent in grading the exam were the only right answers to the questions. Petitioner offered into evidence the scratch paper he used while taking the exam. Those papers demonstrate that he correctly calculated the answers to the questions, but incorrectly marked the answers on his answer sheet. The instructions provided to all exam takers at the time of the exam specifically provide that only responses on the answer sheet can be scored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner's request that his June, 1989 examination for a building contractor's license be regraded be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 21st day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 89-6136 The Respondent submitted a Proposed Recommended Order which includes proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Petitioner did not submit any post-hearing findings. The following rulings are directed towards the findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order were accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Included in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Included in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in the preliminary statement and in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis White 11401 S. W. 40 Terrace Miami, Florida 33165 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sergio J. Alcorta (Alcorta), is licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) as a professional engineer, license number PE 0014464. Alcorta is not licensed by the Department as a contractor. Alcorta has a company called mrf building systems, inc. Alcorta d/b/a mrf building systems, inc. is not listed in the records of the Contractors Section, Dade County Building and Zoning Department as a certified contractor doing or contracting for work in the building trades in Dade County. Hurricane Andrew, which hit the Miami area in August, 1992, damaged the home of Kenneth and Elizabeth Quinn. A friend of the Quinns referred them to Alcorta for assistance. By letter dated September 15, 1992, Alcorta outlined a discussion he had with the Quinns. The letter stated: Per our discussion, I will assist you in dealing with your insurance carrier and other construction workers to ensure that all hurricane damages are accounted for and the work is properly performed. I will prepare an initial damage evaluation report of all damages for the insurance adjuster and facilitate on your behalf the transfer of funds from your mortgage holder to you and to any pertinent party. My fees will be $150 for the initial evaluation and $500 at the end of construction work where you require my assistance. By letter dated September 16, 1992, Alcorta advised the Quinns of his findings concerning the damage to their residence. The engineer's report was prepared on the letterhead of Nu-Tech Engineering Services. Alcorta contacted a general contractor to see if the contractor could perform the work required to repair the Quinn's house. The contractor advised Alcorta that only a roofing permit would be required for the job and that because of the work he was already committed to do, he did not know when he could complete the repairs. Alcorta and Mr. Quinn signed a proposal on mrf building systems, inc. letterhead dated September 29, 1992. The proposal provided: We propose to furnish all materials, labor, tools, and equipment to repair the storm damaged dwelling at the above referenced location as follows: Roof recovering with shingles and ply- wood sheathing repairs $7,500. Structural repairs to concrete columns, stucco repairs as necessary $2,500 Enclosing terrace with new exterior walls and french doors $7,500 Retiling terrace room and pool area $2,000 Securing cabinets and other interior damage $1,000 Removal, installation of solar collector $500 New terrace central air conditioner $2,000 Exterior fencing $3,000 Total repair estimate $26,000 TERMS: One third down payment upon execution of the contract. Partial payments upon completion of work segments. Estimated time for completion of job: 21 days. On mrf building systems, inc.'s letterhead dated September 30, 1992, Alcorta provided Ms. Quinn with an estimate for interior painting, taking off the roof mounted solar collector and reinstalling it on the new roof, replacing roof insulation, structural epoxy repair, and replacing torn vent screens. Alcorta was paid approximately $14,650 by the Quinns on this project. Alcorta in turn paid for some of the materials and labor used on the project. The checks from the Quinns were made payable to Alcorta, not to mrf building systems, inc. By letter dated October 2, 1992, on mfr building systems, inc., letterhead, Alcorta forwarded a copy of the contract with the Quinns to the Quinn's mortgage company advising them that the Quinns had given him a down payment of $4,000 and listing the anticipated completion dates for the various tasks to be performed. Alcorta bought supplies and had laborers come to the site to perform work. There was no licensed contractor on the job. The only building permit pulled on the project was obtained by Elizabeth Quinn, the homeowner. The building permit did not carry the disclosure statement required by Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Alcorta witnessed Ms. Quinn's signature on the application for building permit. Alcorta did not advise the Quinns that they were to act as contractors per Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. The Quinns did not supervise the construction on the project but relied on Alcorta to supervise the work. Alcorta was not an employee of the Quinns. The Quinns experienced problems with the roofing work performed pursuant to the contract with mrf building systems, inc. The roof leaked, requiring the Quinns to have the roof replaced at a cost of $10,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Sergio J. Alcorta violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), and assessing an administrative penalty of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Sergio J. Alcorta Nisky Center, Mail Box 401 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Lynda Goodgame, Genral Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on conduct set forth in two Administrative Complaints filed herein dated March 14 and July 19, 1984.
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 hereby make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida and has been issued license number CGC 015834. 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, relating to the imposition of licensure standards and standards for the practice of contracting. During times material hereto, Respondent was a full-time employee of the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Authority. At no time during his employment with the authority did Respondent advise the Dade County Aviation Authority that he was performing work outside the scope of his employment while on County time. When confronted with the results of an investigation undertaken by the Dade County Attorney's Office in June of 1983 with regard to his (Respondent's) possible violation of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Respondent resigned from his position with the County. (Tr. pages 101-102) DOAH CASE NO. 84-1298 During late February, 1983, Albert Kairy contracted with an unlicensed contractor for the closure of a carport at his residence located in North Miami, Florida. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, Kairy contacted Respondent with regard to preparing necessary blueprints for the enclosure. Kairy contracted with Respondent to prepare both the blueprints and to supervise the activities of the unlicensed contractor. The contract amount was $400. On February 25, 1983, Kairy received an owner/builder permit for the carport enclosure from the City of North Miami. (Tr. pages 7-10, 93) Subsequently, problems began to develop with work performed by the unlicensed contractor and Respondent persuaded Kairy to dismiss that individual and to retain him as the contractor. On March 7, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Kairy to construct a room addition to the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) The project was to be completed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the City of North Miami. The contract called for a bedroom addition; an additional bathroom and a utility room. The contract included extending the carport wall approximately 101 feet. The contract price was $14,500 which included an advance of $2,500. On March 12, 1983, Respondent entered into a second construction contract with Kairy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. 19) The contract price was $15,000. Except for the increase in the contract price, Kairy was led to believe that the terms and conditions of the second contract were substantially similar to the contract previously executed by the parties on March 7, 1983. However, Respondent reduced the extension of the carport wall to 10 feet and Respondent did not inform Kairy of this reduction. (Tr. page 48) The contract called for draw payments as follows: $4,000 as a downpayment/advance; $3,000 upon completion of slab and block walls; $1,500 upon completion of piping and tie-columns; $2,500 upon completion of partition and drywall; $3,000 upon completion of the roof, and $1,000 upon completion of the job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent subsequently applied for a permit from the City of North Miami. The City of North Miami denied Respondent's application because Respondent failed to comply with the Dade County licensing requirements. (Tr. pages 21-22) Although Respondent acted in the capacity of a general contractor, he (Respondent) requested that Kairy obtain a owner/builder permit. Upon applying for the owner/builder permit, the City cancelled the original permit for the carport enclosure. (Tr. page 94) Kairy obtained the owner/builder permit pursuant to Respondent's assurances the permit would be properly transferred to Respondent's contracting license. The City provided Kairy with a "hold harmless letter" for Respondent to execute. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Upon presentation of that letter by Kairy to Respondent, Respondent refused to execute the "hold harmless letter." (Tr. pages 22-24) Subsequently, Kairy and Respondent executed an addendum to the construction contract. The addendum involved changing the enclosures roof structure from shingle to barrel tile. This change involved a price difference of $1,950 and increased the total contract price to $16,950. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, Tr. pages 31-32) The addendum was executed after completion of the tie-beam and tie- column portion of the construction project. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the March 12, 1983 construction contract, Kairy provided Respondent with the following amounts: $4,000 as an advance/downpayment on March 21, 1983; ($2,500 under the March 7 contract plus an additional $1,500); $3,000 upon completion of the slab and block work; $400 for preparation of the original set of plans; $500 toward tinted windows; $1,500 upon completion of the tie-beam and tie- column; $1,500 as an advance on the barrel tile roof; and $1,500 as an advance upon the completion of the roofs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Kairy paid Respondent a total of $12,400 on the total contract price of $16,950 or approximately 73 percent of the contract price. Kairy timely remitted to Respondent installment payments for the slab and block work, tie- beam and tie-columns and advanced Respondent $3,000 towards completion of the roof. During April, 1983, Respondent commenced construction for enclosing the roof structure. Respondent ceased all construction activity upon being informed (by Kairy) that he would no longer pay Respondent in cash. (Tr. page 44) Respondent refused to accept payment in any form other than cash and offered no explanation, reason or excuse to Kairy for the cessation of work on this project. Kairy offered several reasons for his refusal to pay contract installments in cash. First, Respondent refused to execute the hold harmless letter provided by the City of North Miami and Respondent failed to properly supervise the construction activities by, among other things, disappearing from the project for a period of approximately three weeks. Finally, Respondent requested additional advances on the contract while the project was not progressing as scheduled. (Tr. pages 28, 44-46) Respondent did not return to the construction site after Kairy refused cash payments. On July 20, 1983, Respondent's roofing subcontractor filed a claim of lien against Kairy's property in the amount of $1,210. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Respondent has failed to satisfy the claim of lien and Kairy is in the process of satisfying that claim. (.Tr. page 54) Respondent also failed to pay an electrical subcontractor for services provided in the amount of $965. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Again, Kairy is currently in the process of satisfying that debt and Respondent refuses to honor that obligation. (Tr. 57) Kairy reimbursed the plumbing subcontractor in the amount of $675 after Respondent's personal check was returned due to insufficient funds. (Tr. page 62 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9) On April 1, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department inspected the foundation and slab. On April 18, 1983, the Building Department inspected the tie-beam and columns. On May 6, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department performed a tin-cap inspection on the enclosure roof. The City of North Miami Building Department estimated the actual construction completed when Respondent left the project and determined that it was approximately 70 percent complete. Completed construction included the slab, foundation, walls and tie-beam. Little interior construction work had been performed and drywall and partition walls were only partially complete. Kairy has either expended or will be required to expend the following sums in connection with the contract with Respondent: $12,400 - the amount paid directly to Respondent; $1,210 - the amount of the roofer's lien; $965 representing the amount owed to the electrician; and $675 representing the amount Kairy paid the plumbing subcontractor for a total of $15,250. 4/ Although Respondent completed approximately 70 percent of the actual construction, Kairy will correspondingly be required to expend approximately 90 percent of the contract price over and above monies paid to Respondent to complete this project. DOAH CASE NO. 84-3202 On May 12, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit for the construction of a four-bedroom, three-bath home to be located in Miramar, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Between May and October, 1983, the Bordens performed the site preparation necessary for pouring the building's foundation and slab. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, the Bordens contacted Respondent with regard to the construction of their home. (Tr. page 16) On November 11, 1983, Respondent contracted with the Bordens to provide certain contracting services relative to the construction of their home. The Bordens contracted Respondent to pour the foundation and slab, perform the block work, frame and pour the tie-beam and tie-columns. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. pages 18-20) The Bordens were to complete all of remaining construction of their home) The contract price was approximately $16,810. On October 17, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) William Borden was to install the rough plumbing prior to Respondent pouring the foundation and slab. (Tr. 33) Due to certain time constraints, Respondent offered to install the rough plumbing. On October 25, 1983, Respondent received $475 from the Bordens toward installation of the rough plumbing. Respondent failed to subcontract the installation of the rough plumbing and failed to obtain the necessary building permit. On November 8, 1983, the Bordens provided Respondent an additional $470 representing final payment for installation of the rough plumbing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) On November 1, 1983, Mr. Bill Lafferty, chief building and mechanical inspector for the City of Miramar, performed an inspection of the rough plumbing work performed for the Bordens by Respondent. Lafferty determined that Respondent had failed to install the rough plumbing in accordance with provisions of the South Florida Building Code as adopted by the Broward County Code. As a consequence, Lafferty required Respondent to remove and reinstall the rough plumbing in accordance with applicable building code provisions. On November 7, 1983, Lafferty reinspected and approved the rough plumbing as reinstalled by Respondent. (Tr. pages 51-55) Respondent reinstalled rough plumbing at the Borden residence during the first week of November, 1983. Respondent did not obtain a building permit prior to reinstalling the rough plumbing. On November 16, 1983, the City of Miramar levied against Respondent a fee totalling $163.45. Part of that levy included $63.45 for renewal of the building permit and reinspection fee, and the remaining $100 represented a fine against Respondent for failing to properly obtain a building permit. (Tr. pages 58, 64 and Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On November 10, 1983, Salvatore Jenco, structural building inspector for the City of Miramar Building Department, inspected and approved the footing slab for the Borden residence. Subsequently, Respondent poured the concrete slab and foundation. Respondent did not obtain the requisite building permit prior to proceeding with construction. Respondent could not properly proceed with construction pursuant to William Borden's owner/builder permit. On November 11, 1983, inspector Jenco reinspected the concrete slab and foundation as poured by Respondent. As a result of that inspection, Jenco ordered all construction activities to be stopped at the Borden project. Specifically, Respondent materially deviated from the architect's plans and specifications by failing to pour a monolithic (continuous) slab and foundation for the Borden residence. As result of that deviation, the structural integrity of the building was compromised. (Tr. pages 71-73) Construction activity at the Borden residence was halted approximately three weeks while the Borden's architect developed a new set of blueprints. After the City approved the revised blueprints, Respondent began laying blocks and framing the tie-beam. Subsequently, Respondent requested Sunshine Concrete Company to commence pouring the tie-beam. The concrete company requested payment in cash due to the fact that Respondent had previously tendered a check to Sunshine Concrete Company which was returned due to insufficient funds. When informed of the concrete company's demands, the Respondent ordered the company to cease pouring the tie-beam. Upon being informed the tie-beam required a continuous pour, Respondent left the construction site and the Bordens were required to directly reimburse the concrete company. Respondent abandoned the project and has not returned to the construction site. Respondent owes the Bordens approximately $4,696 in reimbursed expenses. (Tr. pages 40-42) Respondent's Defense In DOAH Case No. 84-1298, Respondent did not offer any testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent refused to be placed under oath when he made statements as to his position in Case No. 84-3202.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, Respondent shall pay to the Construction Industry Licensing Board an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. However, if Respondent provides the Construction Industry Licensing Board with sufficient evidence indicating settlement and satisfaction of the existing disputes between Mr. Albert Kairy and Mr. and Mrs. William Borden, the suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year after which time it is recommended that his license be reinstated. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of May, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary 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 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
