The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 24(2)(d), (h), (j), (k), (m) and (n), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, and, if so, what is an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto James Forholt was licensed as an aluminum contractor by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, having been issued license #C-2984. He was the qualifying contractor for City Wide Mobile Home Services, Inc. On June 28, 1989 Respondent contracted with customer #1 to install an aluminum roofover on the customer's mobile home (Exhibit 4). This work was completed and Respondent was paid in full. In July 1989 the work was inspected by a city building inspector and accepted. Later some leaks were experienced; Respondent was called and a repairman was sent to the job site. These leaks ceased but after heavy rains in 1990-91 additional leaks appeared and were not corrected. Customer #1 contracted with another aluminum contractor who removed the roofover installed by Respondent and replaced it with a new roofover at a cost to customer #1 of $3,356.00. Customer #3 contracted with City Wide Mobile Services, Inc. on December 30, 1986 to install a Royal roofover on customer's mobile home. This work was paid for by customer on December 30, 1986 and the work was completed approximately January 13, 1987. Customer #3 spent the winters in this mobile home and the summers elsewhere. Upon returning to the mobile home in October 1990 some water stains were observed inside the mobile home's ceiling, indicating the roof was leaking. City Wide was called and a repairman was sent out. He sprayed Kilz on the water spots and did some caulking on the roof. In the fall of 1991 upon returning to the mobile home customer #3 observed additional water stains on the ceiling and called City Wide. Two repairmen arrived, replaced vents and departed. The following day customer #3 turned on the heat and a terrible odor filled the mobile home. Respondent was called, he came over and advised customer #3 that the roof was five years old and he was no longer responsible for the roof. Respondent contracted with customer #2 to install vinyl siding on his mobile home. The work was satisfactorily completed but Respondent did not obtain a final inspection. After this administrative complaint was filed Respondent obtained a satisfactory final inspection on that job on January 14, 1992. The permit for the job for customer #2 was pulled June 13, 1992 by Respondent. Although the building official for the City of Largo, where the permit was issued, testified the permit was good for only three months, the face of the permit (Exhibit 11) states, "PERMITS ARE NULL AND VOID IF THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) MONTHS OR MORE..." Respondent testified without contradiction that the contract form he used with the complaining parties only guarantees that the roofovers would be properly installed and the warranty on the roof was the manufacturer's warranty which he supplied to these customers. Respondent further testified that the caulking around the screws which secured the roofovers to the mobile homes would last only about two years in the Florida sunshine. He offered a continuous maintenance contract which the complaining parties declined to take. There was some evidence, but inconclusive, that hurricane Elena struck the area after the roofover was installed for customer #3. However, no evidence was submitted that the roof was damaged by this hurricane. Both of these roofovers were inspected by the City of Largo building inspectors and were signed off as satisfactory. No evidence was presented that these roofovers were improperly installed by Respondent or the workmanship used in these installations was defective.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against James Forholt contained in Administrative Complaint dated December 31, 1992 be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 13th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below: 3. Accepted generally as the testimony of Palios; however, subsections thereof listed below are rejected as not supported by credible evidence. a. Rejected. See HO #10. c. Rejected. Several months transpired between the installation of the roofover and observance of water stains. Respondent did some caulking on the roof after complaint was made; however, the roof subsequently leaked. Rejected. The reasons given by this witness for wanting the roofover installed was to remove the need for her husband to recaulk or repair the roof each year. 5. Accepted generally as the testimony of Hensley; however, subsections thereof listed below are rejected as not supported by credible evidence. a. Rejected. See HO #10. Rejected that the leaks resulted solely from Respondent's installation of the roofover. Rejected. 7.c. Rejected. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 James Forholt 9370 83rd Street North Seminole, Florida 34647 William J. Owens/Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road - Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643 5116
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents violated section 70-176, Pinellas County Code of Ordinances (Code), as alleged in Petitioner's Housing Discrimination Complaint (Complaint).
Findings Of Fact This case concerns an allegation that Petitioner, an African-American female, was the victim of housing discrimination in two respects. First, after complaining that her bathroom was not timely repaired by her landlord, Petitioner reported the problem to the City of St. Petersburg (City). When the manager came to repair the bathroom, Petitioner alleges he told her he "would throw her black ass out of here for calling the city on them." Second, Petitioner alleges she was told by the manager to move her car that was parked "for a few days" on the property, yet white tenants were allowed to keep a truck with "no tags and flat tires" on the premises for more than a year. Because no evidence was presented on the second issue, only the first allegation will be addressed. By way of background, from August 2012 until she was evicted in October 2015, Petitioner resided in an apartment complex at 3865 9th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The complex is owned by Holly Berry Gifts, Inc., whose president is Holly Bonk. The complex is managed by Mike Prusinski. Bonk and Prusinski are employed full-time in other jobs, but devote attention to apartment matters when required. Bonk has a practice of leasing units to whoever is qualified, regardless of their race. She was drawn into this affair because of the alleged comments of her manager. It is fair to assume that Bonk has delegated responsibility to Prusinski to deal with maintenance issues and to evict tenants. Pursuant to a one-year Residential Lease executed by Petitioner in July 2012, she was required to pay $500.00 rent each month, due no later than the fifth day of the month. If rent was paid after the fifth day, a $60.00 late charge was imposed. After the lease expired on July 31, 2013, Petitioner continued renting her apartment on a month-to-month basis, but all terms and conditions in the original lease still applied, including the same monthly rent and late payment provisions. Prior to 2015, Petitioner was periodically late in paying her rent. For the months of February, March, July, and August 2015, she was either late paying her rent, or she did not pay the full amount. No rent was paid for September 2015. Despite Petitioner being in arrears throughout her tenancy, Prusinski "worked with" her because of her financial constraints, and according to Petitioner, he never demanded she pay the late charge. On June 2, 2015, Petitioner sent a text message to Bonk complaining that her upstairs neighbor (a female) was playing loud music and was noisy, which interfered with Petitioner's enjoyment of her apartment. When the neighbor came to Petitioner's apartment to discuss the complaint, Petitioner opened the door and "maced" the neighbor in the face. The neighbor filed a complaint with the police. Petitioner was arrested and charged with battery. In 2016, a jury convicted her of battery, and she was sentenced to 15 days in jail and placed on probation for 11 months. According to Prusinski, the macing incident was the final straw that led him to begin the eviction process. Besides the macing incident, Prusinski explained that Petitioner "harassed" the air-conditioning crew that serviced the complex to the point they refused to provide further service unless they received a $45.00 surcharge for each visit. He described Petitioner as being "hostile" towards him throughout her tenancy, and he noted it reached the point where she would not answer the door half of the time when he knocked. On August 14, 2015, a Fifteen Day Notice to Vacate the premises was personally served on Petitioner informing her that she must vacate the premises by August 31, 2015. An Eviction Notice was then obtained from the court. Before it was served on Petitioner, she changed the door locks, padlocked the circuit breaker box to her apartment, and moved out without notice to Respondents. Each of these actions violated the terms of her lease. Petitioner says she did this because she was "scared" that "Mike was coming over to throw her out," and a friend told her it was okay to change the locks. Prusinski was forced to call a locksmith to access the empty apartment and use bolt cutters on the padlock to restore electricity. In all, Petitioner still owes $1,933.00 for past due rent, late charges, court costs, locksmith charges, and the cost of a bolt cutter. There is no evidence that the eviction process was motivated by racial bias. The record shows that Prusinski has evicted four black tenants and eight white tenants for failing to pay their rent. Although Petitioner was upset that she had to relocate to new housing, she agrees there was justification for her eviction. A month after her eviction, Petitioner filed her Complaint. Petitioner says the Complaint was filed only to address issues other than her eviction. Against this backdrop, the only allegation that requires resolution is an assertion by Petitioner that Prusinski directed a racial slur towards her when he was repairing her bathroom.2/ Due to a leak in the upstairs bathroom, Petitioner's bathroom developed multiple problems, which required repairs to the walls and ceiling and professional mold remediation. Although these problems were eventually resolved, they were not resolved as quickly as Petitioner desired. Therefore, she reported the problem to the City. The City inspected her unit in early April 2015, determined that repairs were needed, and relayed its findings to Prusinski. After receiving the City's report, Prusinski came to the apartment to repair the bathroom. Petitioner says an argument over the repairs ensued, and he told her he would "throw her black ass out of here for calling the city on them." Except for Petitioner's testimony, there is no other credible evidence to corroborate this statement. Notably, even though the incident occurred in early April 2015, Petitioner never reported it to Bonk (Prusinski's boss), she did not mention the incident at the eviction hearing, and she waited until after she was evicted to raise the issue with the County. Prusinski denies making any racial comments to Petitioner and attributes her allegation to the hostile relationship between the two and her eviction in September 2015. Having considered the record as a whole, Prusinski's testimony is accepted as being the most credible on this issue. Ironically, Petitioner sometimes used the term "black ass" when referring to herself in text messages sent to Bonk, and during the hearing, she sometimes referred to herself as a "black ass."
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if he did, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case the Respondent, Randall Warren Lefevers, was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CG C019413. At all times material to this case the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Homes America Builders, Inc. (Homes America). In early November 1987, Mrs. Maria Caneri contacted Respondent by telephone at his offices with Homes America Builders, Inc. This initial contact was in response to an advertisement published by Homes America. Mrs. Caneri discussed with Respondent that she wanted to remodel her bathrooms. Ben Riahi, the chief estimator for Homes America, visited Mrs. Caneri in the home she and her husband owned at 1271 Quail Avenue, Miami Springs, Florida, on November 7, 1987. Homes America, through Mr. Riahi, and Mrs. Caneri contracted by written agreement on November 7, 1987, for Homes America to do the remodeling work for Mrs. Caneri at a price of $2,500.00. The job included plumbing work that could only be done by a plumbing contractor. Neither Respondent nor Homes America is licensed to do plumbing work. On November 7, 1987, Mrs. Caneri paid to Homes America the sum of $250.00 by check given to Mr. Riahi and made payable to Homes America. On November 19, 1987, Mrs. Caneri paid to Homes America the sum of $1,000.00 by check given to Mr. Riahi. At Mr. Riahi's instructions, this second check was made payable to Randall W. Lefevers. In response to repeated telephone calls from Mrs. Caneri, Homes America made empty promises to perform the work and gave numerous excuses to Mrs. Caneri as to why the work had not been done. The only progress Homes America made toward performing its contract was the measuring of the rooms to be remodeled and the drafting of blueprints. The rooms were measured on two occasions. The first was by Mr. Riahi on November 7, 1987. The second occasion was in early December 1987 by the cabinet maker who had been subcontracted to do the cabinet work. None of the actual remodeling work was done by Homes America. On February 16, 1988, Mrs. Caneri demanded her money back from Homes America. On February 23, 1988, Mr. Riahi promised to refund Mrs. Caneri's money the next day Mr. Riahi never called Mrs. Caneri again and never responded to her numerous attempts to contact him. A final judgment was entered in favor of Mrs. Caneri against Homes America as the result of a civil action she filed against Homes America. As of the time of the final hearing in this matter, the final judgment had not been satisfied. Mrs. Caneri incurred costs and attorney's fees in securing the final judgment. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent which alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: Respondent exceeded the scope of his license concerning the type of work contracted to be performed, violating Florida Statutes Section 489.129(1)(j), 489.115(1)(b), 489.117(2), and 489.113(3), by contracting to perform plumbing work. There was financial mismanagement and/or misconduct in connection with the work contracted to be performed, attributable either to Respondent directly or to Respondent's failure to properly supervise, in violation of Florida Statutes Sections 489.129(1)(h), (m), as generally exhibited by, but not limited to, failing to keep proper financial records, taking a deposit and never beginning work nor refunding the unearned deposit within any reasonable time. Respondent denied the violations and timely requested a formal administrative hearing of this matter by the election of rights form he filed. Three prior letters of guidance have been issued by Petitioner to Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes; which suspends Respondent's contractor's license for a period of one year, which imposes a fine against Respondent in the amount of $5,000.00 for such violations, and requires that the fine be paid within ninety days of the entry of a final order in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 13th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being irrelevant. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 4. Rejected in part as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in part in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5 Addressed in part in paragraph 6. Rejected in part as being subordinate to the conclusion reached in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraphs 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 10. 12.-14. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 15.-17. Rejected as being legal conclusion and not findings of fact. Addressed in paragraph 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Jan L. Darlow, Esquire Adorno, Zeder, Allen, Yoss, Bloomberg & Goodkind, P. A. Bayview Executive Plaza 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Randall Warren Lefevers 730 Northwest 147th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
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
