Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Joseph W. Miklavic was licensed as a certified building contractor in the state of Florida, holding license number CB C006615, qualifying Security Home d/b/a Security Homes of Clearwater (Security). Since March, 1989 the Respondent's license has been on active status qualifying, Individual. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a salaried employee of Security. Ronald MacLaren was president of Security and also sole owner and president of Yankee Construction Inc. d/b/a Olympic Homes of Citrus County (Olympic). In accordance with a management agreement between Security and Olympic, the Respondent was assigned by Ronald MacLaren to oversee the operation of Olympic. Olympic was licensed to engage in construction having been qualified by Wilmon Ray Stevenson through license number RB A035005 which was in effect from June, 1987 until October, 1988 when Stevenson filed a change of status application with the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) requesting license number RB A035005 be changed to inactive status qualifying, Individual. While this application was not acted upon until February, 1989, the Board considered license number RB A035005 in effect as qualifying Olympic only until October, 1988. Effective September 26, 1988, the name of Yankee Construction, Inc. was changed to Rivercoast Homes, Inc. (Rivercoast) which apparently ceased doing business under the fictitious name of Olympic Homes of Citrus County. On September 19, 1988 Wilmon Ray Stevenson advised the Citrus County Building Department that he was no longer the "qualifier for Olympic Homes". Around this same time, the Respondent, Ronald MacLaren and the management of Olympic became aware that Stevenson would no longer be the qualifying agent for Olympic. There was no evidence that Rivercoast Homes, Inc. a/k/a Yankee Construction Inc. ever advised the Board of the name change or the termination of Stevenson as its only qualifying agent affiliation in accordance with Section 489.119(2)(3), Florida Statutes. Nor was there any evidence that Rivercoast was ever qualified by another qualifying agent pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes. In accordance with the agreement between Security and Olympic, referred to in Finding of Fact 4, the Respondent continued to oversee the Rivercoast operations until sometime around December 1988 when all of MacLaren's operations in Florida, including Security, closed down. Under Security's agreement with both Olympic and Rivercoast, Respondent's duties included working with management and subcontractors to develop construction schedules and to advise Ron MacLaren of the financial aspect of the company so that MacLaren could make funds available to pay subcontractors, etc. Respondent did not have any control over the finances of either Olympic or Rivercoast such as receiving, depositing or disbursing funds. Either in late September or early October of 1988, Respondent approached Larry Vitt, Citrus County Building Department, as to whether the Respondent could pull permits under his license for Olympic or Rivercoast. Vitt advised Respondent that unless he qualified the company he could not pull permits for that company under his license. Respondent advised MacLaren that Rivercoast would have to have a qualifying contractor in order to engage in contracting. MacLaren did not get Rivercoast qualified to engage in contracting at anytime. Respondent did not qualify Rivercoast under his contractor's license at anytime. Sometime around the last of September or the first part of October of 1988, Respondent became aware that Rivercoast a/k/a Yankee Construction, Inc. was no longer qualified under Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, and therefore, not authorized under law to engage in contracting. On August 16, 1988 Ernest and Marjorie Ellison met with Ken Smith and Gloria Stevenson of Olympic to discuss Olympic building the Ellisons a home. The Ellisons picked out a floor plan at this time and gave Olympic a $100.00 deposit to hold the price until a contract could be executed. On October 1, 1988 the Ellisons met again with Ken Smith and was introduced to the Respondent who gave them a brief run down on the status of the company and advised them that the company was in "good shape". At this meeting, Ken Smith advised the Ellisons of certain things that were required of them before construction began, including a survey. On October 31, 1988 the Ellisons signed a contract with Rivercoast to construct their home. In his capacity as a representative of Security, under the agreement between Security and Rivercoast, the Respondent signed this contract on the line designated Contractor/Representative. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent intended to sign the contract as contractor of record as the term contractor is defined in Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), and thereby impose upon himself the responsibility for the entire project. The contract price was $44,634.00. On November 1, 1977 the Ellisons delivered to Rivercoast a check for $4,363.40 which along with the $100.00 deposit paid in August represented a total down payment of $4,463.40. Respondent did not personally receive any funds from the Ellisons for Rivercoast or receive any funds for himself from the Ellisons under this contract. No permit was ever pulled or any work performed by Rivercoast under the aforementioned contract. Ernest Ellison met with Respondent on November 21, 1988 and requested that the contract be cancelled. Under the authority granted Respondent through the agreement between Security and Rivercoast, the Respondent and Ernest Ellison signed the contract as being cancelled on November 21, 1988. Although the Ellisons were offered an opportunity by the Respondent to transfer their deposit of $4,463.40 to Security and enter into a contract with Security to build their house, they declined and contracted with another contractor. On the date the contract was cancelled, Respondent advised Ernest Ellison that the down payment of $4,463.40 would be reimbursed. Although Respondent attempted to obtain a refund for the Ellisons from MacLaren and was advised by MacLaren that a refund was forthcoming, no refund of the Ellison's down payment was ever made by Rivercoast, Ronald MacLaren, the Respondent or anyone else. Respondent was aware during the negotiation and at the time the Ellison's contract was executed, that Rivercoast was not authorized by law to engage in contracting. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent ever advised the Ellisons that he would be the contractor responsible for building their home under the contract with Rivercoast or that he would be the contractor to pull the necessary permits for construction of their home. There is no evidence that Respondent had any financial interest or owned any stock or held any office in Rivercoast a/k/a Yankee Construction, Inc. Around October 1, 1988, after Stevenson had withdrawn as qualifying agent for Olympic, Rivercoast was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of contracting since it had not been qualified by another qualifying agent in accordance with Section 489.119, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the demeanor of the witnesses and the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21E- 17, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation it is recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $1,000.00. It is further recommended that Counts I, II, IV and V be dismissed DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 27th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-2046 The following constitute 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 of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Not necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, and 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 14 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. - 2. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 8. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. - 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. - 16. Not material or relevant. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 13, 14 and 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but modified. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified to show license effective until October, 1988 rather than February, 1989. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 20. - 26. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified to show from June, 1987 until October, 1988. - 29. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 13. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 4. - 32. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8 and 9 but modified. Not material or relevant. - 36. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, and 9 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Not material or relevant. - 40. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, and 17, respectively. Rejected as there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to show any other contract than the one Respondent signed on October 31, 1988. Not material or relevant. Not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 9. - 50. Not necessary to the conclusion reached since this matter was covered in the Preliminary Statement wherein the motion was denied. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Geoffrey Vining, P.A. 2212 South Florida Avenue Suite 300 Lakeland, FL 33803 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor, having been issued License No. CGC 1506043 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board" or "Construction Industry Licensing Board") and was the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation. The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant, Rankor Corporation was a contractor-qualified business in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. QB 26667. The officers of the Rankor Corporation were as follows: Tina M. Despin, president; Stephen Despin, Sr., executive vice president; Jerold S. Bakelman, vice president and treasurer; and Eldora Bakelman, secretary. The directors of the Rankor Corporation were Respondent, Mr. Bakelman and Mr. Despin. Jerold Bakelman was licensed as a financially responsible officer by the Board from August 27, 2003, to January 7, 2005. Mr. Bakelman's license number was FRO 711. Transactions Related to Longoria Property In December 2004, Antonia Longoria met with Tina Despin and Stephen Despin, Sr., about replacing the roof and performing other repairs at a house owned by Ms. Longoria located at 4716 Nottingham Drive, Ft. Myers, Florida ("Nottingham Drive house" or "Nottingham Drive property").2/ On or about December 7, 2004, Ms. Longoria entered into a contract with Rankor Corporation to remove and replace the roof and to make the other repairs at the Nottingham Drive house (hereinafter referred to as "Contract No. 1" or "December 7, 2004, Contract"). The cost for the scope of work in Contract No. 1, including the cost of obtaining permits was $32,690.00. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, one-third of the contract amount, $10,896.67, was due when the contract was signed; one-third of the contract amount was due when the trusses were delivered; $8,396.67 was due when the job was completed; and $2,500.00 was due after the final inspection of the job was completed. The December 7, 2004, Contract was signed by Tina Despin on behalf of Rankor Corporation and by Ms. Longoria. On or about December 7, 2004, Ms. Longoria paid Rankor Corporation, by personal check, a payment in the amount of $10,896.67 for the work to be done pursuant to Contract No. 1. Ms. Longoria made the check out to Rankor Corporation and gave it to Ms. Despin. On or about December 17, 2004, about ten days after Contract No. 1 was executed, Ms. Longoria entered into a second contract with Rankor Corporation to do additional work at the Nottingham Drive house (hereinafter referred to as "Contract No. 2" or "December 17, 2004, Contract"). Under the terms of the December 17, 2004, Contract, Rankor Corporation was required to relocate the entrance to the house from the side to the front of the house. The cost for the scope of work under this contract was $10,770.00, with payments to be made in three installments. Pursuant to the terms of Contract No. 2, one-third of the contract amount, $3,590.00, was due when the contract was signed; one-third was due when the trusses were delivered; and the remaining one-third was due upon completion of the project. Contract No. 2 was signed by Tina Despin on behalf of Rankor Corporation and by Ms. Longoria on or about December 17, 2004. Two days later, on or about December 19, 2004, Ms. Longoria paid Mr. Despin, Sr., by personal check, a payment in the amount of $3,590.00 for the project under this contract. The check was made out to "Stephen E. Despin" and not to Rankor Corporation. Ms. Longoria paid the $3,590.00 to Mr. Despin, Sr., as a representative of Rankor Corporation. The scope of work under both Contract No. 1 and Contract No. 2 required permits from the City of Ft. Myers Building Department before work could commence. However, after the two contracts were executed, Rankor Corporation never applied for the permits necessary to commence work under those contracts. At or near the end of January 2005, Ms. Longoria began calling Mr. Despin, Sr., to find out when he would begin the project at the Nottingham Drive house. After several unsuccessful attempts by Ms. Longoria to reach Mr. Despin, Sr., he returned her call in February or March, but Rankor Corporation never performed any of the work required under Contract No. 1 and Contract No. 2. No one from Rankor Corporation ever performed any work on Ms. Longoria's Nottingham Drive house. Notwithstanding its failure to perform any of the work required under the December 7, 2004, Contract and the December 17, 2004, Contract, Rankor Corporation did not return Ms. Longoria's two payments made pursuant to the terms of those contracts. The total of these two payments was $14,486.67. In or about March 2005, the City of Ft. Myers Code Enforcement unit posted a notice on the Nottingham Drive property advising Ms. Longoria that the subject property was in violation of the city code. The notice gave Ms. Longoria, as owner of the property, 30 days to have the repairs done to bring the house into compliance with the code. The violations cited in the notice were related to damages the Nottingham Drive house sustained from Hurricane Charlie. On or about April 19, 2005, Ms. Longoria entered into a contract with Roofmaster of South Florida, Inc. ("Roofmaster") to repair the roof at the Nottingham Drive house in order for the roof to be in compliance with the City of Ft. Myers code. The scope of work under the contract with Roofmaster was smaller than the scope of work under the December 7, 2004, Contract between Ms. Longoria and Rankor Corporation. The contact price for the project with Roofmaster was $9,500.00. In or about May 2005, Roofmaster commenced and completed work under its contract with Ms. Longoria. For this work, Ms. Longoria paid Roofmaster the contract price of $9,500.00. At no point in time until May 2005, the time at which Roofmaster commenced work under the contract with Ms. Longoria, did Ms. Longoria prevent Rankor Corporation from commencing and completing the work projects under the December 7, 2004, Contract and the December 17, 2004, Contract. Respondent's Attempts to be Removed as Qualifying Agent On January 5, 2005, Respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Bakelman memorializing Respondent's and Bakelman's conversation concerning Mr. Bakelman's decision to no longer serve as the financially responsible officer for Rankor Corporation. In the letter, Respondent recounted that during that conversation, he (Respondent) had "executed documents supplied by you [Bakelman] from the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board releasing you [Bakelman] from said position with immediate effect." By letter dated January 5, 2005, Respondent forwarded a copy of his January 5, 2005 letter to Mr. Bakelman to the secretary of the Construction Industry Licensing Board in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent requested that the letter be recorded and filed with pertinent information maintained by that office for "the business qualified by me [Respondent], known as Rankor Corporation. Apparently concerned about Mr. Bakelman's stepping down as Rankor Corporation's financially responsible officer, Respondent contacted the Department's Customer Service section on January 5, 2005, about the situation. At that time, a person in that section told Respondent that he should inform the company officers that they had an obligation to secure a new financially responsible officer, and if they did not, he was obligated either to act in that position or to terminate his position as qualifying representative. On January 7, 2005, Bakelman was properly removed as the financially responsible officer for Rankor Corporation and, thereby, ceased being the financially responsible officer for Rankor Corporation. Upon Mr. Bakelman's being properly removed as the financially responsible officer, Respondent, as the qualifying agent, became responsible for the duties and obligations related to Rankor Corporation's financial matters. By letter dated February 7, 2005, Respondent advised Stephen and Tina Despin (Stephen and Tina) that he was terminating his position as the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation. In this letter, Respondent recounted a January 5, 2005, letter to the Despins in which he indicated that in light of Mr. Bakelman's resignation, he (Respondent) was requiring them to secure a financially responsible officer within two weeks. According to the letter, the reason Respondent was terminating his position with the company was that the Despins had failed to do so. In addition to advising the Despins that he was terminating his position as qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation, Respondent's letter provided the following: Pursuant to guidelines of CILB [Construction Industry Licensing Board], it is required that no new contracts or construction endeavors requiring the use of my license be undertaken, this includes, but is not limited to, the "pulling" of permits. Furthermore, my license number is to be removed form any signage or advertising immediately, which would serve to give the impression that Rankor is acting as a certified general contractor. The only work you are permitted to perform is to conclude projects already underway, and I was advised by the board [Construction Industry Licensing Board] that you should secure another qualifier as soon as possible. I will advise the local building departments of the change of status as well. Respondent sent the February 7, 2005, letter to the Despins by certified mail. According to the return receipt, Tina Despin signed for and received the letter on February 8, 2005. Respondent also sent a copy of his February 7, 2005, letter to the Despins to the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On February 7, 2005, Respondent sent a letter to the Board informing the Board of Respondent's termination as the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation and requesting the appropriate documents to be removed as the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation. The letter provided, in relevant part, the following: Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl [sic] 32399 Re.: Termination of Acting as Qualifier for Rankor Corporation Dear Sirs or Mesdames: As per attached letter I with immediate effect remove myself as qualifier for Rankor Corporation, QB 26667[.] Please provide me with any forms required to effect completion of the same, this should not be considered in any manner a renunciation or modification of my termination as qualifier. This act is irrevocable and immediate. I am a certified General Contractor, [sic] [M]y license number is CGC 1506043. The "attached letter" referred to in Respondent's letter to the Board, quoted in paragraph 30, is Respondent's February 7, 2005, letter to the Despins. Larissa Vaughn has been the administrative assistant for the executive director of the Board since February 2005. As an administrative assistant, Ms. Vaughn is familiar with the licensure process for construction contractors. Ms. Vaughn testified that the Board never received Respondent's February 7, 2005, letter to the Board, which informed the Board of Respondent's termination as the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation and requested that he be sent appropriate documents to be removed as the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation. The reason the Board never received the letter is not clear. However, Ms. Vaughn testified that a letter, such as Respondent's February 7, 2005, letter to the Board, would not have necessarily been received. According to Ms. Vaughn, "[a] lot of letters like this are received and [when] there is a request for forms, it goes to our customer contact center." Ms. Vaughn testified that even if the Board had received Respondent's February 7, 2005, letter, that correspondence would not have been sufficient in itself to remove Respondent as the primary qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation. According to Ms. Vaughn, the Department requires that to be removed as the primary qualifying agent for a contractor-qualified business in the State of Florida, a licensed contractor must submit to the Board a properly completed change of status application. Ms. Vaughn testified that a change of status application can be requested and received from the Department by phone, e-mail, or internet.3/ On September 13, 2005, Respondent submitted a change of status application to the Board. Almost two years later, Respondent's change of status application remains open and has not been approved by the Board. Respondent's efforts to terminate his status as the qualifying agent for Rankor Corporation were unsuccessful for the reasons stated above. In this case, even if Respondent's February 7, 2005, letter had effectively terminated his status as qualifying agent, the fact remains that he was the qualifying agent in December 2004 when Rankor Corporation entered into the two contracts with Mrs. Longoria. Moreover, Respondent became responsible for Rankor Corporation's financial matters after Mr. Bakelman was properly released as the company's financially responsible officer. There is no evidence that Respondent has been previously cited for violations under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, for Department Case No. 2005-028129 was $408.37 (four hundred eight dollars and thirty seven cents).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent, Joseph D. Sloboda, violated Subsections 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes; (2) imposing a $1,000 fine for each violation; (3) requiring Respondent to make restitution to Antonia Longoria in the amount of $14,486.67; and (4) requiring Respondent to pay investigative costs associated with this case of $408.37. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of November, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Victor S. Davis, held a registered general contractor's license, numbered RG 0013635 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board in April, 1973. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent's general contractor's license, number RG 0013635, was in a delinquent status and had been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1977. Respondent failed to renew his license after June 30, 1975 but in May, 1976 made application to reinstate license number RG 0013635 which was approved and reinstated on an active status by Petitioner in May, 1976 and issued to Respondent, Victor S. Davis, qualifying Conch Construction Corp., of Key West, Florida. There was no evidence that the reinstated license was issued for Monroe County, Florida or that Respondent ever held a certificate of competency for Monroe County, Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was an officer (Secretary) of Classic Marketing and Development, Inc. (Classic). On July 28, 1983, the Respondent, as Secretary of Classic, entered into a contract with William Dees to construct a shell home on the Dees' property located at Lot 14, Block 7, Breezeswept Estates, Ramrod Key, Florida for a contract price of $27,000.00. On September 13, 1983, William Dees applied for and obtained building permit No. 10902-A as owner/builder for the construction of the Dees's home. Construction of the Dees home began on or about September 13, 1983. Gregory H. O'Berry, President of Classic had knowledge of, and approved of, Respondent entering into contracts for construction of homes in Monroe County, Florida, including the contract with Dees. O'Berry was aware that Respondent did not hold a certificate of competency in Monroe County, Florida and that Respondent's registered general contractor's license did not cover contracting in Monroe County, Florida. O'Berry understood that Phillip A. Braeunig, a properly licensed general contractor in Monroe County, Florida, was acting as the general contractor for Classic- in the construction of homes by Classic, including the construction of the Dees home. Braeunig did not act as general contractor on the construction of the Dees' home. Respondent supervised the contraction of the Dees' home, until Respondent abandoned the construction of the Dees' home, and in performing these supervisory duties fulfilled the responsibilities of a general contractor. No other officer or authorized agent of Classic had any responsibility for the supervision of, or acted in any manner as a general contractor, in the construction of the Dees' home. Braeunig prepared and submitted to Respondent an application to qualify Classic with Petitioner using Braeunig's license but this application was never filed with Petitioner during- anytime material to these proceedings. Classic was never qualified by anyone, including Respondent or Braeunig, at any time material to these proceedings. Braeunig~acted as general contractor for Classic on the Conti home, which was in the beginning stages of Classic and prior to the Dees' job. Braeunig was brought into Classic for the purpose of acting as general contractor because of the Respondent's invalid license.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order Dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and for such violation it is RECOMMENDED that the Board suspend the Respondent's registered general contractor's license for a period of two (2) years and assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00, stay the suspension and place Respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years, provided the Respondent pays the $500.00 fine within ninety (90) days. Respondent's failure to pay the $500.00 fine within the time specified will result in his registered general contractor's license being suspended for a period of two (2) years 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 3rd of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. Victor S. Davis, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-1963 Ruling on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1 except for the statement that "Respondent's license was issued for Okaloosa County only" which is rejected as not being based upon competent substantial evidence. Hearsay alone is not sufficient to support a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1 except for statement that "said license has been delinquent since July, 1981" which is rejected as being contrary to the evidence in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 which shows delinquent status as of July 1, 1977. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 3. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Considered as background information and not as a finding of faet. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 5 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of feet No. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 10 Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Respondent did not submit Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Victor S. Davis 2169 North Hercules Avenue Clearwater, FL 33575 and 6290 Sandcrest Circle Orlando, FL 32819
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint or is responsible for the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor and the holder of license number CG C031547 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for A.A. Home Improvement Company, Inc. (A.A.), 4101 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and as such qualifying agent was responsible for all its contracting activities. On August 25, 1990, A.A. contracted with Anthony Williams, Sr., and Janice Williams, 1/ as the owners, to re-roof and perform internal renovations on the owners' house located at 2804 Avenue H, Fort Pierce, Florida, for a contract price of $6,900.00. The contract provided that all repairs and improvements would be done and completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner. The contract between the parties was an installment loan contract that provided for a mortgage on the house and property that was the subject of the contract. On August 25, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Williams and Ethel Nelson gave A.A. a mortgage on the property to secure payment of the amount of the contract. A.A. assigned the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc. on August 29, 1990. Subsequent to the assignment of the mortgage to Union Mortgage Company, Inc., Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., consolidated certain debts through a loan from Metropolitan Mortgage Company of Fort Pierce, Florida. With the proceeds of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams paid off the mortgage that had been given to A.A. on August 25, 1990, and assigned to Union Mortgage Company on August 29, 1990. To secure payment of the Metropolitan loan, Mr. and Mrs. Williams gave Metropolitan a mortgage on the subject property. The Williams were still paying off the Metropolitan mortgage at the time of the formal hearing. The contract between A.A. and the owners required A.A. to remove the existing roof of the subject property and to replace the roof with a twenty-year fiberglass roof, repair the ceilings of three rooms with sheetrock, seal off holes in two walls (these holes resulted after two air conditioning units were removed), install a vinyl floor in the dining room, renovate a bathroom to 90 percent completion, and make certain unspecified minor repairs. A.A. is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. Respondent is not certified or registered as a roofing contractor. The repair of the roof on the subject property was work that should be performed only by a certified or registered roofing contractor. Workmen from A.A. were present at the job site for approximately a week. After the work was performed, including the roofing work, the owners began having problems with the work performed by A.A. Water began to leak through the walls where the air conditioning units had been. This leaking resulted because A.A. did not properly seal the holes in the wall. Instead, A.A. merely nailed pieces of plywood over the holes where the air conditioning units had been. The roof leaked and caused damage to interior panelling. A.A. did none of the work on the bathroom that had been contracted. Mr. and Mrs. Williams attempted to get A.A. to come back and finish the work or to correct defective work on two occasions. On two separate occasions, a representative of A.A. promised to return to the job site to complete the work and to correct defective work. A.A. did not return to the job site and made no further effort to complete or correct the work on the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Williams will have to expend approximately $6,000 to repair the roof and interior of the house as a result of A.A.'s failure to perform its contractual duties. In negotiating the contract with A.A., the owners dealt with Christine McDonough, who was a corporate officer of A.A. and who had the authority to bind A.A. as a party to the contract. A building permit was required by the City of Fort Pierce Building Code for the construction contemplated by the subject contract. No permit was obtained by A.A. The Respondent did not supervise any of the work performed on the subject property by A.A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $2,250.00 to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and pay restitution to Janice Williams and Anthony Williams, Sr., in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue The central issue in this case is Petitioner's challenge to part III of the licensure examination as set forth in his letter dated September 8, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert E. Rosser, is a candidate for licensure as a general contractor. Petitioner has taken the examination to become a licensed general contractor consecutively over the last four years. As a result of the twelve attempts at the examination, Petitioner has passed parts I and II on two separate test dates. In his attempts to pass the examination Petitioner has enrolled in and studied for the examination with two approved construction schools. Petitioner scored a 68 on part III of the general contractor's examination for the June 16, 1994 test date. Petitioner timely challenged questions related to part III (Project Management) of the general contractor's examination given on June 16, 1994. Petitioner attended a review session and claimed that as to question 2 his scratch sheet from the examination demonstrates he had used formulas properly and that he had inadvertently marked the incorrect response on the answer grid sheet. The minimum score required to pass part III of the examination was 70. For each of the challenged questions in part III (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 20) Respondent presented competent evidence to support the correct answer as scored by the Department. The Petitioner did not present credible evidence to dispute the accuracy of the answers which had been deemed correct by the Department. Based upon those answers, the Petitioner's score sheet was tabulated correctly. The questions challenged were clearly and unambiguously worded and contained sufficient factual information to reach a correct answer. The examination was open book and applicants were allowed to use reference materials. All current techniques were considered before the correct answer was chosen. All knowledge needed to reach a correct answer was within a candidate's expected range of expertise. The Department's scoring of part III was not arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. For each of the challenged questions, the correct answer was scored at a higher percentage than the answers marked by Petitioner. In fact, for question 4, for example, 79 percent of the examinees scored the correct answer while only 3 percent marked the same answer as Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the general contractor's examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5214 Rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner did not number the paragraphs denoted as "STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS". The lettered paragraphs are addressed as listed; but where no letter identified the paragraph, the rulings are as to the paragraphs in the order of presentation. Paragraph [A] is accepted. Paragraph [B] is accepted to the extent it identifies Petitioner as a candidate otherwise rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.005 is an error. It is accepted that the minimum passing grade for the challenged part is 70 percent out of 100 percent. Paragraph [C] is accepted in substance; however, Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.003 is an error. The next paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is accepted as a correct statement of procedural review. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 4 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 7 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 9 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 11 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 17 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 18 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 20 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph [D] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. Paragraph [E] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Department and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [F] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [G] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Division and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [H] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [I] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [J] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [K] is rejected as contrary to the record in this case since an order of prehearing instruction was not entered in this case and interrogatories were not served. Paragraph [L] is rejected as irrelevant, not a statement of fact, and contrary to the record. Moreover, Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. Paragraph [M] is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [N] is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [O] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [P] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 1 is accepted as statement of procedural information. Paragraph 2 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. Paragraph 3 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Rosser P.O. Box 560541 Miami, Florida 33256-0541 William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-6310
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, is guilty of pulling permits for construction projects not supervised by Respondent, and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action which should be taken by the Board.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Certified General Contractor's License No. CG C005204 issued by the Board. Although this license was active at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, Respondent has placed it on an inactive status until June 30, 1981. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) As to Amiguet Construction Project During 1976, Jose Amiguet entered into a contract with San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction of an addition to his existing residence located at 1409 Granada Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida. (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Since San Pedro Construction Inc. was not properly licensed as a building contractor, it was not qualified to apply for and obtain a Coral Gables building permit to undertake this residential addition. Therefore, on January 12, 1977, pursuant to an agreement with Jose San Pedro, representative of San Pedro Construction Inc., the Respondent applied and obtained the required Coral Gables building permit under his on name. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, Charles Kozak, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Respondent did not participate in, manage, or supervise, in any manner, the construction of the Amiguet residential addition by San Pedro Construction Inc. Jose Amiguet neither knew the Respondent, nor had any dealings with him during the construction work. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) Final inspection of the Amiguet construction project has not been conducted by the Coral Gables building inspection department since the required documentation concerning sidewalk improvements and subcontractors used has not yet been submitted. The actual construction work has, however, been completed, to the satisfaction of Jose Amiguet. (Testimony of Charles Kozak, Respondent) Respondent made an effort to assist Jose Amiguet in obtaining the final inspection and clearance by the city building inspection department. However, since Respondent did not supervise the subcontractors' work, he cannot truthfully complete the required documents. He has, therefore, offered to (1) pay for the additional costs associated with obtaining the necessary final inspection, and (2) transfer to Jose Amiguet the right to receive, after final inspection, the refund of the contractor's performance bond in the amount of approximately $400-$500. (Testimony of Respondent) As to the Shaw Construction Project During July, 1977, and on February 8, 1978, James L. Shaw entered into separate contracts with San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction of residential improvements at 836 Obispo Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. The final contract was in the amount of $16,700.00. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, James L. Shaw, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Since San Pedro Construction Inc. was an unlicensed contractor, Respondent, on November 15, 1977, pursuant to an agreement with that company, applied for and obtained the required Coral Gables building permit. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, James L. Shaw, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The Respondent did not participate in, manage, or supervise in any manner the construction of the Shaw residential improvements by San Pedro Construction Inc. James Shaw neither knew Respondent, nor had any dealings with him during the construction work. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) On or about April, 1978, the lending institution for the Shaw project, and James Shaw stopped making construction payments to San Pedro Construction Inc., due to its failure to proceed on and abandonment of the project. (Testimony of James Shaw, Charles Kozak) On June 20, 1978, James Shaw obtained an "owner-builder" permit from the City of Coral Gables and incurred the following costs in order to complete the construction project as originally planned: $12,000 for labor and materials, and $625.00 for architectural services. Inasmuch as approximately, $10,128.00 had earlier been paid to San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction project, the total cost of the project to James Shaw was approximately $22,753.00-$6,053.00 in excess of the original contract price. (Testimony of James Shaw and Respondent) San Pedro Construction Inc. is no longer in business, and the whereabouts of its owner, Jose San Pedro, is unknown. (Testimony of Respondent) As with the Amiguet construction project, final inspection of the Shaw project cannot be conducted until missing documentation relative to sidewalk improvements and subcontractors involved is supplied. In an effort to assist James Shaw, the Respondent has offered to transfer to Shaw the right to receive, after final inspection, the refund of the contractor's performance bond in the amount of approximately $400-$500. (Testimony of Charles Kozak and Respondent) At all times material hereto, the Respondent was aware that it was unlawful, under both state law and the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, to aide an unlicensed contractor in evading the contractor licensing law, and to use one's license to pull permits for projects not supervised by the licensee. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Metro Dade Construction Trades Board heard the complaint against the Respondent and found prima facie evidence and probable cause to refer the matter to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Stipulation) Notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Administrative Complaint and the Board's counsel at hearing limited the amount sought for restitution purposes to $5,300.00, provided both the performance bonds are refunded to the benefit of Jose Amiguet and James Shaw. (Administrative Complaint, statement of Board's Counsel) Respondent regrets having taken the actions complained of in the Board's Administrative Complaint, and now more fully understands the resulting burdens which have been placed on Jose Amiguet and James Shaw. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation Guilty, as charged. Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be suspended until such time as full restitution is made to the persons damaged by his actions.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, License Number CB C043621, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on July 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified Building Contractor, having been issued license number CB C043621, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as an individual. At no time pertinent to this proceeding was Respondent the licensed qualifying agent for Merrill Homes. On or about June 17, 1992, Kathy Rose and Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, executed a Letter of Intent to build a house for the Roses in the Heathrow Woods subdivision in Seminole County, Florida. At the time the Letter of Intent was signed, Kathy Rose gave Respondent a check for $2,500.00 as a partial deposit. Subsection D of the Letter of Intent provided that "[s]hould the Buyers not proceed with construction of the residence, the Builder will refund the Buyers' deposit less any expenses incurred on the Buyers' behalf by the builder." On or about June 25, 1992, Respondent stopped by the Rose residence and picked up a second check for $2,500.00 made out to Merrill Homes by Jeff Rose as the second half of the Rose's $5,000.00 deposit. On or about August 10, 1992, Respondent, d/b/a Merrill Homes, and Jeff and Kathy Rose executed a contract to build a house in the Heathrow Woods subdivision as described in the Letter of Intent. The contract executed between Respondent and the Roses did not list Respondent's state contractor's license number. Respondent provided the Roses with a set of drawings of the proposed house, but did not provide the Roses with any other goods or services. Performance by Respondent under the contract was contingent upon the sale of the Roses' existing house. From the time the contract was signed until about October or November 1993, the Roses were unable to sell their existing house. Therefore, no work as performed by Respondent under the contract except for the production of the drawings of the house. In October or November 1993, Heathrow Realty contacted the Roses and informed them that someone was interested in the lot that they had placed a down payment on in Heathrow Woods Subdivision. Since their existing house had not sold in over a year, the Roses decided to release their option on the lot in Heathrow Woods and to cancel the contract with Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Kathy Rose contacted Respondent in November 1993 and informed him that they had released the lot. They requested that their deposit be returned from Respondent under the terms of the Letter of Intent. Respondent informed Kathy Rose that he would have their deposit refunded sometime after the first of December 1993. Having heard nothing from Respondent, the Roses had their attorney send a letter, dated December 30, 1993, to Respondent demanding a refund of their deposit. In January 1994, Kathy Rose once again contacted Respondent via telephone. At that time, Respondent informed Ms. Rose that their refund would only be $500.00, the balance of their deposit having been used for the house plans Respondent had provided. Respondent also informed Ms. Rose that he would mail an accounting to her. Respondent has not provided the Roses with an accounting, refunded all or any part of their deposit, or had any contact with them whatsoever since January, 1994. Examination of the plans, supplied to the Roses by Respondent, indicated that they were not really house plans per se, but rather hand-drawn sketches of a floor plan. The plans have no value with respect to their use in building the house depicted and could not be used to obtain a building permit in Seminole County. The plans Respondent supplied the Roses are valued somewhere between one and two hundred dollars. As a Certified Building Contractor, Respondent knew the actual value of the plans he supplied to the Roses. Respondent knowingly attempted to deceive the Roses by making false statements as to the value of the plans in order to deprive the Roses of a substantial portion of their down payment that they were entitled to have refunded to them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order, as follows: Dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint. Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(c), (g), (j), (m) and (n), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1992). Suspending Respondent's license as a Certified Building Contractor for a period of three months, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500,and requiring, as a condition of reinstatement, restitution to Jeff and Cathy Rose in the amount of $4,800, and such other reasonable and necessary conditions as the Board may require. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0669 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-19, 21-24. Rejected as subsumed : paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Senior Construction Attorney G. W. Harrell, Esquire Lead Construction Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Alan Merrill 813 Largo Court Apopka, Florida 32703 Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Henry Huggins is presently licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified general contractor under license number CO C003466. He first received his license in November of 1972 and has since been continuously licensed. His license was however suspended for a period of one year beginning on May 16, 1980. That suspension was by an Order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In October of 1981 Mr. Huggins renewed his license on inactive status but changed it to active status in December 1981. His license continued to be active and he is the qualifying agent for Florida Petroleum Services, Inc., in Winter Park Florida. In the fall of 1980 Mr. Albert Dupre agreed to do some home renovation work for Dr. Charles Gill at Dr. Gill's residence located at 2193 Turkey Run, Winter Park, Florida. Mr. Dupre completed the work and shortly thereafter in the spring of 1981 he and Dr. Gill entered into another oral contract whereby Mr. Dupre would construct an upstairs addition to Dr. Gill's home. The addition included the installation of a bathroom and another bedroom. In exchange for these services Dr. Gill "traded off" dental work for Mr. Dupre's wife and agreed to pay an additional $12,000 or $13,000. At Mr. Dupre's request the construction permit for the upstairs addition was obtained by the Respondent Henry L. Huggins. At all times material Albert Dupre has held no contracting licenses authorizing him to individually perform the work called for by his agreement with Dr. Gill. During the time in question, that is April 1981, Respondent did not himself have an active contractor's license due to his suspension by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He was authorized by the qualifying agent for Roberts Insurance Contractors to obtain building permits under the qualifying agent's license in order to undertake building projects for Roberts. Roberts Insurance Contractors was not a party to the agreement between Dr. Gill and Mr. Dupre for the up stairs addition to Dr. Gill's home. On April 7, 1981 Respondent obtained building permit number 7487 from the City of Winter Park, Florida, which authorized the construction of a bedroom and bathroom addition on the property of Dr. Charles Gill in Winter Park, Florida. Respondent obtained that permit on behalf of Mr. Dupre because of their friendship and their previous business associations dating back to the mid- 1970's Respondent did not supervise or otherwise participate in the construction of Dr. Gill's addition until the work was complete and Dr. Gill made a complaint to several regulatory bodies about Mr. Dupre's work. This complaint centered around the earlier air conditioning project; but once notified that there were difficulties concerning the project, Respondent, along with Mr. Dupre, completed all unfinished items and corrected all defects. As a result of Respondent's willingness to remedy those defects Dr. Gill has requested that all charges against Mr. Huggins here be dropped.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending the license of Henry L. Huggins as a certified general contractor for a period of two (2) years from the date of the Board's Final Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1984.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, William Losciale, was a licensed registered pool contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP-0032951, by the State of Florida, and was the qualifier of Lynn Pools. On June 9, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Kevin D. Foy for the construction of a pool with a screen enclosure on Mr. Foy's property for the sum of $12,000.00. On August 12, 1987, Mr. Foy made his final payment to the Respondent for the pool and enclosure and all related work. On June 9, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Harold Orcutt for the construction of a pool with a screen enclosure on Mr. Orcutt's property for the sum of $18,015.00. On August 1, 1987, Mr. Orcutt made his final payment to the Respondent for the pool and enclosure and all related work. On May 12, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Ann McAuley for the construction of a pool with a screen enclosure on Ms. McAuley's property for the sum of $14,204.08. On September 18, 1987, Ms. McAuley made her final payment to the Respondent for the pool and enclosure and all related work. At the end of September, 1987, the Respondent entered into an oral contract with Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc. to have Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc., install the pool enclosure at the Foy residence, pursuance to the Respondent's contract with the Foys. The total Paragon contract price was $3,975.00 which was to be paid by the Respondent to Paragon within two weeks of October 6, 1987, which was the completion date. The Respondent failed to pay that amount in a timely manner. On or about July 16, 1987, the Respondent entered into an oral contract with Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc. to have Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc., install the pool enclosure at the Orcutt residence pursuant to the Respondent's contract with the Orcutts. The total Paragon contract price was $4,910.00, which was to be paid by the Respondent to Paragon within two weeks of the first part of August, 1987, which was the completion date. The Respondent made a partial payment on August 17, 1987, of $3,015.00 and the balance of $895.00 was not paid in a timely manner. On or about July 20, 1987, the Respondent entered into an oral contract with Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc. to have Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc., install a pool enclosure at the McAuley residence pursuant to the Respondent's contract with Ms. McAuley. The total Paragon contract price was $4,321.00 which was to be paid by the Respondent to Paragon within two weeks of August 5, 1987, which was the completion date. The Respondent made a partial payment on September 12, 1987, of $2,704.08 which left a balance of $1,616.92 which was not paid in a timely manner. When the Respondent failed to timely pay Paragon Aluminum Products, Inc., at the end of the foregoing jobs, an officer of Paragon contacted the Citrus County Building Department in an effort to have that department aid her in collection of the monies owed. The Respondent admitted to an investigator of the Department of Professional Regulation on June 7, 1988, that he was having cash problems in relation to the three jobs, that all work had been completed, but due to those cash flow problems, Paragon had not been paid in full. The Respondent signed a personal promissory note for the full amount due to Paragon. No liens were ever filed by Paragon. The Respondent's county license was suspended the Citrus County Licensing Board on May 11, 1988, until he was able to show financial responsibility to that board. That suspension was lifted by the Citrus County Licensing Board on October 12, 1988. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order and therein penalize the Respondent, William Losciale, as follows: Assess a fine of $1500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(i) Dismiss the remaining charges made in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of October, 1989.
