Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent, Stephen M. Oliver, was both a registered roofing contractor, holding license RC 0042579, and a certified building contractor, holding license CB 025099. Both licenses were issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about July 3, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract with Betty Davis to remodel her house in Bradenton. The total contract price was $3,600. Work on the Davis job commenced on Wednesday, July 3, 1985, and proceeded on July 4 and 5 and July 9 through 12, 1985, before Respondent applied for and obtained a Manatee County building permit for the job. This is a violation of local law. Respondent was not attempting to avoid obtaining a permit for the work. He was just busy and did not timely get one. The building permit obtained does not reflect that the permit covered installation of an oven range hood. Although part of the contract, that work was not included on Respondent's application for a building permit. No separate mechanical permit was obtained for this work. Respondent willfully and deliberately installed the oven range hood on the Davis job without obtaining the required Manatee County mechanical permit. At all times material, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County had adopted the Standard Building Code and Standard Mechanical Code, with accumulated supplements, to govern construction in Manatee County. Under the applicable code provisions, installation of an oven range hood is mechanical work for which a mechanical license and mechanical permit are required. Respondent is not licensed or qualified by the State or by Manatee County to do mechanical work. Respondent willfully and deliberately did the mechanical work on the Davis job, i.e., installation of the oven range hood, without being licensed or qualified to do it and without a mechanical permit. Respondent's work on the Davis job was incompetent and grossly negligent in that some electrical wires were covered over by vinyl siding that Respondent installed without first being covered with protective coating to prevent safety hazards, in violation of the applicable building code. Otherwise, Respondent's workmanship was not the best, but it was not incompetent or grossly negligent. On or about March 22, 1985, Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation in which Respondent admitted to charges of not getting the required building permit for an August 25, 1983, contract until eleven months after work began. Respondent was fined $500 for that offense. Shortly before the final hearing in this case, Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation in which he admitted to charges of: (1) performing a February 18, 1985, contract without obtaining the required permit and inspections; (2) performing a March 6, 1985, contract by October 1, 1985, without having all necessary inspections done; (3) performing a January 22, 1985, contract without having all necessary building inspections performed, without correcting all violations cited during inspections, and falsely swearing by affidavit that the masonry contractor had been paid; and (4) not having the necessary final inspection done after performance of a March 16, 1985, contract. For these offenses, Respondent was fined an additional $1000 and placed on probation through February, 1988.
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 fining Respondent, Stephen M. Oliver, $1500.00. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-5035 Respondent filed no proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. This ruling complies with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Stephen M. Oliver 2423 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Fl 33505 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether respondent's licenses as a registered air-conditioning contractor and registered sheet metal contractor should be disciplined for the reasons given in the amended administrative complaint filed on July 10, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Charges At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Nicholas Donald Bacca, was licensed as a registered air-conditioning contractor and a registered sheet metal contractor, having been issued license numbers RA 0055337 and RS 0049354 by petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Nick Bacca Solar/Air Systems. He operated his business from his residence located at 4559 Fulton Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. On the weekend prior to May 6, 1991, nine large air-conditioning units having a value of around $12,000 were stolen from the Atmore, Alabama Lions Community Center. The identification numbers of the units were immediately given by local police to the National Crime Information Center. Acting on information received from one of the apprehended theives, on May 14, 1991, a search warrant was obtained by the Duval County Sheriff's Office to search respondent's property at 4559 Fulton Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. All nine units previously stolen in Atmore, Alabama were found in respondent's possession. It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that respondent knew the units were stolen and that they could be used in his contracting practice. It is further found that by engaging in the foregoing conduct, respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting. Respondent was charged with nine second-degree felony counts of violating Section 812.019, Florida Statutes, which makes unlawful the act of dealing in stolen property. On August 29, 1991, respondent entered a plea of no contest to one count of violating Section 812.019, Florida Statutes. Adjudication was withheld by the court, respondent was placed on fifteen months community control, and prior to the expiration of his community control, he was required to make restitution in the amount of $8,371.16. He was also required to pay $220.00 in court costs. For the purpose of determining an appropriate penalty, several aggravating circumstances come into play. First, in terms of the severity of the offense, respondent pled guilty to a second degree felony, punishable by state law by imprisonment for up to fifteen years in state prison. Further, the stolen property in respondent's possession could have been sold to unwitting members of the public with adverse consequences upon those persons. Finally, given the nature of the offense, a penalty having a potential deterrent effect on other contractors may be appropriate. On the other hand, there is no evidence that respondent has been disciplined by the Board on any other occasion. In investigating and prosecuting this action, petitioner has incurred costs to date in the amount of $3,745.42. This amount was established by affidavit and was not contested. Failure to Appear at Hearing Although respondent's counsel received a copy of the notice of hearing issued on August 22, 1995, which scheduled a hearing on September 26, 1995, and a second notice issued on September 18, 1995, giving the specific location of the hearing, he did not appear at final hearing. He has never filed a motion for continuance with the undersigned, or otherwise contacted this office to advise that he would be unable to attend the hearing. At the close of the business day prior to the hearing, respondent's counsel's office telefaxed to opposing counsel a motion for protective order and motion to strike notice of hearing. The document was not served on the undersigned. In the motions, counsel moved to strike the notice on the grounds he had not been given reasonable notice of hearing and the hearing date of September 26 had not been cleared with his office. He further cited R. Crim. P. 3.132(c) and advised he was "detained" in Alachua County until October 17, 1995, and could not attend the hearing. The motions were opposed by petitioner. After petitioner furnished the undersigned with a copy of the motions at final hearing, which were treated as a motion for continuance, the motions were denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner enter a Final Order finding respondent guilty as charged in Counts I and III of the amended administrative complaint, revoking his license, and requiring him to pay $3,745.42 in costs incurred by the Board in investigating and prosecuting this action. Count II should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1364 Petitioner: Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C. Masters, Esquire 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Thomas A. Boyer, Jr., Esquire 390 North Orange Avenue Suite 1890 Orlando, FL 32801-1642 Mr. Nicholas D. Bacca 4559 Fulton Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32207 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes as set out in the January 18, 1984 Administrative Complaint. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Louis P. Gilner, Peter Max Christianson, Jr., Catherine M. Edwards, John Owen Thompson, Jack W. Rainford, and Annie Gilner and had admitted in evidence Petitioner's exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Exhibit 2 is clearly hearsay and inadmissible but has be considered as a stipulation of counsel and is discussed under the Conclusions of Law as a jurisdictional argument of counsel. Neither Respondent nor Chester A. Trow, Esquire appeared for formal hearing. Petitioner filed transcript of the proceedings November 14, 1985 and proposed findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on November 18, 1985, and waived time for entry of this recommended Order. These proposals have been considered in this recommended Order and are ruled upon in the Appendix hereto.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Patton N. Roberts, is a certified general contractor, license number CG C015023 and qualifying agent for Roberts Construction and Development, Inc. Although Respondent failed to renew his license in June, 1985, and his license is now on inactive status, it can be renewed at any time before June 1988 by payment of late renewal fee. In June 1982, Respondent entered into a contract for $68,242.00 with Louis Gilner to construct home in Putnam County, Florida. The charges against Respondent arise out of the use of the funds associated with construction of this home pursuant to contract. On June 30, 1982, Respondent obtained Putnam County building permit #6107 for the construction. Respondent commenced construction and completed the home to the dry-in stage by approximately early August 1982. Mr. Gilner paid Respondent a $50.00 deposit and two "draw" payments of $20,472.00 each, making total payments to Respondent of $40,995.00. These "draws" against the total amount of $62,242.00 which was contracted-for were paid on July 20, 1982 and August 5, 1982, respectively. Approximately July 15, 1982, Respondent ordered trusses for the Gilner residence from Landmark Truss, Inc. The trusses were delivered on July 23, 1982. Respondent failed to pay for the trusses, although he had received the draw payment for the trusses. Landmark Trusses, Inc. filed a lien on the Gilner residence for $2,490.00. On July 9, 1982, Respondent ordered 16 loads of fill dirt for the Gilner residence from Chesser & Strickland Sand Co., Inc. The Respondent's failure to pay $950.00 for the dirt and the labor in spreading it resulted in a lien being filed against the Gilner property for that amount. Mr. Jack Rainford testified that Respondent subcontracted the heating and air conditioning work to A-1 Air and A-1 plumbing for $5,806.00 ($3,550 plumbing and $2,556 air conditioning); that Respondent paid A-1 Air and A-1 Plumbing the first draw on the plumbing in the amount of $1,128.00 on August 17, 1982; that the Gilners had, on January 3, 1983, paid A-1 Air and A-1 Plumbing $1,128.00 on the air and $1,183.34 on the plumbing, and that Respondent has failed to pay $1,183.34 on the plumbing and $1,128.00 on the air conditioning. No matter how these figures are worked, they do not fairly support Mr. Rainford's conclusion that Respondent only owes A-1 $1,183.34 plus $1,12800. It is more mathematically logical that the original total owed was $6,106.00; the Respondent paid $1,128.00 on August 17, 1982 reducing the remaining amount to $5,806.00; thereafter Mr. and Mrs. Gilner, on January 3, 1983, paid A-1 $1,128.00 for the air conditioning work and $1,183.34 for the plumbing package and that Respondent actually owes the Gilners $2,311.34 for their having to pay twice, and owes A-1 $3,464.66; which is the balance of A-1's bill after all payments the Respondent and the Gilners have been deducted. However, the undersigned will accept Mr. Rainford's unrefuted testimony that Respondent owes A-1 only $1,128.00 plus $1,183.34 for a total of only $2,311.34. On or about September 6, 1982, Gilner terminated Respondent for lack of progress toward completion. At that date of termination the Respondent and his crew had been absent from the premises for five to six weeks. At the time of the Respondent's termination, the project was, by Mr. Gilner's estimation, only 40 percent completed. Although the predicate for Mr. Gilner's knowledge in this regard is less than might normally be characterized as "expert" testimony, it is still credible and based on Mr. Gilner's testimony concerning his usual employment as an installer of traffic controls involving other construction projects, and in conjunction with the testimony of Mrs. Gilner, his estimation that the extent of the household construction total led only 40 percent is accepted for purposes of this finding of fact. At this stage, based on the draws paid. 60 percent of the construction should have been completed by Respondent. The Gilners both testified that they completed the home after Respondent's termination at a total cost of $82,000, or $14,000 over the contract price. There is no evidence to support the actual amount paid or what it was paid for, nor is there any evidence to establish what relationship there may have been between Respondent's behavior and the increased cost. Although Mrs. Gilner testified that there was some misinstallation of the trusswork and that rain had damaged the roof prior to Respondent's final termination, this information, without more, will not support the $14,000 figure. Approximately August 25, 1982, in a conversation with Catherine Edwards, an employee of Landmark Truss, Respondent had explained that the reason he had not paid the Landmark Truss bill was because he had elected to use the draws he had received from the Gilners to buy some lots upon which to build ""spec" (speculation) Respondent stated to Ms. Edwards that he originally intended to get the lots "subordinated" but due to the early death of an elderly man up north, he had had to use the (5) Gilner draws to buy his lots and was awaiting profit from the speculation homes to pay landmark Trusses bill. Because this conversation occurred after Landmark Trusses had served its Notice of Claim on Mrs. Gilner, the undersigned construes this conversation to be an admission against interest by Respondent and draws the inference there from that failure of Respondent to pay the other necessary owed costs from the draws received from the Gilners resulted from the same misapplication of draw funds as Respondent described to Ms. Edwards.
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order providing that Respondent's certified general contractor's license shall be suspended for a five year period with the provision that the suspension shall be lifted after one year upon the Respondent providing proof to the Construction Industry Licensing Board that he has made restitution of $2,311.34 to the Gilners, $2,490.00 to Landmark Trusses, Inc., $950.00 to Chesser & Strickland Sand Co., and $2,311.34 to A-1 Air and A-1 Plumbing. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2857 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but expanded to conform to the evidence as a whole. Accepted but expanded to conform to the evidence as a whole. Rejected as not supported by the competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Accepted but rephrased to reflect the competent substantal evidence in the record as a whole. 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 Mr. Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chester A. Trow, Esquire P. O. Box 1450 Ocala, Florida 32678 Patton N. Roberts 2442 Jackson Street Hollywood, Florida 33202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Paul K. Scapecchi, is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RG 0015926, and a registered roofing contractor, holding license number RC 0031048. The Respondent is the qualifier for Paul's Construction Company, which is the Respondent's firm. Edwin Schmid is a resident of West Germany who vacations in North Florida, and who testified by deposition which was received in evidence as Exhibit 1. He owns six parcels of real estate, or lots adjacent to each other, including Lot 19, Bon Bay Estates, in Santa Rosa County, Florida, which he purchased in approximately February, 1980. Edwin Schmid intended to have a home constructed on Lot 19 to be used as rental property. Subsequently, Edwin Schmid was introduced to the Respondent and the Respondent's father, Walter Scapecchi, by Lee and Carolyn Swigger. The Swiggers had become friendly with Edwin Schmid because Carolyn Swigger speaks German. Thereafter, Edwin Schmid contracted with the Respondent and Walter Scapecchi to have his home built on Lot 19 in Bon Bay Estates. This contract was in written form and dated March 21, 1981. Although Walter Scapecchi signed this contract "doing business as Paul's Construction Company," as contractor, the Respondent admitted that the contract was with himself, and that his father was merely an employee of the firm. The initial contract with Edwin Schmid in which the price was set at $36,000 was participated in by both the Respondent and his father. Edwin Schmid dealt with the Respondent directly on several occasions, but the business card he had been given showed Walter Scapecchi's name written in by hand over the Respondent's name. The deposit check written by Edwin Schmid was made payable to Walter Scapecchi in the amount of $8,000. Walter Scapecchi is not licensed to engage in the business of general contracting, but was so engaged, aided and assisted by his son, the Respondent. The deposit check for $8,000 was to be used to cover the digging of the foundation, the necessary fill, the pouring of the concrete foundation, a culvert for the driveway, and electrical service, which was to have been completed by April 10, 1981, pursuant to the contract. A second payment of $10,000 was to have been made on April 10, 1981. On April 10, 1981, however, no work had yet been done, and none was done until March of 1982, nearly one year later. The work done in March 1982 consisted only of placing foundation markers. The Respondent admitted that the work of placing foundation markers did not cost anything near the $8,000 paid, and that he did not request the second payment of $10,000 because the work done did not exhaust the initial payment. Nevertheless, no part of the $8,000 initial payment was refunded to Edwin Schmid. Throughout the period of time after the contract was executed in March of 1981, Edwin Schmid wanted the Respondent to complete the construction pursuant to the contract. At one point after the first year had elapsed without any substantial work being done, Edwin Schmid attempted to effect a new contract with the Respondent that required the initial work for which he had already paid $8,000 to be completed. The Respondent agreed to this, but did not perform any more work at the construction site. The Respondent admits that he has not performed as required by the contract. He contends this was due to personal financial problems. Other excuses for the Respondent's nonperformance included his underestimation of the amount of fill required, heavy rains which caused delays, and State of Florida requirements. Nevertheless, work was not begun for nearly one year after the contract, contrary to the agreement, and only a minimal amount of work was done as of the date of the hearing. The Respondent moved out of the State of Florida in February of 1982, without notifying Edwin Schmid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Paul K. Scapecchi be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(e), (f), (h), (j) and (k), Florida Statutes, and that licenses numbered RG 0015926 and RC 0031048 held by Paul K. Scapecchi be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 27th day of September, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul K. Scapecchi 133F 25th Court, N.W. Birmingham, Alabama 35215 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
