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 Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license to practice contracting, license number CGC 060878, based on violations of Subsection 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (2005)1, as charged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding. Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes (Count I) by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (Count II) by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor, and Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count III) by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. And, if so, what discipline should be imposed, pursuant to Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are determined: At all times material, Respondent was a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 060878 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). At all times material, Respondent was the qualifier of Epic Building and Development Corporation, a Florida Corporation, with its principal place of business in the Fort Myers area. On February 22, 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Edward Dueboay to rebuild a house owned by Dueboay and his wife, located at 22299 Laramorre Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, which had been distroyed some months earlier by Hurricane Charlie. The price of the contract was $150,000.00. On or about March 24, 2005, Dueboay gave Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500 payable to Contractors Marketing America, Inc. (CMA, Inc.), for the engineering plans. On May 6, 2005, Dueboay paid Respondent $5,000, as an advance on the contract. Respondent did not obtain the building permit from the Charlotte County Building Department until December 12, 2005, and work on the project did not start until January 2006. Because of the enormous damage caused by the hurricane, contractors in the area were flooded with jobs, and significant shortages in building materials also occurred. On January 13, 2006, Respondent billed Dueboay $11,000.00 for land clearing and filling, $750.00 for permit fees, and $3,200.00 for a temporary electric pole. The bill gave credit for the $5,000.00 Dueboay paid on May 6, 2005, and showed a balance due of $10,000.00. On January 20, 2006, Dueboay paid the above-mentioned invoice, by check to Respondent, in the amount of $10,000.00. Respondent paid $4,600.00 to the sub-contractor who performed the lot clearing and filling, but billed Dueboay $11,000.00. However, the contract provided for a $2,500.00 allowance for clearing and filling, and a $750.00 allowance for permit fees. Section 11.c of the contract also provided that Respondent shall provide and pay for all materials and utilities and all other facilities and services necessary for the proper completion of the work on the project in accordance with the contract documents. To pay for the remainder of the contract, Dueboay negotiated and obtained a loan in the total amount of $153,000.00 from Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union (Credit Union). On March 21, 2006, Dueboay and the Credit Union signed the construction loan agreement. On March 21, 2006, Respondent was paid $18,235.00 by the Credit Union for the pre-cast walls used in the erection of the structure. On May 11, 2006, Respondent finished Phase I of the project. On May 15, 2006, Respondent received $11,350.00 as the first draw by the Credit Union. On June 20, 2006, Respondent finished Phase II of the project. On June 20, 2006, Respondent was paid $26,335.00 as the second draw by the Credit Union. From June 2006 to November 2006, Respondent performed no work on the house under the Dueboay contract. Because the roof was not completed, mold appeared on and in the house. On August 21, 2006, Dueboay paid $109.95 to America’s Best Cleaning and Restoration, Inc., for mold removal. On or before September 13, 2006, Dueboay hired an attorney to clarify billing charges related to lot filling, permit fees and the temporary electric pole, and to prompt Respondent to resume work abandoned since June 2006. Under the Credit Union Loan Agreement, after several extensions, the completion of the Dueboay home should have taken place on or before October 17, 2006. On October 18, 2006, the Loan Agreement extension expired, and Dueboay was required to pay mortgage and interest on the loan, even though construction of the house was not completed. On November 10, 2006, Dueboay’s attorney sent Respondent a third letter advising him that the project was stagnating; that after eighteen months since the signing of the contract, the roof of the house was not yet completed; and that, under the contract, Respondent was obligated to substantially complete all work in a reasonable time after construction had started. On or about December 1, 2006, the building permit expired and had to be renewed. At some point after November 10, 2006, Respondent resumed work and finished Phase III on March 8, 2007, with the exception that some doors were not installed, including the garage door. Respondent submitted a sworn Contractor’s Affidavit stating that all subcontractors had been paid, and that there are no liens against Dueboay’s property. However, Dueboay had to pay Charlotte County Utilities $224.93 on October 29, 2007, and $240.00 to Pest Bear, Inc., on May 7, 2008, to avoid two liens being recorded against his property. From March 8, 2007, until July 2007, Respondent performed no work under the contract. David Allgood, another general contractor, was hired by Respondent to complete some of Respondent’s projects in the Port Charlotte area, including the Dueboay house. However, Dueboay was not informed of this arrangement. There was no contract directly between Dueboay and Allgood. On September 4, 2007, relying on advice from his attorney, Dueboay changed the locks to the house, with the intent to keep Respondent and his employees off his property. Shortly thereafter, employees of general contractor David Allgood broke the front lock and entered the property in September 2007, without Dueboay’s permission. Dueboay, again, following advice from this attorney, called law enforcement to eject Allgood’s employees from his property. Allgood attempted to invoice Dueboay for installing some doors on the house that Respondent had previously paid for, and which Respondent should have installed. However, following advice from his attorney, Dueboay resisted Allgood’s request to pay him for the doors. Respondent was paid a total of $122,246.03 for the Dueboay project, before the contract was cancelled. Respondent did not complete work from Phases IV and V, with the following exceptions: he did some work on the driveway, painted the interior, did some cabinet work, exterior trim and soffit, siding, stucco, and some interior trim. Therefore, Respondent completed, at best, three out of seven operations from Phase IV (interior and exterior paint, interior trim and doors, and exterior trim and soffits) and worked on, but did not complete, stucco and some cabinets. From Phase V, Respondent only worked on the driveway and sidewalks, which had to subsequently be repaired. Dueboay hired Storybook Homes, Inc. (Storybook), to complete work abandoned by Respondent from Phases IV and V. Storybook was hired to complete work as follows: install cabinets and vanities, install ceramic tiles, repair stucco, install custom tub, all electrical and plumbing per code, complete exterior paint, install hardware, sinks and faucets in the baths and showers, complete floors, install all appliances, complete air conditioning and heat, and obtain the certificate of occupancy. The amount of $122,246.03 paid to Respondent at the time when Respondent abandoned the Dueboay project represents 81 percent of the total contract price of $150,000.00. Respondent completed, at best, 75 percent of the job by completing only three out of seven operations of Phase IV and working on some additional operations that needed to be redone, like the driveway, sidewalks and stucco. Due to Respondent’s failure to perform work on time, Dueboay incurred $5,116.42 in additional expenses, as follows: $109.95 on August 21, 2006 (mold removal), $360.00 on November 23, 2006 (legal fees), $175.00 on June 4, 2007 (legal fees), $375.00 on September 4, 2007 (legal fees), $224.93 on October 29, 2007 (to satisfy lien), $668.34 on November 3, 2007 (legal fees), $200.00 on April 4, 2008 (legal fees), $1,151.05 on May 7, 2008 (to correct work performed deficiently by Respondent), $390.00 on May 7, 2008 (to repair driveway), $240.00 on May 7, 2008 (to avoid lien), and $412.00 on May 12, 2008 (to install safe room door that Respondent failed to install). The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, for Petitioner’s case no. 2005-028129 was $276.18.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board render a Final Order as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. Respondent’s license to practice contracting (CGC 060878) be suspended for a period of three months, followed by a period of probation for two years, upon such conditions as the Board may impose, including the payment of costs and restitution. Requiring Respondent to pay financial restitution to the consumer, Edward Dueboay, in the amount of $5,116.42 for consumer harm suffered due to payment of additional expenses. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $276.18. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent has been a Florida-licensed general contractor (holding license number CGC 062108) since February 5, 2001. At all times material to the instant case, JQC held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for JQC. On or about May 10, 2007, JQC, through Respondent, entered into a written contract (Building Contract) with Marienne Cavalier, agreeing, for $95,000.00, to construct an addition to the Miami, Florida residence (Residence) of Ms. Cavalier and her husband, Wilfrid Pierre-Louis (Project). The Building Contract provided as follows: For Architectural, Engineering, Permit Expediting and Construction Services in the sum of Ninety Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000.00) based on the following criteria: Architectural services to be provided consist of the following: Bringing into compliance the existing residence with the Zoning & Building Department[']s Requirements for the City of North Miami Beach, in the State of Florida. Complete set of working drawings to include, Design Development, Site Plan/Floor Plan in compliance with the "Florida Building Code" & the Florida Accessibility Code (Handicapped). Exterior Elevations (Facades). Wall Sections & details as required to assure design intent and constructability. Engineering services to be provided consist of the following: Foundation plan and specifications. Plumbing plan and specifications. Electrical plan and specifications. Mechanical plan and specifications. Roof framing plan and specifications. Air conditioning system calculations as per the State of Florida. Home Energy calculations as per the requirements of the State of Florida. Hurricane Wind Load calculations as per the requirements of the Florida Building Code. Permit Expediting services to be provided consist of the following: Submitting of Plans and Application to the Building Department for processing. Going to the Building Department to pick up Plans each time there are revisions to be made, delivering the Plans to the Architect/Engineer for review and re-submitting the Plans to the Building Department. Coordinating plan review between Architect/Engineer and Building Department so as to obtain the Building Permit in a reasonable amount of time. Construction services to be provided consist of the following: Labor and materials included Relocating existing front door Entrance and construction of new Terrace. Demolition of existing Bathroom. Extension of kitchen wall. Relocation of existing Air Conditioning Unit and Duct Work. Demolition of Existing Partitions and Installation of new Partition work to include Dining Room, Living Room and Florida Room. Raising of concrete floor Slab at existing addition. Installation of tiles at new concrete floor. Construction of new Master Bedroom, Master Bathroom and Walk-In Closet. Construction of new Laundry Room. Construction of new Office Room. Demotion of existing flat roof addition. Raising existing tie-beam of flat roof to match the height of the house. Construction of new roof. Installation of new Doors and Windows. New concrete sidewalk at rear of house. Stucco and Painting of new Addition. Painting of Interior walls. Insulation of new Addition Walls and Ceiling. Mechanical work to existing addition as per plans. Plumbing work to existing addition as per plans. Electrical work to existing addition as per plans. Trash Container and Disposal of construction debris. Portable Toilet. Items not included: New Air Conditioner if required by Building Department. Any work related to the existing Septic Tank system. Driveway. Landscaping. Terms of Agreement First Payment (Initial Down Payment) $3,000.00 Second Payment $4,000.00 (Due at Submittal of Plans Building Department) to the Third Payment $24,000.00 (Due at Approval of Construction Permit) Fourth Payment $20,000.00 (Due after First Inspection) Fifth Payment (Due at 50% of $20,000.00 Work Completion) Sixth Payment (Due at 75% of $20,000.00 Work Completion) Seventh Payment $4,000.00 (Due upon Final Inspection) Total cost of Work $95,000.00 Items not specified in this agreement are not part of this contract. Fees for Permits and other Inspections (if required) are not included in the indicated cost above. There was no written statement in the Building Contract explaining a consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as then required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2006). JQC commenced work on the Project after the Building Contract was signed by Respondent and Ms. Cavalier. There were expenses that JQC incurred in connection with the Project that were "unexpected" and "not anticipated," including those related to the demolition work required by the Building Contract. In addition to doing work required by Building Contract (Project Work), JQC did extra work on the Residence (Extra Work), at Mr. Pierre-Louis's request, resulting in further "additional expenses being incurred that were not [contemplated] in the original contract." Respondent (acting on behalf of JQC) and Mr. Pierre-Louis verbally agreed that this Extra Work would be undertaken by JQC, but nothing was ever reduced to writing.2 There came a time, after he and his wife had made several payments to JQC, that Mr. Pierre-Louis became dissatisfied with the pace of the JQC's efforts. Mr. Pierre- Louis confronted Respondent and erroneously "accused [Respondent] of stealing the money" he and his wife had paid (instead of using it to do the work JQC had agreed to do on the Residence). In fact, "the money was being spent on the [improvements to the Residence]." Mr. Pierre-Louis "even called the police on [Respondent]." Respondent was interviewed by a police detective, who, following the interview, told Respondent that "this seem[ed] to be a civil case," not a "criminal" matter. No criminal charges were ever filed against Respondent. To avoid any similar misunderstanding on Mr. Pierre- Louis's part in the future, Respondent told Mr. Pierre-Louis that he and his wife should not give Respondent "a single dollar," but they, instead, should themselves directly pay the workers JQC had working on the job site and also "buy the necessary materials." In or around June 2009, JQC temporarily stopped working on the Residence because "there wasn't any money available" to pay for labor and materials. As of the date of the stoppage of work, approximately 50% of the Project Work and Extra Work had been completed, and Ms. Cavalier and Mr. Pierre-Louis had made the following payments for the Project Work and Extra Work: payments by check to JQC and Respondent, totaling $86,478.85; cash payments to Respondent, totaling $1,553.62; payments by check to JQC workers, totaling $7,835.00; cash payments to JQC workers, totaling $3,600.00; $1,000.00 for concrete; $600.00 for tar paper; and $500.00 for plywood. Respondent explained to Mr. Pierre-Louis that JQC was stopping work on the Residence because the money had "run out," and he assured Mr. Pierre-Louis that JQC would resume the work "whenever [Mr. Pierre-Louis] ha[d] some money available," an assurance that was sincerely made. Mr. Pierre-Louis, in turn, told Respondent that it was his intention to secure the funds necessary to finish the work. Three months later, when Mr. Pierre-Louis "did get some money," he let Respondent know. JQC thereupon began working on the Residence again (as Respondent had promised it would),3 and it has continued to work on the Residence (doing the Project Work and Extra Work) on an ongoing basis (with Ms. Cavalier and Mr. Pierre-Louis paying for labor and materials,4 as they had done immediately before the work had stopped). While Ms. Cavalier and Mr. Pierre-Louis have paid the workers doing the Project Work and Extra Work, these workers have at all times been under Respondent's supervision. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, at least 90% of the Project Work and Extra Work had been completed. Undertaking the Project Work and Extra Work has been a money-losing venture for JQC and Respondent. Petitioner has incurred a total of $297.10 in investigative and prosecutorial costs in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; (3) fining him $375.00 for having committed this violation; and (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department for investigative and prosecutorial costs related to this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues in this hearing, Respondent was a licensed building contractor, whose license is No. CBC014467. His certification as an individual by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was initially dated August 16, 1979. In February, 1981, he requested his second license be registered qualifying Jeff Webb Homes, Inc.; and in September, 1982, the license was changed from Jeff Webb Homes, Inc., to Intervest Construction, Inc. On April 23, 1981, Anna Ray McClellan contracted with Regency Central, Inc., for the construction and purchase of a single family residence located at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, Volusia County, Florida. David L. Martin is president of Regency Central, Inc., and neither he nor Regency Central, Inc., are or have ever been registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. On June 5, 1981, Respondent applied for a residential construction permit for Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, listing Regency Central, Inc., as the owner of the property, and himself, with License No. CBC014467, as the contractor. Actual contracting for the construction at Lot 5, Devonwood Subdivision, was accomplished by Regency Central, Inc. Three separate addenda to the construction/purchase contract calling for modifications to the specifications of construction were signed, not by Respondent, but by David L. Martin for Regency Central, Inc. Major subcontracts on the construction including plumbing, electrical, and heating and air conditioning, were entered into between the subcontractors and Regency Central, Inc., and not Respondent. Subcontractors looked to Regency Central for payment, and not to Respondent. A claim of lien filed on ,September 9, 1981, for central air conditioning and heating work on the property in question reflects the work was done under contract with Regency Central, Inc., David L. Martin, President. During construction of the house, Ms. McClellan visited the construction site several times a week at different hours of the day. She recalls seeing Respondent in the area only twice, the first time being the day the contract for purchase was signed, and the second being the day the slab was poured. Her dealings at the site were with the supervisor, Dan Haley, who indicated to her that he worked for Regency Central, Inc. Respondent was interviewed by Philip T. Hundemann, an investigator for the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, in late March, 1982, at Respondent's home. During the course of the interview, Respondent admitted that he met David L. Martin when Martin rented office space in a building that Respondent had constructed and owned. During the course of conversations, Martin suggested to Respondent that he, Martin, had ninety-nine lots available for building and that if Respondent would pull the construction permit for the Lot 5 project, he would get a contract from Martin to build on the other ninety- nine lots. Respondent admitted that he did not supervise the contract, that he did pull the permit, and that he was in violation of the law and had prostituted his license. His defense was, at that time, that he was hungry to get a big construction contract with Martin. Though after he pulled the permits his agreement was to work on the site for the rate of ten dollars per day with the supervisor, Mr. Haley, he was there only infrequently. Respondent now modifies the admissions made previously to Mr. Hundemann. He now states he was heavily involved with the construction project on a daily basis either in his office or on the construction site, not only as a contractor, but also as sales broker. While he admits what he did was in violation of the law and was foolish, he did not intend to break the law. Respondent's involvement with Ms. McClellan's project was not as contractor as indicated in the permit he pulled. He had very little contact with that project until Martin abandoned the project and left the area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's, Dominic D'Alexander's, license as a certified building contractor be suspended for one year, but that, upon the payment of a $500 administrative fine, the execution of the suspension be deferred for a period of three years, with provision for automatic recission. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 21st day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dominic D'Alexander Post Office Box 4580 South Daytona, Florida 32021 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, Petitioner, seeks to revoke the registered contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, Respondent, based on allegations, which will be set forth in detail hereafter, that he engaged in conduct violative of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent aided or abetted and/or knowingly combined or conspired with Mr. Howard North, an uncertified or unregistered contractor, to evade the provisions of Chapter 468.112(2)(b), and (c), Florida Statutes, by allowing North to use his certificate of registration without having any active participation in the operations, management, or control of North's operations. Based on the testimony adduced during the hearing and the exhibits received into evidence, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor who holds license no. CGC007016, which is current and active. On or about July 25, 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Csobor entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Howard North for the construction of a home in Martin County, Florida, for a total price of $35,990. Neither Mr. or Mrs. North are certified or registered contractors in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #2). Respondent applied for and was issued a permit by the Martin County Building Department to construct a residence for the Csobors at the same address stipulated in the contract between the Csobors and the Norths, i.e., Northwest 16th Street, Palm Lake Park, Florida. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1). Howard North, a licensed masonry contractor for approximately nine (9) years was contacted by the Csobors through a sales representative from a local real estate firm. It appears from the evidence that North had previously constructed a "spec" house which the local realtor had sold and thus put the Csobors in contact with Mr. North when they were shown the "spec" house built by North. Evidence reveals that North contacted Borovina who agreed to pull the permit "if he could get some work from the job and could supervise the project". Having reached an agreement on this point, North purchased the lot to build the home for the Csobors and he orally contracted with the Respondent to, among other things, pull the permit, supervise construction, layout the home and do trim and carpentry work. North paid Respondent approximately $200 to layout the home for the Csobors. By the time that North had poured the slab and erected the subfloor, the Csobors became dissatisfied with his (North's) work and demanded that he leave the project. According to North, Respondent checked the progress of construction periodically. Prior to this hearing, the Csobors had never dealt with Respondent in any manner whatsoever. According to Csobor, North held himself out as a reputable building contractor. A contractor is defined in relevant part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. . . . real estate for others. . . Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephen J. Borovina 2347 Southeast Monroe Street Stuart, Florida 33494 J. Hoskinson, Jr. Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, 2347 S. E. Monroe Street, Stuart, Florida 33494, Respondent. / This cause came before the FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD at its regular meeting on February 10, 1978. Respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did not appear The FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD on February 10, 1978, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of STEPHEN J. BOROVINA. It is therefore, ORDERED that the certification of respondent STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, Number CG C007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has 30 days after the date of this final order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. DATED this 13th day of February, 1978. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President ================================================================= SECOND AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, CG C007016, Respondent/Appellant, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1442 FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner/Appellee. / This cause came before the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board at its regular meeting on August 3, 1979. The respondent was sent the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations and was given at least 10 days to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. Respondent was notified of the meeting so that respondent or counsel might appear before the Board. Respondent did appear. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, on August 3, 1979, after reviewing a complete transcript of the Administrative Hearing, by motion duly made and seconded, voted to revoke the certified general contractor's license of Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016. On February 13, 1978, the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, No. CG C007016, was revoked by order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On April 25, 1979, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, in Case Number: 78-527, reversed the final order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. That Court remanded the above captioned case to the Board to further consider the matter and enter such order as it may be advised in conformity with Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977). In accordance with the decision of the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, the Board has reconsidered the above captioned matter and finds as follows: The Board rejects the recommended order as the agency's final order. The Board adopts the first paragraph of the hearing officer's finding of fact. The Board, however, rejects the findings of fact found in the second paragraph of the hearing officer's findings. The second paragraph states as follows: A contractor is defined in relevent(sic) part as any person who, for compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, construct, repair, etc. real estate for others...Chapter 468.102(1), Florida Statutes. Applying this definition to the facts herein, it appears that the Respondent, at least in a literal sense, satisfied the requirements and obligations of a contractor, as defined in Chapter 468.102, Florida Statutes. Thus, he contracted with North to oversee and/or supervise the project for the Csobors which he fulfilled, according to the testimony of North. Said testimony was not refuted and thus I find that no effort was made by Respondent to evade any provision of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. The findings of fact found in the above-quoted paragraph were not based upon competent substantial evidence. The competent substantial evidence supports a finding that the respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, did not supervise the project and that Borovina evaded the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The following evidence supports the Board's position: There was no written agreement entered into between Howard North and the respondent which indicated that the respondent was to supervise the construction of the Csobors' house (T- 14); It was conceded at the hearing that the only subcontractors or draftmen who worked on the Csobors' house were contracted solely by Howard North and they had no contract whatsoever with the respondent (T-19, 25); The respondent never advised or informed Mr. and Mrs. Csobor that he was the contractor on the job. (T-51); At all times during the act of construction of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Csobor were under the impression that Howard North was the contractor (T-44-51). It is, therefore, ORDERED: That the certification of respondent, Stephen J. Borovina, Number CG 0007016, be and is hereby revoked. Respondent is hereby notified that he has thirty (30) days after the date of the Final Order to appeal pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Appellate Rules. Dated this 3rd day of August, 1979. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD BY: JOHN HENRY JONES, President
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1974, Pelle J. Lindquist contracted with Patrick G. Yeager to build a house on Concord Road in Ormond Beach, Florida. This contract was admitted in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The contract called for work to begin on March 1, 1974, and to be completed within 90 days. Work did not begin on March 1, 1974, but did begin in the latter half of March, 1974. Frequent rain in March, 1974, caused the roof to warp, so that it had to be replaced. After considerable delay in undertaking the repair, actually replacing the roof took only about a week. Replacing the roof added significantly to respondent's costs in performing under the contract. Eleven months after construction began, Mr. Yeager moved in. Because the kitchen and both bathrooms lacked wallpaper, and because the gravel yard was partly unfinished, respondent Lindquist paid Mr. Yeager $300.00, in exchange for which Mr. Yeager released Mr. Lindquist from all liability in connection with the house. The release was admitted in evidence as respondent's Exhibit No. 1. In the course of construction, Haven Vaughn, a sub- contracting carpenter, filed a notice of intent to lien on behalf of himself and his partner, Cal Fisher. As long as Mr. Lindquist was allowed draws on the construction loan, Messrs. Vaughn and Fisher were paid regularly. For reasons which were not developed in the evidence, the lender withheld part of the loan proceeds from respondent. When the draws stopped, the carpenters were not paid, and they stopped work on the Yeager house. The lender ultimately paid the carpenters in full. At the time Mr. Yeager contracted with Mr. Lindquist for the house, Mr. Lindquist entered into a separate agreement with Mr. Cameron, a real estate broker who introduced Mr. Lindquist to Mr. Yeager. Under the latter agreement, Mr. Lindquist was to pay Cameron Realty Company a brokerage fee upon "obtaining last draw from lending firm." The brokerage fee has not been paid and is currently the subject of civil litigation. On February 15, 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Horace N. Smith, Jr., contracted with respondent for the construction of a house on another lot on Concord Road in Ormond Beach, Florida. This contract was admitted in evidence as petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The contract called for completion of the Smith house on or about June 15, 1974. After the contract was signed, the Smiths returned to New Jersey, entrusting oversight of the project to Mr. Cameron, a real estate broker who introduced Mr. Lindquist to the Smiths. As construction progressed, Mr. Cameron kept Mrs. Smith advised, and she mailed installment payments on the strength of Mr. Cameron's representations. In this fashion, Mr. Lindquist was paid 75 percent of the total contract price of $27,600.00. For reasons which were not developed in the evidence, the Smiths stopped payments under the contract, presumably at Mr. Cameron's suggestion. When the payments stopped, work on the house also stopped, and, during the ensuing hiatus in construction, vandals broke a glass door, scrawled obscenities on the walls, scraped the walls, damaged the outside doors, and ruined the wooden trim. Work had fallen far behind schedule when, in April of 1975, a lawyer retained by Mr. and Mrs. Smith wrote Mr. Lindquist to the effect that the Smiths would take over the project unless it was finished within a week. When the week had passed, the Smiths began dealing directly with the sub-contractors, the house was eventually completed at a total cost to the Smiths of $29,100.00, or $1,500.00 more than the Smiths had agreed to pay Mr. Lindquist for the job. As completed, the house lacked an electric garage door opener and a sprinkler system which Mrs. Smith guessed would cost $1,000.00, but no competent evidence as to the cost or value of either the door opener or the sprinkler system was adduced. Vandalism added significantly to the cost of the Smith house. Mr. Lindquist replaced a glass door broken by vandals. On account of the vandalism, the Smiths paid the carpenters an additional $300.00 for their labor. The front doors, the trim, and all bays had to be replaced; the cost of replacement materials was not established. At the time Mr. and Mrs. Smith contracted with Mr. Lindquist for the house, Mr. Lindquist entered into a separate agreement with Mr. Cameron. Under the latter agreement, Mr. Lindquist was to pay Cameron Realty Company a brokerage fee. The brokerage fee has not been paid and is currently the subject of civil litigation. Certified general contractors' licenses are renewable annually in June, pursuant to Section 468.108, Florida Statutes (1975). Mr. Lindquist had such a license for 1974-75. In June of 1975, he desired to renew his license, but in a fashion which would authorize him to contract on behalf of a corporation, rather than as an individual. He telephoned the Jacksonville office of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and explained his situation. That office mailed him forms which he filled out and mailed back in June of 1975. In March of 1976, some nine months later, the completed forms were mailed back to respondent, but no license was issued. On March 22, 1976, Mr. Clyde Pirtle, an investigator employed in the Jacksonville office of the Florida construction Industry Licensing Board, filled out and mailed to respondent a Notice of Violation," notifying respondent that he had failed to renew his certificate during June of 1975. The same "Notice of Violation" advised respondent of his putative failure to notify the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board of his new address, although his application papers for the 1975-76 license had been returned to the new address. On the Monday after the Friday on which respondent received the "Notice of Violation," he telephoned Mr. Pirtle's office and was told that Mr. Pirtle would contact him. On or about June 3, 1976, Mr. Pirtle did contact respondent and meet with him. At this meeting, respondent showed Mr. Pirtle the papers he had mailed to the Board in June of 1975, and which were returned to him unprocessed in March of 1976. Mr. Pirtle told respondent that the papers had been returned because the application forms were for a registered, and not for a certified, contractor's license, and furnished respondent another set of forms. Respondent filled out the new set of forms and mailed them to the Board in June of 1976. A month and a half before the hearing in this cause, respondent received 1976-1977 certified general contractor's license No. CGC007702, which is currently in force. No contractor's license for 1975-76 was ever issued to respondent. On May 3, 1976, respondent applied for and was issued a building permit to erect a new residence at 1623 Anniston Avenue in the City of Holly Hill. At that time, respondent had no current contractor's license and presented to the authorities a license which had expired.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that disciplinary action against Respondent, if any, be limited to a reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Thomas L. West, Esquire Post Office Box 1857 1030 Volusia Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the two Administrative Complaints filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0010134. Michael P. Freeman (a/k/a Dennis Freeman) was at no time material to the allegations considered herein a registered, certified, or otherwise licensed individual on record with CILB in Florida. In July 1983, Respondent and Dennis Freeman agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of home construction in Florida to be known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. (D & S). The officers of this corporation were to be: President S. A. Stone (Respondent) Vice President Dennis Freeman Sec. Treas. Kristina Freeman The letter from Respondent to his attorney, drafted and written by Ms. Via, but signed by Respondent, requesting that the corporation be established, provided that Freeman was to be responsible for all materials, maintenance, labor, bills, etc., and Respondent was to be responsible only for the "quality of work." This letter served as an agreement between Freeman and Stone which was to be separate and apart from the Articles of Incorporation. Respondent was to receive a 7% commission on "all labor done or any type of construction by Mr. Freeman or D & S Homebuilders . . .", and through his Exchange Realty office, was to receive a 5% commission on all sales of property from the corporation or Mr. Freeman. D & S was organized as a corporation until November 21, 1984, when it was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report. Though the corporation was formed and a Corporate Charter issued, and this action was taken at the request of the Respondent, the corporation was formed in the attorney's name. Neither Respondent nor the Freemans ever officially took over as officers or directors. In short, the corporation while legally born, never breathed. At no time during its life and during the period relative to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint herein, did the Respondent qualify the corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In addition to sending the letter to the attorney requesting that the corporation be established, Mr. Stone, on November 1, 1983, entered into a handwritten agreement with Mr. Freeman, also drawn by Ms. Via, which called for the use of his license: for Freeman to pay Respondent an additional $500.00 for the use of the license on each job over $5,0000.00 and for Freeman to "be solely responsible for anything that might arise against S. A. Stone's license." The first payment was to be made on December 1, 1983, and the agreement was to last through November 1, 1984. Stone never got any financial benefit from his relationship with Freeman. The agreement mentioned above was entered into at the behest of the then Chief of Police in Chiefland, Mr. Underwood, who requested that Respondent do anything he could to keep Freeman, who was then under investigation for other misconduct in the area. Mr. Underwood corroborates this. Pursuant to this request, when Respondent suggested an arrangement with Freeman, Freeman insisted that the agreement be in writing. Stone contends that at no time did he ever intend for the agreement to be permanent nor did he ever intend to make any money out of it. He says he knew it was illegal and he entered it solely because of the request from the police. He contends, and there is no evidence to contradict his contention, that at no time did he ever receive any money from Freeman as a result of this agreement nor from the formation of D & S. On July 26, 1983, Respondent executed an authorization for Dennis Freeman to act as his authorized agent to pull permits on his behalf at the Levy County Building Department. No mention was made on this form of D & S Homebuilders, Inc. The form was prepared by Mrs. Nancy Gilbert, the administrative assistant to Mr. Davis, the Levy County Building Official. At the time in question, Mr. Stone had introduced Mr. Freeman, his agent, to pull permits and Ms. Gilbert prepared the document to do what Mr. Stone wanted. The document is written in plural terms for repeated uses. Mr. Stone contends that his intention at the time was for it to be used for a single operation and that he failed to notice the erroneous pluralism, but other evidence of record disproves this contention. While it is not the policy of the Building Office to prepare these authorizations for contractors, it is a normal practice in Levy County and other counties throughout the State to allow agents to pull permits on the license of their prime contractor or employer as was done here. There is no evidence that the Bell job, which was for the most part accomplished by Respondent, was not satisfactory. Here, the work progressed smoothly and was properly completed, but based on his dissatisfaction with Freeman's performance during this job, he indicated to Freeman that there would be no further relationship between them. Nonetheless, the authorization was not revoked and Stone signed the permit application for the Reagan house as seen below. Without that authorization, the Building Office would not have allowed Freeman to obtain any of the building permits utilized for the other construction projects referenced in the Administrative Complaint. In July 1983, the Fumeas entered into a handwritten contract with Freeman, drafted by Kristina Freeman for the construction of a house for Bertha Reagan, Mrs. Fumea's mother. The contract had a price of $24,000.00. The Fumeas were to receive $10,000.00 for their land on which the house was to be built and Freeman was to receive a $14,000.00 loan from Mrs. Reagan for materials to build the house in question. When the house was sold, the initial $24,000.00 was to be returned to Mrs. Reagan. Any profit was to be divided 40% to Mrs. Reagan, 40% to the Freemans, and 20% to the Fumeas. The contract also called for the construction of a second house upon completion of the first. By check, dated June 9, 1983, Mrs. Reagan provided Freeman with the $14,000.00 to be secured by a second mortgage on the property executed by both Freemans in favor of Bertha Reagan. Thereafter, on August 24, 1983, Respondent, acting for D & S and S. A. Stone and Dennis Freeman, applied for a construction permit to build a residence for Mrs. Reagan as called for. In support of that application, Mr. Stone also furnished an affidavit to the effect that he was the qualifying contractor for residential building for D & S in Levy County. That same day, a building permit was issued to D & S, S. A. Stone, and Dennis Freeman for construction of the house in question. Somewhat later, in August or September, 1983, Freeman began construction of the house. During their negotiations, Freeman had indicated that Respondent was his associate. Nonetheless, it was Freeman who did all the work but in September or October 1983, he quit work on the project. At that point the foundation, the floor, and the 2 x 4 framing was in. No roof, no plumbing, and no electrical work had been installed. Mr. Fumea kept calling Freeman who repeatedly promised to finish work on the property by December 1983, but never did. The house was finally completed by another builder, David Allen, in 1984, for $21,000.00 additional. Allen was unable to complete the work started by Freeman and had to tear it down. Only the original footing was utilized. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Fumea ever dealt with or saw Stone, nor at any time during the period of difficulty with the construction was any attempt made to contact him. The reasoning was that even though Freeman had indicated Stone was the "S" in D & S before the work started, they did not believe Stone had anything to do with the contract. The Fumea's knowledge of Respondent's relationship with D & S was based solely on Freeman's representations. They never dealt with Stone, never saw him at the job, nor did they complain to him when the work was not completed even though Chiefland is a small town and it would be easy to contact him. Somewhat later, on September 7, 1983, Michael (Dennis) and Kristina Freeman entered into a contract with Herman R. and Verenia A. Matthews for the construction of a home in Levy County for a contract price of approximately $21,061.45 which included $17,061.45 which was then owed to the Matthews by Freeman. Freeman was to build them a house on a lot they owned across from their residence for an investment. The $17,641.00 was made up of several loans by the Matthews to Freeman. At this time, the Matthews did not know of D & S. The loans in question had been granted on the basis of a personal friendship between the Matthews and Freeman. At the time, the Matthews were in Michigan and the loans were not secured nor was interest involved. In addition to the $17,061.45 already advanced, the Matthews were to pay an additional $4,000.00 and any sums received from the cutting of timber on the property was to also be paid to Freeman. On or about October 12, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Matthews' house. Attached to the application was an undated, unnotarized affidavit signed by Michael Freeman indicating he was qualifying contractor for D & S. Pursuant to the application, that same day, a building permit for the construction in question, was issued. Actually, construction had started without the benefit of a permit in early September, 1983. On September 9, 1983, the Matthews gave Freeman a $1,000.00 check with second and third payments of $1,000.00 each being paid on September 22, 1983. On October 17, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Freeman a check for $7,000.00 of which $1,000.00 was the remaining amount due on the $4,000.00 balance and $6,000.00 was an unsecured loan. This loan was repaid immediately with an exchange check, post-dated to October 24, 1983, in the amount of $6,000.00 drawn on the account of D & S by Michael Freeman. When the Matthews ultimately deposited the check, however, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds and the $6,000.00 loan was never repaid. The Matthews first found out about D & S Homebuilders, Inc. when the Freemans in late August or September, 1983, indicated they had incorporated. Mrs. Matthews had never met the Respondent nor been aware that Respondent might be involved in the construction. Freeman had represented himself as a licensed contractor and had told the Matthews that he had rented space in Respondent's office. At no time, however, did he say that Respondent was involved in the business. On November 14, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave a check in the amount of $7,000.00 to Kristina Freeman, as a loan to D & S since she had been told that the company was haying trouble paying its bills. This loan was never repaid. By this time, the Matthews knew well that Freeman was in financial difficulties and did not have any money, so they did not ask for their loan back. In addition, on December 2, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Michael Freeman a check for $850.00 as a loan for payroll and on December 12, 1983, gave him a check for an additional $200.00 as a loan to assist him to buy property on which he was to build a house for Mr. Piperski. Neither of these latter two loans were ever repaid. The house to be built for the Matthews was never completed by Freeman or D & S. Work stopped sometime in November 1983. After Freeman went to jail in January 1984, Mrs. Matthews had it finished by someone else. The home was completed by this second contractor in April 1984 and the Matthews now live in it. In addition to the amounts set out above, the Matthews also paid an additional $7,034.00 for materials and $6,590.00 for labor to complete the property. On top of this, they also paid $1,200.00 to RocLen Refrigeration for a dishonored check issued by Kris Freeman on the D & S account in January 1984 for the heating and air conditioning system. They also paid off a claim of lien in the amount of approximately $3,600.00 filed by McCoy Building Supply Center for building materials ordered by D & S for the property; approximately $240.00 to Arrington Tru-Value Hardware for miscellaneous building materials ordered by D & S for the property; and approximately $875.00 to satisfy a claim of lien filed by Keller Building Products of Ocala, based on a contract with D & S for miscellaneous building materials on the property. Mrs. Matthews did not contact Respondent about the house because as far as she was concerned, he had nothing to do with it. Freeman had told her that D & S was owned by Freeman and his wife, most of the checks she gave to D & S were made out to Freeman and endorsed by either Freeman or his wife. All cash paid into the D & S account was done through dealings with one or the other of the Freemans, and she never dealt at all with Stone. On November 25, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, submitted a proposal to Charles Treis for the construction of a home on property in Chiefland, Florida, for a price of $14,000.00 plus a travel trailer valued at $3,000.00. On the same day, Freeman and Treis entered a standard form agreement for the construction of this home by D & S for the amount stated, payments to be made of $5,000.00 as of signing $5,000.00 upon "rough in," and $4,000.00 plus the travel trailer upon completion of specified work. Construction was to begin on November 28, 1983, and was to be completed within 60 days. The contractor was to complete the house except for painting and staining, heating and air conditioning, floor covering, and appliances. Interior trim and doors were to be supplied by the contractor for, installation by the owner. That same day, Mr. Treis gave a check in the amount of $5,000.00 to Michael Freeman as the first payment on account in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract was amended on January 10, 1984 when Freeman agreed to install floor covering, build cabinets for the kitchen, install interior trim and doors, and paint and stain. the interior and exterior. He was also to supply wood ceiling in the living room area and kitchen and in return therefor, was to be paid $2,000.00 plus a travel trailer. On December 20, 1983, Michael Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Treis house and that same day a building permit was issued to D & S. On January 6, 1984, Mr. Treis gave two checks to Mr. Freeman, one for $1,000.00 and one for $6,000.00 additional draws against the contract price. In mid-January 1984, after the foundation was poured and the interior and exterior walls were partially erected, D & S ceased all construction activity because Freeman had been arrested and jailed in Marion County. At this point, the roof had not been installed nor were doors and windows in place. No one from D & S ever returned to complete his own construction. On January 16, 1984, Mr. Treis paid Suwannee Valley Precast Company in the amount of $540.00 for a 900 gallon septic tank ordered by Mike Freeman at D & S. This bill was supposed to have been paid out of the first draw Treis gave Freeman but was not. To avoid a lien being filed against his property, Mr. Treis paid off the amount in question. Mr. Treis also paid $710.33 to Sunshine Concrete and Building Supply for materials ordered by D & S and $189.00 to Lindsey Brothers Construction for labor for laying the foundation walls, also procured by Freeman for D & S. In addition, Mr. Treis paid Harcan Lumber the amount of $4,500.00 for bad checks that Michael Freeman had written in payment for materials to go into the Treis property. As a result of all these additional debts, Mr. Treis was required to sell the property to pay off the creditors not paid by D & S. Mr. Stone was not present at any time during the transactions described regarding Mr. Treis, and Freeman made no mention of him. In fact, Mr. Treis did not know anything about Mr. Stone. It was only after Mr. Treis found out that Freeman was in jail that he had any contact with Stone. Toward the end of January 1984, when he found out that the "S" in D & S was Respondent, Treis and a friend went to Stone's office to find out what Stone intended to do about the property. Stone indicated he was not responsible for anything that Freeman did and that he would not honor the contract that had been entered into with D & S. At some time prior to November 26, 1983, in response to an advertisement placed in the Chiefland newspaper by D & S, Howard Robinson contacted Freeman to obtain an estimate for the construction of a home in Levy County. During the contract negotiations, Freeman provided Robinson with a D & S business card which bears only Freeman's name. Robinson is a resident of Largo but owns property in Levy County. On November 26, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, entered into a contract with D & S which was signed by Michael Freeman, for the construction of a home for the price of $16,900.00. Payments were to be made one-third upon acceptance of the contract, one-third upon "rough-in" inspection, and one a third upon completion. The owner was to install floor coverings, heating and air-conditioning and appliances, and the contractor was to provide a one year warranty on construction. Construction was to begin by November 29 and the house was to be completed within 60 days. Three days later on November 29, 1983, Mrs. Robinson issued a check in the amount of $5,633.33 to D & S Homebuilders, Inc. as the first payment for the construction of their home. This check was endorsed by Michael Freeman for D & S. It should be noted here that, as previously, the business card given to Mr. Robinson by Freeman at the time of their first meeting reflects only Freeman's name, not that of Respondent. After the contract was executed, Mr. Robinson returned to Largo and did not come back to Levy County until January 1984. On December 22, 1983, Mr. Freeman came to Largo to see the Robinsons for purpose of securing the second draw. At that time, he indicated the foundation and slab had been poured and that walls erected and the roof trusses were to be installed the following day. Based on these representations, Mrs. Robinson issued another check for $5,633.33 to Freeman for the second draw under the contract even though the second draw was not due until after erection of the roof trusses. As inducement to pay prior to the time called for in the contract, Freeman agreed to amend the contract to provide air conditioning and heating, furnish the floor covering, and build a 10 x 12 foot pump house. After paying these additional sums, Mr. Robinson found out that construction on his house had not been started even though Freeman had indicated that it had. Therefore, in January 1984, Mr. Robinson made his first trip back to Chiefland since the signing of the contract to visit the construction site and discovered that the only work accomplished had been the digging of a footer. On or about January 10, 1984, Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a building permit to construct the property in question and this permit was issued that same day. The only construction accomplished on Robinson's property was an oversized footer, approximately three feet wide and four or five feet deep, out of which the steel company had already taken the steel originally installed. Even after this however, Mr. Robinson did not contact Respondent because his dealings had always been with Freeman and he had never seen nor talked to Stone. Neither Stone or any of his agents or employees has ever contacted Mr. Robinson concerning either completing the construction or repaying the money paid under the contract. The only thing Mr. Robinson has ever been reimbursed with was a $300.00 payment from the County when Mr. Freeman was on a work- release program while in jail. In November 1983, Mitchell Piperski saw an ad in the paper for a home built by Mr. Freeman. This ad was in the name of D & S Builders and Mr. Piperski contacted Freeman at the phone number in the ad. Freeman thereafter came to Piperski's house and they discussed the possible construction of a home for the Piperskis. As a result of these discussions, Mr. Piperski, on December 19, 1983, entered into a contract with D & S signed by Michael and Kris Freeman for the construction of a home in Chiefland for a contract price of $16,500.00. Since Mr. Piperski did not have a lot on which to build the house, Freeman took him a see a lot which he said he, Freeman, owned. The lot in question was a five acre corner and when Piperski said he did not need so much land, Freeman said he would keep one half. Since, however, the two parties could not agree on the property, Piperski purchased a lot from someone else. A short time thereafter, the Freemans came to the Piperskis and indicated they would be in financial difficulty if the Piperskis did not buy their property and as a result, the Piperskis agreed to allow Freeman to build the house on the property which, by warranty deed on December 19, 1983, Freeman conveyed to the Piperskis. At closing Freeman was paid $5,000.00 called for upon acceptance of the contract, and $12,500.00 for the lot. During the negotiations, Freeman had told Mr. Piperski that there were three people involved in D & S. These three were Freeman, his wife, Kris, and someone else, undisclosed, who was in the real estate business. Mr. Piperski had known Stone from the lodge to which they both belonged but he had no idea that Stone was the "S" in D & S. No work on the construction of the Piperski house was ever accomplished. When Piperski called the building department, he was told that Freeman could no longer build homes because Mr. Stone had pulled the authorization for him to use Stone's license. This disclosure was made to Mr. Piperski on January 8, 1984. Prior to that date and all through the negotiations, he had no idea that Stone was involved in the transaction. That afternoon, Mr. Piperski went to a lawyer about the situation and the lawyer called Stone. When Piperski asked Stone for his $5,000.00 back, Mr. Stone said he would allow Freeman to use his license to complete the house. Notwithstanding this promise by Stone, Freeman never made any effort to secure a permit to begin construction. Mr; Piperski did not contact Stone again after that one instance because he felt Stone knew what the situation was and what had to be done. Stone, on the other hand, did not contact Piperski either, nor did Freeman, and at no time was Piperski reimbursed the $5,000.00 deposit he made under the terms of the contract. On January 9, 1984, Stone wrote to Mr. A1 Simmons, the attorney who formed the corporation known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. In this letter Stone recalled that Simmons had formed the corporation in which Freeman was President, his wife was Secretary/Treasurer, and he, Respondent, was Vice-President. Stone also cited that there was a communications gap between Freeman and himself and as a result, asked how he could be removed as an officer of the corporation. Stone indicated that he was "going to notify the County that I am no longer going to authorize the use of my license as D & S Homes." At the bottom of the letter, he states that it constitutes official notification to Freeman and to Mr. Davis, the building official, that his license is no longer to be used under D & S Homes. By this letter, Mr. Stone recognized that as of January 9, 1984, he was still a part of D & S Homes and was aware of the use of his license by D & S under the authorization given earlier in the year. It has already been found that in November 1983, Stone and Freeman entered into an agreement for Freeman to pay Stone for the use of his license by D & S Homes. It is also noted, however, that on January 5, 1984, approximately two months later, Mr. Stone wrote to Freeman indicating his dissatisfaction with the way Freeman was managing the company and because of Freeman's failure to communicate with Stone in response to inquiry. In this letter, he makes it very clear to Freeman that if Freeman does not keep in touch, he will terminate the relationship that he has with D & S. By so doing, Stone puts to rest any question that he was still a part of D & S and agreed to Freeman's using his license for construction by that firm as late as January 5, 1984 - well after the contracts described above were entered into by Freeman. D & S had a checking account with the Bank of Florida in Chiefland on which both Respondent and Freeman were authorized to write checks. In October 1983, Mr. Freeman drafted a check to Exchange Realty, which is owned by Respondent, in the amount of $500.00 which bears the notion, "commission on burnout." This check was deposited to the account of Exchange Realty. The handwriting on the endorsement appears to be that of Penny Via as does the name of the payee. On October 24, 1983, Mr. Stone wrote a check, apparently on a counter check payable to Exchange Realty in the amount of $500.00. Again, this check is endorsed for deposit to the account of Exchange Realty and not only the endorsement but also the check itself, with the exception of the signature, appears to be drawn in the handwriting of Ms. Via. While offered to show Respondent's receipt of benefit from his association with D & S, this evidence does not do so. Respondent knew of this account, nonetheless, and agreed to be a signatory on it so that he could work on the account when Freeman was out of town. After a short period, however, he took his name off the account though he cannot remember when that was. Respondent's contention that he had little if any connection with the actual construction work accomplished by Freeman under the D & S banner is supported by the testimony of Earl Jones, a plumber, who did the plumbing work on some of the houses constructed by Freeman during the Summer of 1983. Jones was hired by Freeman who, at the time, advised him that he was a general contractor and owned the business. Freeman admitted that he was a friend of the Respondent but during the whole period of his association with D & S, Jones never dealt with Stone and he feels that his employer was Freeman, not Stone. During the period of their association, Jones had no contact at all with Respondent. All bills for services rendered were sent directly to Freeman. Andrew Sension, an electrical contractor, met Freeman when Freeman solicited bids for the drawing of house plans. Thereafter, Sension drew five house plans for Freeman through D & S and also did some electrical work. At that time, Freeman indicated that he and his wife owned D & S and throughout their relationship, Sension assumed that Freeman was licensed. He has, however, worked for Respondent but never any project where Freeman and Respondent were involved together. To his knowledge, Respondent had a good reputation in the County as a contractor. Respondent has lived in Chiefland for approximately 15 years and is licensed as a contractor in both Florida and Virginia where he operated as a general contractor for 10 or 11 years before coming to Florida. In addition, he worked as a contractor in Ft. Lauderdale for 5 or 6 years and in all his construction history, never had any disciplinary action taken against him. Stone met Freeman some time in the middle of 1983 when Freeman came to his real estate office to buy a lot to build on. Later on, Freeman came back and said his brother an attorney, had suggested he contact Stone to form a corporation to build homes. At the time, Freeman, whose real name was Michael, was using the name Dennis Freeman, actually the name of his brother. When Stone checked Freeman's reputation out with the credit bureau, he checked the name, Dennis Freeman, and found that there was no adverse comments recorded. He did not know at the time that he was checking the record of a different individual. Nonetheless, satisfied with the results of his inquiry, and willing to go into the proposition suggested by Freeman, the parties made an appointment with attorney Simmons to form a corporation. Stone contends, and Simmons concurs, that though the corporation was formed, it never became operative because while formed in the name of Simmons for incorporation purposes, the transfer of authority to the true officers, Stone, Freeman, and Freeman's wife, was never accomplished. Were this all there were to it, there would be little difficulty in accepting Stone's exculpatory rationale. The fact remains, however, that his conduct and communications with his attorney in January 1984, several months after the corporation was formed, clearly reveals that though the official transfer of names never took place, he was well aware that D & S was active, that Freeman was building homes under the D & S banner, and that Freeman was using his, Stone's license, to do so with Stone's permission. The letter of January 9, 1984, to the lawyer clearly defeats Stone's contention that he felt the authorization for Freeman to pull permits was a one time proposition. If that were the case, he would not have indicated in these later communications that he was aware of what was going on and wished it stopped as of that time. There is no doubt that Respondent never met Mrs. Reagan, the Fumeas, the Matthews, the Robinsons, Mr. Treis, or the Piperskis in the capacity of a contractor. None of the people ever indicated that they dealt with Stone. Respondent admits that his contractor's license was withdrawn by the County but contends that this action was taken at a meeting to which he was not invited and did not attend. He did pot know of the action taken, he claims, until he read it in the newspaper. There is no evidence to contradict this. He firmly believes that his problem with the County is the direct result of the fact that he failed to contribute Mr. Davis' church when asked-to do so at the time he executed the general authorization for Freeman to use his license. Whether Mr. Davis is the complainant and the cause of the disciplinary action being taken here is immaterial however, and in any case, there is no evidence to support Respondent's contention. As for Freeman, on January 30, 1984, he entered a guilty plea to one count of a third degree felony by failing to redeliver and one count of a third degree felony by forgery and committing grand theft. Thereafter, he was found guilty of the charges and placed on probation for two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-1468 be dismissed. It is further recommended that based on the violations established in DOAH Case No. 85-0690, Respondent's license as a registered general contractor be suspended for six months and that thereafter Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 16th day of January, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED W. Douglas Beason, Esquire 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire 1 East Silver Springs Blvd. Ocala, Florida 32670 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2, Jacksonville, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by parties to this case. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 2 · Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 1 through 3 are irrelevant. Sentence 4 is accepted as to it relates to the letter being prepared by the building department but rejected as to this being done at Respondent's request. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 1O. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the first sentence which is irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the last sentence which implied Freeman signed as affiant when in fact he signed as a witness. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and misleading. There is no indication in the record that Respondent knew of this contract or that any demand for reimbursement was made upon him. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 and 22, except for sentences 3 & 4, which are rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and inaccurate. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35, except that November 6 in the proposal should be November 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 and 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Accepted but not adopted as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted n Finding of Fact 45 and 46, except that it was the building office that advised Piperski that Freeman did not have a permit, not Respondent. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Sentence 1 through 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 4 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 5 and 6 adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Sentences 3 through 5 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Findings of Fact 26- 29. Sentence 3 rejected as not being a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Mrs. Reagan did not sign the contract. Mrs. Fumea did. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 4 adopted in general. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 17, 35 and 41. Sentence 3 rejected by contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Sentence 5 is ejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that he failed to show the proper concern for the use of his licenses. Rejected as irrelevant to the issues herein. 8 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted as a general fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52-55.
