Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, ROBERT MENSCHING, was a certified residential building contractor in Florida, and held license number CR C020166. Mr. Mensching was the owner and qualifying agent for Robert Mensching Homes. On or about July 10, 1986, a written proposal was submitted by the Respondent to Mr. and Mrs. Mangiardi for the construction of a single family dwelling in Cape Coral, Florida. The construction price was $60,000.00, with an additional $500.00 for the purchase of the house plans. Mr. and Mrs. Mangiardi paid for the plans on the date of the proposal. Revisions to the proposal were submitted to the Mangiardis in September, 1986. The purchase price and the payment schedule remained the same. The proposal was accepted by the Mangiardis, and the down payment of $5,000.00 required by the contract to start construction, was given to the Respondent. Construction commenced in November 1986. By March 26, 1987, the Respondent had been paid $53,750.00 of the total construction contract price. This included the fourth draw on a five draw payment schedule. Only $6,250.00 remained to be paid by the purchasers for the last phase of construction. In April 1987, the Respondent informed Mr. Mangiardi that he would not complete the final phase of construction. The Respondent informed Mr. Mangiardi that he would pay him $5,000.00. An accounting was not given to the purchasers of the monies disbursed by the Respondent pursuant to the construction schedule. After the Respondent left the project, the Mangiardis were given notice of an outstanding lien in the amount of $963.80, which was owed to Kirkland Electric, Inc. Another Notice to Owner was filed by Wallcrafters, another subcontractor, for $5,272.50. The work completed by both subcontractors was performed during the Respondent's term as the prime contractor on the project. These two subcontractors were never paid by the Respondent out of the draws received by him for that purpose. The Respondent did not pay the $5,000.00 he told Mr. Mangiardi he would pay in April of 1987. The evidence is unclear as to whether this amount of money was a payment of liquidated damages for the breach, the balance of funds entrusted to the contractor which had not been disbursed in the preceding construction phases, or the amount of unpaid liens known to the contractor at the time of breach. The Respondent filed for bankruptcy after a judgment was entered against him in a civil action by the Mangiardis for breach of contract. A Notice of Aggravation was not submitted during the formal hearing regarding the actual damage to the licensee's customers as a circumstance to be considered in aggravation of the penalty to be assessed. A copy of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board's previous letter of reprimand was not presented at hearing so that the hearing officer and the Board could use the prior violation for aggravation purposes.
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent James W. Geary presently holds certified general contractor's license number CG C005775. Respondent Geary apparently entered into a contract with Phillip Smith to add a screened porch to the Smith residence. Neither the contract nor the testimony of Mr. Smith were made available to the undersigned Hearing Officer. Respondent had difficulty obtaining a roofer and completion of the project was therefore delayed. During the interim, the interior of the Smith's living room suffered water damage. After receiving a complaint from the Smiths, Mr. Robert Jahn, Chief Building Official for the City of Tamarac, personally inspected the Smith project. He found that the water damage was caused by the uncompleted work of respondent and certain violations of the Southern Florida Building Code. Jahn did not know how long the project had not been worked on, but Smith told him he had tried for about one month to get respondent to return to correct the situation. Respondent testified that when he sent a man to the Smith residence to install the roof columns, Smith chased the man off the job. Upon the delivery of certain supplies for his projects, respondent Geary, d/b/a First Triangle Corporation, wrote two checks in the total amount of $391.41 payable to Rinker Materials. (Exhibit 1) These checks were offered for payment by Rinker, and were returned due to insufficient funds. The former credit manager of Rinker Materials did not know whether anyone from Rinker had contacted respondent about the checks. Respondent testified that no one from Rinker had informed him that the checks were dishonored. However, respondent did receive notice from his bank that the checks had been returned. He was changing banks about the same time and felt that the bank had made mistakes in the past. He felt that the checks were good when issued and he therefore did not put much reliance upon the notices received from the bank. Respondent testified that he is ready, willing and able to honor the checks written to Rinker Materials. Respondent Geary apparently entered into a contract with Richard Decker for the addition of a five by eleven foot bathroom to the Decker's residence. Neither the contract, the plans or specifications nor the testimony of Mr. Decker were offered into evidence at the Hearing. Respondent felt there were no deviations between the finished product and the job specifications, and that, even if there had been, there was no way he could put a five foot vanity into the project without violating the applicable building code. The field investigator for petitioner's District No. 10 found deviations from the plans with regard to the size of the vanity, the bathroom door and the illumination. He found that the Deckers had not indicated their approval of such deviations by placing their initials on the plans or specification. The South Florida Building Code (302.2(b)) provides that when the cost of a job is over $5,000.00, the permit applicant must present plans signed and sealed by a registered architect or engineer. A larger permit fee is also required for jobs costing over $5,000.00. On or about April 9, 1976, respondent Geary applied to the City of Tamarac for two building permits. (Exhibit 2). While blueprints were submitted, no plans signed and sealed by a registered architect Or engineer were submitted. From the square footages contained on the right hand column of the application, Chief Building Official Jahn determined that the value of the two projects were $7,300.00 and $6,620.00. The contract prices for these projects were approximately $8,000.00 and $10,000.00. There was no conclusive testimony as to who supplied the footage information on these applications, It was respondent's opinion that the actual costs of these projects did not exceed $5,000.00. Respondent apparently entered into a contract with Daniel Salzman for some project, and then entered into a second contract for the construction and installation of a fence and a trellis. For this second project, respondent received a deposit of $825.00. The first job was never completed by respondent and respondent never began work on the fence and trellis project. Respondent admitted that some $500.00 was due Mr. Salzman as a refund for the second project. He testified that he instructed Mr. Salzman to have the work on the first project completed by someone else and then to send respondent the bill for the same. Respondent has not heard from Salzman regarding this matter. By letter dated November 20, 1976, Chief Building Official Jahn notified respondent that "No further building permits [would] be issued to First Triangle Builders with you as their qualifier because of numerous complaints and unfinished projects." As indicated in the Introduction, petitioner filed an administrative complaint against respondent seeking to revoke his license for violations of certain ordinances and Florida Statutes S468.112(2). The cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer, and the undersigned was designated to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, as well as the seriousness of the offenses of which respondent has been found guilty, It Is recommended that respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG C005775 be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (488-9675) Area Code 904 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. James W. Geary 4370 Northwest 32nd Court Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Wallace Norman Construction Industry Licensing Board 305 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 JacksonvIlle, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's engineering license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Michael V. Carr, P.E. is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE0026675. He has been engaged in the practice of engineering for more than 15 years. Mr. Carr's area of expertise is in civil and structural engineering. He is not experienced in electrical or mechanical engineering. In 1989, Mr. Carr was employed as a full-time engineer and construction project manager by a local development and construction company. He also operated, on a part-time basis, an engineering business. The purpose of his part-time business was to offer engineering services to people who are experienced in the construction industry or are working with someone who is experienced in the construction industry and have to varying degrees developed their own plans. Respondent also would serve as the construction manager on those projects. During 1989, Respondent performed engineering services on four buildings owned by four different owners. All four buildings, involved relatively simple construction. Three of the buildings, Dr. Zummarraga's office, the Raulerson/Liberty National building, and Bay Podiatry Center, were designs comparable to residential structures. The Eleventh Street Office Park, while a larger structure, was a shell building and a simple structure, as well. Respondent was not retained to provide engineering for the construction of the interior of the Eleventh Street Office Park. In regards to all four buildings, the Respondent was not retained to provide plumbing, electrical or mechanical engineering services. Those items were left to the respective trades involved in the construction of the project. The limited plans submitted for the plumbing, electrical and mechanical aspects of the four buildings met the standard of practice in the Bay County area and were sufficiently complete for the various trades to perform its respective part of each project. Moreover, the simplicity of the construction plans for these four buildings meant that standard construction methods are provided in the Standard Building Code and/or are known in the industry. Such standard construction methods include detail on roof systems, spacing and connections, as well as live load requirements. Therefore, not as much detail needed to be provided on the plans for these projects. It was standard engineering practice in the Bay County area not to include such detail if it was adequately covered in the building code. In each instance, the owners of the buildings contacted Respondent to perform limited engineering services and to act as the construction manager on each project. Except for Mr. Raulerson, each owner had, prior to the time Respondent was hired, worked out some rough plans with a person qualified to create such plans and had a general idea of what type of building they wanted. Mr. Raulerson had drafted a fairly complete set of building plans. The goal of each owner of the four projects was to obtain a set of plans from what the owner already had developed which would at least minimally meet the local building code requirements sufficiently to allow a building permit to be issued for the construction project. In each instance, the Respondent's plans were submitted to the local building code enforcement agency which reviewed and accepted the plans. A building permit was issued for each building project. During the construction of each building, Respondent provided engineering inspections on each project. The plans submitted to the Bay County building department were not as-built plans and were never intended to be 100% complete plans since several of the owners had not made final decisions on a number of details such as roof line or plumbing facilities. 1/ Such open-ended plans were justified by the specific circumstances of each case and the professional judgment of Respondent, especially since Respondent acted as the project manager of the construction project. For purposes of clarity the facts and circumstances surrounding each building and any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to each building will be outlined individually. No alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, were established by the evidence unless it is specifically noted below. Zummarraga Building The plans for the Zummarraga building were signed and sealed by Respondent on October 24, 1989. Dr. Zummarraga had contacted Rich Koehnemann of Koehnemann Construction Company to build an office building for him. Mr. Koehnemann sent the doctor to Jeff Robinson, a draftsman in the Bay County area, to work up a draft of the office plans the doctor desired. The doctor or Mr. Koehnemann gave Mr. Robinson a rough sketch of the office building. Mr. Robinson informed the doctor that a structural engineer would have to be involved since the County would require the plans to have the signature and seal of an architect or engineer in order to obtain a building permit. At that point, Respondent was retained to help develop a set of plans for Dr. Zummarraga. Mr. Carr was hired to draft plans for an office building. He was not hired by Dr. Zummarraga to design a building for a specific site. Therefore, no substantial site information, site work, grading or contouring details were provided on the plans for the Zummarraga project. By passing drafts of plans back and fort, a set of plans was devised by Mr. Robinson under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to the plans for the Zummarraga project. Later, after the structure's plans were finalized, the contractor determined that a detention pond would have to be designed for the site and a DER permit obtained for the pond. Respondent was retained to design a detention pond for the site and worked with DER to meet its extensive permitting requirements for such a pond. See Chapter 17-4, 17-25 and 17-512, Florida Administrative Code. That design was submitted to DER and a permit was issued for the detention pond. The original unsealed set of plans was amended for the building department. The specific details of the more rigid DER requirements, such as site work, grading and contouring, were not included on the plans filed with the building department and the owner did not contract with Respondent to include redundant detail on the building department's plans. Essentially, the building department's plans reflected the location of the detention pond and the area of the wetlands on the property which were subject to DER jurisdiction. Additionally, the plans contained some specifications which guided the contractor on pond requirements and in grading and contouring the site. These notes in conjunction with the DER permit requirements were sufficient to accomplish the building of the detention pond. Therefore, the desire of the owner and the avoidance of unnecessarily redundant detail between the DER permit and the building department's plans justified the lack of any extensive site work detail on the building department's set of plans for the Zummarraga project. The plans devised by Mr. Carr did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering work he performed. 2/ Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside of his field. In every instance, the plans of Dr. Zummarraga's office building were of sufficient detail to meet the building department's requirements for the issuance of a building permit, to allow the contractor to construct the project according to the Standard Building Code and to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the building department. Obviously, on these facts, the plans met the standard of practice in the community for the engineering services Respondent was hired to perform. Moreover, the lack of code related, electrical or mechanical details was justified under the facts and circumstances of the Zummarraga project and it was well within the professional judgment of the Respondent to omit such details given the standards of practice in the Bay County area. Raulerson/Liberty National Building The plans for the Raulerson/Liberty National building were signed and sealed by Respondent on July 31, 1989. Mr. Raulerson is an experienced developer in the Bay County area and acts as a general contractor on his own projects. Prior to hiring Respondent, Mr. Raulerson had been working with a local draftsman and Liberty National's architect to create a set of plans for the construction of Liberty National's office building in Bay County. Mr. Raulerson contacted Respondent on the advice of Bayne Collins, a local architect. Mr. Collins advised Mr. Raulerson that his plans were complete and all he needed was an engineer to check the wind loads. 3/ Mr. Raulerson gave Respondent the plans he had developed in conjunction with Liberty National's architect. Mr. Raulerson asked Mr. Carr to go through the plans and do a structural analysis to make sure that wind load requirements were met, that the building was structurally sound and that the building met the requirements for issuance of a building permit. Mr. Carr reviewed the plans and determined that they were an excellent set of plans for a very simple, sound and over-designed structure. He calculated the wind loads for the building and completed a structural analysis of the building. He also made one minor correction to the plans. Mr. Carr thought it ridiculous to put Mr. Raulerson to the expense of copying the Liberty National plans and essentially adopted the plans as his own. In this case, the fact that the plans were not drawn under Respondent's supervision is immaterial since the specific circumstances of the project did not call for such supervision in that the plans were drafted by experienced individuals. The plans were under Respondent's control at the point in time he was hired by Mr. Raulerson and the plans submitted to him for his review and approval, disapproval or amendment. Since copying the plans would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and Respondent did in fact exercise control over the plans by reviewing them before he affixed his seal to them, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to construction plans. The Raulerson/Liberty National plans did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. Anything in the plans which may be construed as "architectural work" was requested and specified by the owner to be in the plans. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside his field. The plans did contain a roofing plan which called for pre-engineered trusses. The detail on the plan simply read "pre-engineered trusses." The plans did not contain any requirements relating to who was to design the pre- engineered trusses or requirements for structural submittals on the trusses. In the Bay county area "pre-engineered trusses" means trusses from Fagans, the local truss manufacturer. It is common knowledge, that Fagan's has a licensed engineer on staff who designs all of its pre-engineered trusses from the plans submitted to him. The pre-engineered trusses all have pre-construction documentation available. Also, submittals for the trusses accompany the trusses at the time of their delivery. With such knowledge, it is unnecessary to specify any more information or requirements regarding the truss manufacture on the Liberty National plans. Similarly it was unnecessary to detail that submittals be given to the engineer since such submittals accompanied the trusses. The absence of any more detail was justified by the specific circumstances of the Liberty National project and well within the professional judgment of the Respondent given the nature of the pre-engineered truss market in the Bay County area and the fact that Respondent was the construction manager on the project. As indicated, Respondent also acted as the construction project manager and would visit the construction site about once a week. At the point in time Mr. Raulerson was going to order the trusses, he decided to change the pitch of the roof, Mr. Raulerson did not advise Mr. Carr of his decision. Mr. Carr discovered Mr. Raulerson's change when he visited the construction site. Fortunately, Respondent had the project file with him. With the project file information and the submittals from the truss manufacturer, Respondent checked the load conditions for the changed pitch. No structural concerns were presented due to the change in pitch of the roof. The Liberty National plans were not amended because Mr. Raulerson did not contract for them to be amended. The plans were not required to be amended under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not commit any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to his actions outlined above. Bay Podiatry Center The plans for the Bay Podiatry Center were signed and sealed by Respondent. However, the date the plans were signed and sealed was not included on the plans. It was inadvertently omitted by Respondent. The absence of the date is a de-minimis violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statues, and does not justify the imposition of any formal penalties. However, Respondent should be given a letter of guidance for the violation. Respondent was not brought into the Bay Podiatry Center project until the final draft of the plans was to be done. Up until that time, Dr. Wilkerson, the owner of the project, had worked up preliminary drafts of the project in conjunction with his contractor and a local draftsman. They had developed a building with an attached carport. Mr. Carr did work directly with the draftsman on the final plan. Therefore, the plans were created under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Since Respondent supervised and controlled the finalization of the project's plans at the crucial time and since the people involved in drafting the plans did not need more supervision and control, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. There was no clear and convincing evidence which demonstrated that Respondent performed any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. At the time Dr. Wilkerson desired to begin construction and obtain a building permit, he had not decided on a final roofing system. Therefore, the final plans called for the use of pre-engineered trusses and did not have a great amount of detail on a roof framing plan. There was some detail provided on the page of the plans detailing the wall section of the building. This page provided sufficient detail for a competent contractor to construct the building according to code. In fact, the building was so constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building upon its completion. Again the trusses would come from Fagans. Petitioner did in fact review submittals from Fagan's truss engineer for the pre-engineered trusses used on the Bay Podiatry Center. Included in those submittals was a roofing plan in which the trusses were numbered to fit the sequence shown in the roofing plan. Respondent made sure the trusses and roof system were structurally sound. However, the owner did not contract with Respondent to amend the building department's plans. Chapter 471, Florida Statutes does not require such an amendment. Given the truss market in the Bay County area, the knowledge of Respondent regarding that market, the fact that a decision regarding a roof line had not been made when the plans were sealed, and that it was appropriate to leave such a decision for later in the construction process, no further detail was required in specifying the roof system for this project. No clear and convincing evidence was presented that demonstrated Respondent was negligent in his specifications on the roof system. The only exception to the above was that Respondent did not specify the material of the trusses over the carport. Such information is not supplied by the Code and therefore must be supplied by the engineer. The oversight was caught by the contractor when he was preparing to order the trusses. The contractor contacted Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr determined what the appropriate truss material should be and informed the contractor. The inadequacy of the plans was resolved in less than ten minutes. The omission of such a detail is negligent on the part of Respondent and is a violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. However, on these facts, the omission of the detail is minor. Most of the light, plumbing and mechanical fixtures were prelocated by the owner prior to the time Respondent was hired. Respondent did not purport to draft plumbing, electrical or mechanical plans in detail in the final plan. Except in one respect, the detail was sufficient to guide the respective trades in the performance of their work and no more detail was required. The only exception was that Respondent approved a special detail of the hub drain/trap primer which was not in accordance to code. Since Respondent provided a special detail which did not meet the code requirements and which was not demonstrated to be justified by the circumstances of the Bay Podiatry project, he is guilty of negligence in the drawing of the Bay Podiatry plans in that aspect. Given the fact that this is a very small error in a larger project and that the drain was put in according to code during the construction of the building, Respondent's violation is a minor one. Finally, the draftsman, without instructions from Respondent, put some plumbing and mechanical notes in the plans which clearly did not relate to the project. Respondent did not catch the inclusion of the notes and sealed the plans with the superfluous notes in them. However, it was obvious that the notes did not relate to the project and the trades involved ignored them. The notes did not cause any problems during the construction and were not shown to be inimical to the public health and safety. Therefore, while the inclusion of the notes was sloppy work, there was no negligence shown on the part of Respondent. Eleventh Street Office Park The plans for the Eleventh Street Office Park were signed and sealed by Respondent on January 31, 1989 The Eleventh Street Office Park project demonstrates best the dynamism involved in an evolving construction project. Often, as with the Eleventh Street project, an owner is not sure of the best method or design (usually determined by lowest cost) to utilize prior to construction or whether he wants to go forward with the expense of construction of a building given certain designs. On the Eleventh Street project three plans were developed, beginning with a three story structure with structural steel and precast walls, and ending with a large, one story, cement block structure on a cement slab. All the plans were for a shell building and did not include any floor plan. Preliminary rough drawings were completed by a draftsman who was hired by the project's owner. Respondent reviewed these rough drafts and over the course of several weeks made numerous structural changes. After the plans were re-drawn to Respondent's satisfaction, he submitted them to the building department in order to obtain a building permit. There is no question that the plans for the Eleventh Street project were drawn under Respondent's direct supervision and control. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. The plans submitted to the building department were not intended to be complete. For instance, the owner had not decided where to locate the restrooms in the building. However, the owner, for unspecified reasons, wanted to proceed with obtaining a building permit. With that decision open, the detail for the plumbing aspects of the plan were not intended to be complete or to match as to specifics. Such limited detail was intended only to place the building department and the contractor on notice that some consideration had to be given to the upcoming plumbing. The same considerations applied to the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plans. All of the evidence concerning deficiencies in the electrical design of the Eleventh Street Office Park was based on Petitioner's expert's review of a single sheet of plans obtained from the building Department. This sheet is mysterious as to its origins and relationship to the Eleventh Street project. The sheet was not prepared by Respondent, did not bear his seal, lacked the fire department's approval which was present on other pages of the project's plans, and was a different size paper than those sealed by Respondent. There was no substantial evidence which demonstrated Respondent had prepared this sheet or that the sheet reflected the electrical plans used in the Eleventh Street project. The absence of extensive detail or the provision of extraneous notes on the electrical, mechanical and plumbing aspects of the plans were justified by the fact that the owner of the project had not made up his mind in regards to those details, such decisions could be determined later in the construction process, the Eleventh Street project was a shell building and there was sufficient detail for the licensed trades to perform their tasks when the time came and the decisions were made. The incompleteness of these plans in that regard was clearly justified by the specific circumstances of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. As with the Bay Podiatry project, the only exception to the above was that the hub drain/trap primer detail was not in accordance with the building code. For the reasons stated in regards to the Bay Podiatry project, the provision of the hub drain detail constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Again the violation is a minor one. Similarly, as with the other three projects, no substantial evidence was presented that Respondent performed any architectural services in relation to the Eleventh Street project which were not incidental to the engineering services he performed. There was a great deal of debate among the experts as to the adequacy of the structural aspects of the Eleventh Street Office Park and whether they met the standards of practice for engineers. Most of the debate centered on how much detail needed to be placed on the plans and whether the detail provided was sufficient for a contractor to build a safe building. The better evidence demonstrated that the amount of detail on the plans was sufficient to enable a contractor to build a safe building. The detail which was not contained on the plans was contained in the building code and did not need to be included on the plans. Such a practice comports with the standard of practice in the Bay County area and is a specific circumstance of a project which would enable a professional engineer to exercise his judgment and not include such detail. 4/ Moreover, although the calculations were not contained on the plans, Respondent did, in fact, determine the structural soundness of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The only exception to the above is that Respondent was negligent in specifying the type of mortar to be used in the concrete walls. In essence Respondent specified three different types of mortars. These mortars significantly differed as to each mortar's respective strength. Use of an improper mortar in the concrete walls can effect the strength of the wall and cause them to be unsafe. This inconsistency in detail or specifications differs from the inconsistency in details or specifications where such details or specifications obviously do not apply to the project or where such details or specifications have no contrary reference in the plans. The latter two cases while showing sloppy work are not necessarily indicative of negligence and depend greatly on the surrounding facts and circumstances before a finding of negligence can be made. The inconsistency with the mortar is indicative of negligence since a contractor may very well use the wrong mortar on a project. In this case, the inconsistency did not become a problem and Respondent was present as the project manager to handle any problem which may have arisen. Therefore, the violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, is moderate to minor.
Recommendation That the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of five violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, assessing a total fine of $750.00 and placing the Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, during which Respondent should be required to take and pass a course or courses on the proper methods of plan drafting for the four violations involving negligence; and issuing a letter of guidance for the violation involving the date. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1991.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of various specified provisions of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes. The allegations are set forth in a seven count Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C046419, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in an individual capacity and thereby responsible for all his contracting activities. On June 6, 1993, Respondent, doing business as Universal General Contractors, entered into a construction contract with the Fagnanis for the remodeling of a bathroom in their residence located at 3440 Northeast 170th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida 33160. The contracted price was three thousand eight hundred dollars ($3,800,00). The Fagnanis paid at least two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700.00) to the Respondent as payment toward the contracted work. The written contract between the Respondent and the Fagnanis did not include the Respondent's contractor's license number. That written contract had printed on it the business name "Universal General Contractors." When they entered into the contract, the Fagnanis thought they were doing business with a company named "Universal General Contractors." At no time material hereto was Respondent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as the licensed qualifier for Universal General Contractors. Construction commenced on or about August 20, 1993. Respondent failed to obtain a building permit or inspections for the Fagnani project. Shortly after commencing the project, Respondent informed the Fagnanis he had to go to Boca Raton for an estimate, but would return to finish the project. Respondent failed to return to finish the Fagnani project. Respondent abandoned the Fagnani's project without just cause or notification to the Fagnanis. Respondent did not respond to any attempts by the Fagnanis to contact him concerning the completion of their project. At the time Respondent abandoned the project the work was not complete. At the time of abandonment, the percentage of work completed was substantially less than the percentage of the contract price paid by the Fagnanis. On December 28, 1993, as a result of Respondent's failure to complete the project, the Fagnanis filed a civil suit against Respondent in Case Number 93-16225 SP23(03), County Court in and for Dade County, Civil Division. On January 11, 1994, Respondent was properly served with notice of the civil suit. On January 27, 1994, a Default Final Judgment was entered against Respondent in favor of the Fagnanis. The Default Final Judgment entered against Respondent in the case was in the principal amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) and costs of one hundred nine dollars ($109.00) for a total amount of two thousand six hundred nine dollars ($2,609.00), and bore interest at the rate of 12 percent per year. The Default Final Judgment is related to Respondent's practice of contracting. To date, Respondent has failed to satisfy the terms of the Default Final Judgment. Respondent failed to satisfy the terms of the Default Final Judgment within a reasonable time. Respondent's incompetence and misconduct in overseeing the contracting and financial activities of his construction practice has resulted in a two thousand six hundred nine dollar ($2,609.,00) loss to the Fagnanis. The Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In two prior cases (DBPR Case Nos. 93-12155 and 94-04871) the Board has issued final orders finding the Respondent guilty of several provisions of the statutes regulating contractors. Several of the prior violations are of the same type as the violations at issue in this case.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case to the following effect: Adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in all seven counts of the Administrative Complaint; Revoking the Respondent's license; Ordering the Respondent to pay administrative fines in the total amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00); Ordering the Respondent to pay restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Fagnani in the amount of two thousand six hundred nine dollars ($2,609.00); and Ordering the Respondent to pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this proceeding in an amount to be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997.
