The Issue The issues in Case No. 07-4376PL are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i), 489.119(2), 489.126(2)(a), and 489.129(1)(j), (m), and (o), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed. The issues in Case No. 07-4377PL are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.1425(1), and 489.129(1)(i) and (o), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Mr. Roach is, and was at all times material to this action, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida having been issued License No. CCC1326005. Mr. Roach's Certified Roofing Contractor License No. CCC1326005 is current and active. Mr. Roach's current addresses of record are Post Office Box 345, Orange Springs, Florida, and 22204 U.S. Highway 301, Hawthorne, Florida. At all times material to this action, Mr. Roach was a licensed qualifier for All Florida Roofing Contractors, Inc. (All Florida). There is evidence in the record sufficient to establish that Mr. Roach has been previously disciplined for a violation under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Notably, Mr. Roach has been previously disciplined for, among other things, violations of Subsections 489.129(1)(m) and (o), Florida Statutes. Case No. 07-4376PL Mr. Roach failed to obtain a Certificate of Authority for All Florida, as required by Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. On or about August 23, 2004, Mr. Pang contracted with Mr. Roach, to remove and replace the hurricane-damaged roof of his hotel property located at 1620 West Vine Street, Kissimmee, Florida. The contract price for the aforementioned project was $40,000.00. Mr. Pang made an initial payment of $2,250.00 on August 22, 2004, and another payment of $20,000.00 on August 23, 2004. As part of the contract, All Florida was required to pull the building permits for the project, and Mr. Roach failed to do this. Mr. Roach commenced work on the project on or about September 7, 2004. On or about late September 2004, he ceased work on the project, and the project remained unfinished. Mr. Pang paid All Florida an additional $10,000.00 on September 16, 2004. On October 1, 2004, the City of Kissimmee issued a Notice of Violation against Mr. Pang for failure to have a building permit for the work that had been performed by Mr. Roach on the roof. Mr. Roach scheduled repairs on the project, but did not return to the project. Mr. Roach did not have any inspections performed on the roof. Later, another contractor hired by Mr. Pang finished the roofing project at a cost of an additional $32,975.00. Case No. 07-4377PL On or about September 15, 2004, Ms. Perez contracted with Mr. Roach to repair roof damage to her residence at 1502 Golden Poppy Court, Orlando, Florida. The contract price for the aforementioned project was $7,268.32, of which Mr. Roach was paid $3,634.16 on September 18, 2004. The contract entered into between Ms. Perez and Mr. Roach failed to inform the homeowner of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. On or about October 27, 2004, the Orange County Building Department issued Mr. Roach a permit for the aforementioned project (Permit No. T04018050). Mr. Roach did not have any inspections performed on the roof. On September 25, 2004, Ms. Perez paid $3,614.16 to All Florida, which was the remaining amount of the contract. Another contractor was hired by Ms Perez to correct deficient aspects of Mr. Roach's work on the roof at a cost of $900.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered whose outcome is the following: That in Case No. 07-4376PL Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i), (j), (m) and (o), Florida Statutes; Dismiss Count II of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 07-4376PL; In Case No. 07-4376PL, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; no administrative fine is recommended for the violation of 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, because the violation is included in the violations of Subsections 489.129(1)(j) and (o), Florida Statutes; That in Case No. 07-4377PL, Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(i) and (o), Florida Statutes; In Case No. 07-4377PL, imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; Requiring Respondent to make Restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Pang in the amount of $25,000; Requiring Respondent to make Restitution to Ms. Perez in the amount of $900; and Revoking Respondent's contractor license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 31st day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto. His license number is RC-0035594. On or about April 26, 1985 Respondent, doing business as Pinellas Roofing Service, contracted with Bausch and Lomb to reroof their plant in Manatee County, at a contract price of $31,150. Respondent admits that at no time material hereto was he licensed to engage in contracting in Manatee County. Pinellas Roofing thereafter began, and partially performed, this job for which it was paid a total of $28,035. Petitioner alleges, and Respondent denies, that Respondent diverted funds received from this job for other purposes, and was thereafter unable to fulfill the terms of the contract with Bausch and Lomb. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence in support of this charge. Respondent never completed this job and took no steps to inform Bausch and Lomb that he would not complete the contract or make other arrangements for its completion. He left several thousand dollars worth of material on the roof, exposed, when he walked off this job, and this resulted in these materials being substantially destroyed. During the job, he did not take precautions to assure that the roof did not leak during heavy rainstorms. In fact, on at least three occasions, leaks caused damage to the interior of the plant and Respondent could not be reached. Therefore, Bausch and Lomb had to have another roofing contractor make emergency repairs on June 25, July 15 and September 3, 1985, at a total additional cost of $4,150. Since Respondent did not complete the contract, and left the roof unfinished, Bausch and Lomb contracted on September 17, 1985 with Bernard J. Lozon, Inc., to complete the job, and make certain additional repairs, at a cost of $24,000. In the opinion of Bernard J. Lozon, who was accepted as an expert in roofing contracting, the actual work that was done by Pinellas Roofing was satisfactory. However, Respondent's actions in walking off the job and leaving the roof unattended without completing the job is an unacceptable practice in roofing contracting, and constitutes incompetence and misconduct. Respondent failed to properly supervise this job. He relied upon his son to hire the necessary crews, pay them, handle financial aspects of the job, and assure its completion. His testimony indicates he fails to understand his own responsibility for supervising and completing the work for which he contracted, and which was performed under his license. At no time material hereto did Respondent qualify Pinellas Roofing Service with Petitioner. Respondent failed to apply for and obtain a Manatee County building permit for the roofing job in question, and also failed to request the county building department to perform inspections of the work performed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County has adopted and follows the 1979 edition of the Standard for Installation of Roof Coverings, Southern Building Code, as amended in 1981. This Code requires all contractors performing work in Manatee County to be registered in Manatee County, and to obtain permits for all roof replacements and repairs in excess of $200, as well as obtain inspections of all such work to insure compliance with the Code. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the local building code. When Respondent submitted his proposal on April 16, 1985 for the Bausch and Lomb job, he specifically acknowledged, in writing, that "all work (is) to be done according to owner specifications sheet." (Emphasis supplied). At hearing, Respondent contended that when he submitted his proposal he never saw the project specification sheet which was thereafter attached to his contract with Bausch and Lomb and made a part thereof. Rather, he testified that his proposal referred to certain specifications that appeared on project drawings which he reviewed prior to submitting his proposal. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and all of the evidence presented, and particularly the fact that Respondent referred to the "specifications sheet" and not "drawings" in his proposal, it is specifically found that Respondent had knowledge of, and did in fact submit his proposal based upon the "specifications sheet" which ultimately became a part of his contract. As such, he was bound thereby in the performance of work under this contract. In pertinent part, the "specifications sheet" requires that the contractor obtain all necessary permits from Manatee County, that notice be given to the owner in advance of work that will produce excessive amounts of dust or tar fumes so proper precautions could be taken, that roofing materials be stored in a manner that protects them from damage or adverse weather conditions during construction, and that the contractor provide a two year written guarantee at the conclusion of the job. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of ninety (90) days and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3698 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5,6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 5-7 Addressed in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 5. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Michael Schlesinger, Esquire 655 Ulmerton Road Building 11-A Large, Fl 33541 Fred Seely Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(e),(m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), and Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes (1993), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Kenneth G. Steeprow (Steeprow), was licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC C036974. He is registered to do business individually, and his license is currently inactive. On April 23, 1987, Ken Steeprow Roofing applied for an extension of credit with Gory Associated Industries, Inc. (Gory). The application listed Ken Steeprow as the owner of Ken Steeprow Roofing. A copy of Steeprow's individual roofing contractor certificate was included with the application. Also included with the credit application was a guaranty signed by Steeprow and his wife for credit extended to Ken Steeprow Roofing. On November 15, 1988, Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. was formed as a Florida corporation. The president of the company was Steeprow, and the secretary/treasurer of the company was Steeprow's wife, Tamara Cherry Steeprow. Steeprow did not qualify Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., as required by Sections 489.119 and 489.1195, Florida Statutes. Steeprow admitted at hearing that he operated Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., during 1989. Steeprow also admitted at hearing that it had been his practice to sign building permit applications in blank and that the secretaries for the company would type in the name of Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., on the application forms. These application forms were used to pull building permits for Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. On February 22, 1989, Gory sent a letter to Ken Steeprow Roofing to the attention of Steeprow, requesting that Steeprow review the information from its customer file and verify whether the information was accurate. On March 9, 1989, Gory received a response, advising that the firm's name was Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., and including a completed application for extension of credit for Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. The contractor's license number listed on the credit application was CC C036974. At the time of the application, Tamara Steeprow signed an agreement for extension of credit on behalf of Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. The agreement included the following provisions: We agree to notify Gory Associated Industries, Inc. immediately in the event of a change of ownership or in the form of our business. We further agree that any goods or merchandise purchased from Gory Associated Industries, Inc. shall remain the property of Gory Associated Industries, Inc. until payment is received for said merchandise and goods by Gory. BLANKET CERTIFICATE OF RESALE STATEMENT This is to certify that all material, merchandise, or goods purchased by the undersigned from Gory Associated Industries Inc. is purchased for the purpose of ROOFING CONSTRUCTION and is purchased under certificate number . This certificate shall be considered a part of each order which we shall give provided such order contains our certificate number. This certificate is to continue in force until revoked. Although the certificate number is blank in the agreement, the credit application included a copy of the certificate for Kenneth Steeprow as a roofing contractor, license number CC C036974. On March 9, 1989, Kenneth Steeprow and Tamara Steeprow signed a guaranty for the extension of credit to Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. The guaranty provided: THE UNDERSIGNED, herein jointly and severally referred to as Guarantor, makes this agreement with Gory Associated Industries, Inc., or divisions thereof, herein referred to as Creditor, with respect to credit extended and to be extended to STEEPROW ENTERPRISES INC. herein referred to as Debtor. For valuable consideration Guarantor does hereby unconditionally guarantee to Creditor, its successors and assigns, prompt and punctual payment of the full amount, including accrued interest, of any and all obligation, indebtedness or liability, whether arising before or after the date hereof, and whether primary or secondary, (herein referred to as "liabilities") of Debtor to Creditor from time to time and at all times hereof and hereafter without limitation as to amount, together with interest, and all expenses of collection, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, whether suit be instituted or not. * * * The obligations hereunder shall be continuing and irrevocable except as herein provided. Revocation may be made by thirty (30) days notice in writing signed by Guarantor and delivered to Creditor, in person or by certified mail only. Any notice shall not effect or impair in any manner whatsoever the obligations of this Guaranty as to liabilities of the Debtor to Creditor existing or committed at or before the time such notice becomes effective. On March 18, 1989, Steeprow resigned as President of Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., and was replaced by his wife. The stock in Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., was sold to Erick Holland on or about January 1, 1990. Erick Holland was not licensed as required by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In July, 1991, Monier Roofing Tile, Inc. (Monier), acquired Gory and became the assignee of contract rights and accounts receivable of Gory. Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., ordered roofing supplies from Monier from November 1991 through June 1992 and defaulted in making payments for the roofing materials. In November 1992, Monier brought suit in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, Case Number 92-28733(21), against Steeprow Enterprises, Inc., Steeprow, and Tamara Cherry Steeprow for the money owed by Steeprow Enterprises, Inc. A summary judgment in the aggregate amount of $21,548.09 was entered August, 3, 1993, against all defendants, including Steeprow. The defendants appealed the summary judgment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered an opinion on October 26, 1994, affirming the trial court's decision, stating specifically that as to the individual defendants, including Steeprow, their pleadings and affidavits were deficient and even if construed as an attempt to raise affirmative defenses failed to state a viable defense. The case was remanded to the trial court for the assessment of attorney's fees, and on February 14, 1995, a final judgment was entered, awarding Monier attorney's fees in the amount of $6,600 against all defendants. In May or June 1996, Steeprow filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 96-32243. The petition was dismissed on Steeprow's motion on January 10, 1997. The judgments remain unpaid. Steeprow stated at the hearing that he does not intend to pay the judgments. A reasonable time within which to satisfy a judgment is ninety days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Kenneth G. Steeprow violated Sections 489.129(1)(e), and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988) and Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes (1993), imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 for the violation of Section 489.129(e), imposing an administrative fine of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), assessing costs of investigation, and revoking license number CC C036974. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cummins Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth G. Steeprow 5985 Acme Avenue Port St. John, Florida 32927 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Does the unsatisfied civil judgment in ABC v Millman et al, Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB relate to practice of Respondent’s profession, thus establishing that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,(2009)? If he committed the violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board has certified Millman as a General Contractor and a Roofing Contractor under the authority of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In 2009 and 2010, he held license numbers CGC l1522 (General) and CCC 1327057 (Roofing). Millman’s licenses are presently inactive. Millman has actively practiced the licensed professions of general contractor and roofing contractor in Florida since 1977. The Department and its predecessor agencies have never taken any disciplinary action against him. At all times material to this proceeding, Affiliated was a Construction Qualified Business in the State of Florida, certified under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, holding license number QB45287. Millman was the Primary Qualifying Agent for Affiliated under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, at all times material to this proceeding. On December 26, 2005, Millman signed a credit application with American Builders and Contractors Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Supply Co. Inc. (ABC), on behalf of Affiliated. Millman listed his Certified General Contractor’s License (CGC 011522) on the credit application and personal guarantee Although Millman provided his General Contractor’s license number on the application, ABC did not require a license number. The application indicates that the account is related to “low and steep slope roofing.” The account was for the purchase of roofing materials and supplies. On December 29, 2005, Millman signed a personal guarantee of the Affiliated account with ABC. Millman’s personal guarantee made him personally liable for Affiliated’s obligation to pay ABC. ABC granted the application and opened a line of credit for Millman and Affiliated. Millman and Affiliated used the account to purchase roofing supplies on credit. They purchased and paid for over $800,000 worth of supplies from 2006 into 2009. This is separate from the goods and materials that were the subject of the lawsuit described below. Most of the materials and supplies that Affiliated purchased on the ABC account were for specific roofing projects. But some, as Millman acknowledged in his testimony, were to maintain roofing materials in the Affiliated warehouse. He used these on small jobs and to supplement materials purchased for larger, specific jobs. All the goods and materials purchased related to Millman’s practice of the roofing contracting profession. In 2007 Millman and Affiliated started having financial difficulties. Millman’s business began failing. The failure of a lender that took over a construction project it was financing resulted in the lender not paying Millman for approximately $500,000 worth of his company’s work. This contributed to Millman’s business failure. In addition to Millman’s problems paying ABC, his landlord was evicting him. Millman worked hard during these difficulties to meet his obligations to ABC. He liquidated his Individual Retirement Account and his life savings to make sure he paid for all charges for supplies used for specified customers. He did this to protect customers from the risk of liens being placed on their properties. Millman advised ABC that he was being evicted from his warehouse. He told ABC that the warehouse contained materials obtained with his line of credit that had not been paid for. Millman did not have the ability to return the materials to ABC. As eviction neared, he urged ABC to retrieve the materials before eviction. ABC did not act to retrieve the materials. The landlord evicted Millman. What happened to the materials is not known. On March 4, 2008, ABC sued Millman and Affiliated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. ABC sought payment for goods and materials purchased on the account and delivered to Millman and Affiliated between January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008. The court assigned the action Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB. The goods and materials for which ABC sought payment were roofing goods and materials. They included roofing felt, roofing cement, shingles, plywood, lumber, roofing nails, lead sheets, insulation, roof tile cement, lead boots for pipes, roofing paint, asphalt, and galvanized roof edging. Much, although not all, of the material was delivered to roof tops. Many invoices for the material describe the roof for which the material is intended by height and pitch. The goods and materials related to Millman’s profession of roofing contractor. On June 17, 2008, barely three months after ABC filed suit, Millman entered into a Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default with ABC. Millman agreed in the Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default, that both he as an individual and Affiliated are indebted to ABC in the amount of $45,617.02. This amount included interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The stipulation included a schedule of eight payments starting with a payment of $2,500.00 on May 30, 2008, and ending with a payment of $22,720.02 on December 30, 2008. Millman made payments from January 1, 2007, forward, even during and after the collection litigation. Millman made over $16,000.00 of those payments. But he did not make all of them. As Millman made payments, he took care to designate payments for supplies allocated to a specific customer and job. He did this to protect his customers from liens and to make sure that documents he signed attesting that supplies for specific jobs had been paid for were honest and correct. On August 3, 2009, the court rendered a Final Judgment After Stipulation in ABC’s collection action. The court adjudged that ABC recover $29,617.02 together with interest at the rate of 11 percent per annum accruing from May 31, 2008, from Affiliated and Millman, jointly and severally. The judgment is for debt incurred relating to Millman’s practice of his licensed profession of roofing contracting. It is not related to Millman’s licensed profession of general contracting. ABC continued to actively pursue collecting the judgment. It garnished Millman’s bank account with Bank Atlantic and obtained $662.61. Millman and Affiliated have not fully satisfied the judgment within a reasonable period of time. The Department incurred $216.00 in costs for the investigation and this action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: Payment of an administrative fine of $500.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. Payment of costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $216.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 27th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was unlawfully terminated from his employment with Respondent based upon his age and in retaliation for protected activity; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact In June 2016, Petitioner, a 58-year-old man, responded to an advertisement for laborers posted by Aerotek, an employee leasing company. Petitioner was hired and told he would be placed as a general laborer with Advanced Roofing for a solar panel installation job at the Lake Worth landfill. Petitioner attended a safety orientation presented by Advanced Roofing in June but was not actually placed at the job site until August 1, 2016. Advanced Roofing is a roofing company that employs approximately 380 workers for commercial roofing jobs, HVAC, and solar panel installation throughout Florida. It also contracts with Aerotek and CLP, employee leasing companies, to supply laborers to specific job sites on an as needed basis. Advanced Roofing has an agreement with Aerotek to pay designated hourly wage rates to Aerotek based upon job classification. It is up to the discretion of Aerotek to determine what wages are paid to individual laborers. Petitioner's Employment at Advanced Roofing's Job Site Based upon Petitioner's prior experience, he was classified by Aerotek as a general laborer and assigned by Advanced Roofing to supervise a crew for the pouring of concrete pillars. He reported to, and received direction from, Advanced Roofing's site supervisor, Paul Burns. Petitioner received an hourly wage from Aerotek in the amount of $13.00 per hour. Shortly after beginning work with Advanced Roofing, Petitioner complained repeatedly to Mr. Burns that he should be paid more based upon his experience and the fact that he was asked to supervise others. Mr. Burns explained that Advanced Roofing does not control what Aerotek pays its workers but that he would speak to Aerotek about a possible raise. Petitioner discussed his pay concerns with co-worker Allen Andrews, who was approximately 30 years old. Mr. Andrews told Petitioner he thought he (Mr. Andrews) too should be paid more based upon his skill set. In fact, Mr. Andrews apparently addressed this issue with Aerotek and received a pay raise from Aerotek to $15.00 per hour. After Mr. Andrews showed Petitioner his pay stub, Petitioner asked Mr. Burns whether Mr. Andrews was being paid more because he was younger. Petitioner believes Mr. Andrews received the requested raise despite being less qualified than Petitioner and holding no license or certification. However, Respondent's Exhibit 1 shows that Mr. Andrews was classified as an "electrical helper" by Aerotek and had prior electrical conduit experience that Petitioner did not have. On October 3, 2016, Petitioner sent a text message to his immediate supervisor, Ray Mason, at 4:13 a.m., advising he was coming back to town from Orlando and would be arriving late for work that day. Petitioner explained that the laborers were instructed to call in as soon as they knew they would be late or absent. At 5:50 a.m., Mr. Mason replied, "Do you see what time it is man? You just cut my sleep. Don't come back." Over the course of Petitioner's assignment to Advanced Roofing from Aerotek, Petitioner, by his own admission, missed at least three days of work. According to Advanced Roofing, Petitioner missed five days of work during that time and was repeatedly late. Although Petitioner testified that other younger workers routinely missed work or came in late without calling in and without consequence, he offered no corroborating evidence. Prior to his termination, Petitioner received no counseling or written discipline regarding performance or attendance. On September 28, 2016, Advanced Roofing contacted Aerotek to supply four more workers to the Lake Worth site due to concerns regarding slowing productivity. Advanced Roofing dismissed several workers in addition to Petitioner on October 3, 2016, based on absenteeism and decreased productivity. After being dismissed by Advanced Roofing, Aerotek offered to place Petitioner elsewhere. Because it would be approximately eight weeks before Aerotek would have another assignment for Petitioner, he declined reassignment and accepted a settlement package. Allegations of Drug Use and Safety Hazards After he was told not to return to Advanced Roofing, Petitioner contacted the City of Lake Worth by email to complain about drug use, intoxication, and fighting among employees. Petitioner also wrote Rob Kornahrens, Advanced Roofing's president, making similar allegations and detailing how workers were instructed by supervisors how to pass drug tests by pinning a condom with clean urine from another person to the inside of their pants to keep it at body temperature and using it to fill the urine drug test container. Petitioner contends he also raised safety concerns prior to his termination about co-workers fighting and using drugs on the job. Petitioner believes he was terminated in part due to these "whistle-blowing" activities. Advanced Roofing undertook an investigation into Petitioner's post-termination allegations, including drug testing at the worksite of 23 workers. Two workers refused to test and six others failed. However, the investigation did not confirm the widespread drug use or on-the-job intoxication alleged by Petitioner. Advanced Roofing denies that its supervisors instructed employees how to fool the test. Further, no significant incidents of fighting at the Lake Worth project were brought to the attention of management before or after Petitioner's termination. Aerotek's Employment of Other Older Workers Petitioner claims he was the oldest worker of the crew at Advanced Roofing. However, Petitioner admitted that Calvin Palmer, age 63, also worked as an electrical helper/laborer for Advanced Roofing at the Lake Worth site while Petitioner was employed. Mr. Palmer, who was hired as a laborer with electrical experience through another temporary service, has become a regular employee of Advanced Roofing and currently earns $23.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing FCHR Petition 201700134. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 5th day of October, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a roofing contractor and held license number RC 0021620. Respondent has worked in the roofing business since 1947 and has been a licensed contractor since 1969. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the owner and qualifying agent for Dingle Roofing Company. There have been no previous disciplinary actions brought against the Respondent and he has never been sued. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At the time his deposition was taken Ted Matchett lived in Crescent City, Florida. At all other times pertinent hereto, Mr. Matchett was the owner and a resident of a duplex located at 2595 Tigertail, Miami, Florida. Mr. Matchett lived in one side of the duplex, which consisted of approximately two- thirds of the property, with his housekeeper, Daniel Lopez. The remainder of the duplex was rented to a tenant who was not identified by name. The roof of Mr. Matchett's duplex consisted of two pitched roofs which tied in to a flat roof. Prior to the work at issue in this proceeding, the pitched portions of the roof were covered with Spanish tile. The roof was approximately twenty years old, leaked in several locations, and was in bad repair. The evidence in this proceeding is consistent with the opinion expressed by the Respondent that Mr. Matchett's roof should have been replaced five years before he contracted with Respondent. At some date prior to contracting with the Respondent, Mr. Matchett hired a "handyman" to go up on his roof and repair the leaks that Mr. Matchett had detected. This handyman did not testify at the formal hearing and his qualifications as a roofer were not established. The handyman patched portions of the flat roof by covering the existing roof with slats and plywood, covering this with tar paper, and applying cold tar. The manner in which the handyman repaired Mr. Matchett's roof does not meet the South Florida Building Code and is not an effective method of repairing leaks. The only practical way to seal a flat roof is to mop it with hot tar. Mr. Matchett testified that the handyman had stopped the leaks and that his roof was not leaking when Respondent's company began its work. The greater weight of the evidence established that the roof was still leaking after the work by the handyman, and that these leaks could not be stopped until the roof was repaired by a roofer. The flat portion of the roof had an air conditioning unit on it. The vent areas of the air conditioner were still leaking after the handyman had done his work. On July 19, 1991, Dingle Roofing Company entered into a contract with Mr. Matchett to re-roof the subject duplex. The contract between Dingle Roofing Company and Mr. Matchett was on a form used by Dingle Roofing Company. The Respondent negotiated this contract and executed it on behalf of his company. The contract amount for the re-roofing portion of the job was in the amount of $5,460. The parties agreed that Respondent's company would add insulation to one portion of the property for an additional payment of $350. The contract required that debris be removed and that rotten wood be replaced. The amount specified in the contract contemplated that up to 200 feet of rotten wood would be replaced. Any rotten wood in excess of 200 feet that needed to be replaced would be replaced at the rate of $1.40 per foot. The contract was silent as to when payment would be due for replacement of rotten lumber exceeding 200 feet. The following appeared as paragraph two of the "General Terms and Conditions" of the standard form contract used by Dingle Roofing Company: 2. EXCEPTED LABILITY: Dingle Roofing Company shall not be responsible for damages or delay, either before commencement of or during the said work described herein on account of transportation difficulties, priorities, accidents, war, act of God, fire, sudden rains, storms, windstorms, other casualty or theft or other causes beyond its control. There was no beginning date for the work and no completion date specified by the contract. The contract was accepted by Mr. Matchett on July 19, 1991. Pertinent to this proceeding, the form contract contained the name, address and telephone numbers of Dingle Contracting Company and the following language that Petitioner asserts violates the provisions of Section 489.119(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1989): "ALL TYPES OF ROOFS" and "FREE ESTIMATES". The number, CC 000011956, appearing under the Respondent's signature on the contract with Mr. Matchett was not the Respondent's state contractor license number but was a county license number. The Respondent's state contractor license number RC 0021620 did not appear on the contract. On July 23, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $1,000. On August 15, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $2,000. 3/ Respondent's company did not start the subject job right away because he was backed up with work. Mr. Matchett knew at the time he executed the contract that Respondent's company would not be able to immediately begin the work on the roof. On August 12, 1991, Respondent's company began the subject job. The South Florida Building Code, the code used by the City of Miami, required that a building permit be obtained for roof repairs. Respondent's company did not secure a building permit for this work until November 6, 1991. The Respondent's company worked on Mr. Matchett's roof between August 12 and August 16, 1991. There was a considerable amount of rain prior to and during the time Respondent's men started work on the roof. The work began on the pitched parts since a pitched roof is easier to seal off in the event of rain. After drying in the pitched portions of the roof, work began on the flat portion of the roof where most of the rotten wood was located. On August 14, 1991, Respondent's workmen opened a small section of the flat portion of the roof to replace rotten wood. Before they could complete the work, it began to rain. The workers covered the area with plywood and tar. The workmen returned on August 17, 1991, and placed a tarpaulin over this area. There was no evidence that the workmen failed to act within the standards of the industry in sealing this exposed area. Petitioner asserted at the hearing that the workmen tore holes in the roof and caused tile to be dropped through the ceiling of the duplex into the interior of the premises. Mr. Matchett testified that the interior of his home was damaged by these acts and by leaks caused by the workmen employed by Respondent's company. David Dingle and Edward Dingle, two of the workers who did the work on Mr. Matchett's roof, testified at the formal hearing as to the work that was done on the roof and as to the manner in which the work was done. Their testimony conflicts with that of Mr. Matchett. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that while the interior of the duplex was damaged by leaks and there was a hole in the ceiling, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent's workmen caused the leaks that damaged Mr. Matchett's property by the work they did on the duplex. Respondent presented credible evidence that the leaks that damaged the interior of the duplex were on the flat portion of the roof and existed before the Respondent's company began work on the roof. Respondent's company stopped work on Mr. Matchett's roof on August 16, 1991. On August 17, 1991, the workers returned to Mr. Matchett's property, but only to place a tarpaulin over an area of the roof they knew was leaking. Although there were conflicts in the evidence as to the reasons the work was stopped on August 16, 1991, these conflicts are resolved by finding that there were two reasons that work was stopped on that date. First, the workmen discovered that the job was more difficult and would be more expensive because of the amount of rotten wood that needed to be replaced. Respondent had asked Mr. Matchett for more money, but he refused to pay any more until the job was completed. Respondent asked Mr. Matchett for additional money to replace rotten wood since it became apparent that there was rotten wood in excess of 200 feet. 4/ Mr. Matchett had paid the Respondent $3,000, and he refused to make further payment until the work was completed. Second, the rainy season began in South Florida. To properly repair the flat portions of the roof, the Respondent's workmen would have to replace the rotten wood and replace the roof using a hot tar mix. The rotten wood could not be removed during rain because such removal would expose the interior of the house to rain. Additionally, hot tar cannot be mopped on during rain. Mr. Matchett's roof was leaking at the time that the Respondent's company discontinued work in August 1991. Respondent knew that most of the flat portion of the roof was rotten, and he should have known that it was not watertight. Petitioner did not establish what Respondent should have done knowing that the flat roof was not watertight. On August 19, 1991, a heavy rain revealed several leaks. Mr. Matchett made repeated efforts to reach the Respondent by telephone at the telephone numbers listed on the contract. Mr. Matchett talked to the Respondent by telephone on Sunday, October 6, 1991, and was told by the Respondent that he had underestimated the job and that he would finish when he could. After August 17, 1991, the Respondent's company did no further work on Mr. Matchett's roof until November 4, 1991. Thereafter, the Respondent's men worked steadily until they completed the dry-in on November 11, 1991. The dry- in passed inspection on November 22, 1991, and the Respondent finished the job in December, 1991. Petitioner failed to establish that the failure of Respondent's company to resume work on Mr. Matchett's roof prior to November, 1991, constituted fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The only expert testimony in this proceeding was that Respondent acted consistent with the industry practices considering the rainy season, the extensive amount of rotten wood that needed to be repaired, and Mr. Matchett's unwillingness to pay for the additional wood that the job required. Petitioner introduced no expert testimony to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which: Finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and which assesses an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $100.00 for that violation. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July 1994.
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
