The Issue The following issues were raised in the facts presented at hearing: Was Combs' affidavit executed in accordance with provisions of Section 215.19, Florida Statutes? Were the construction projects upon which Combs worked exempt from the provisions of Section 215.19, Florida Statutes? Did Combs settle the claims presented?
Findings Of Fact Keith Dwaine Combs was an employee of Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc., on three related projects at Broward County Community College, the trustees of which were the contracting authority. Combs' duties were those of a sheet metal worker. He was paid $5.50 per hour. The prevailing wage for these projects for sheet metal workers was $10.55 per hour as established by the Department of Commerce. Combs worked 240 hours on these projects and prepared an affidavit claiming he was under paid $1,212. Combs then worked an additional 80 hours on a related prevailing wage job and amended his original affidavit by adding the additional 80 hours and $404 to the amount of his claim. Combs initiated these additions to his original affidavit and resigned the affidavit, claiming a total of $1,616. Combs did not have the affidavit renotarized after he had made the amendments. Combs filed his claim with District Board of Trustees for Broward County Community College. Combs then entered into negotiations with Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and eventually accepted payment of $597 less FICA and withholding taxes in settlement of his claims, and executed a release of all pending claims against Acco.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer recommends that the claim of Keith Dwaine Combs be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire 2900 East Oakland Park Boulevard Post Office Drawer 11088 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Jeff M. Brown, Esquire 3705 North Federal Highway Post Office Box 1138 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Mr. Luther J. Moore Administrator of Prevailing Wage Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to have his general contractor’s license re-instated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received a license as a general contractor in 1984. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was required to renew his license every two years. For the Petitioner, the renewal was due on or before August 31 of even numbered years. For example, the Petitioner’s license due for renewal in 2000 was due August 31, 2000. There are two types of licenses pertinent to this case: active and inactive. The renewal fees associated with these licenses are different. An inactive licensee pays a smaller renewal fee. The Respondent is responsible for maintaining records, collecting the appropriate fees, and processing license renewals for licensees. If a contractor fails to pay the requisite renewal fees when they are due the license automatically goes into a “delinquent status.” This status continues until the licensee makes good on the past due renewal fees and submits a complete renewal application. If the licensee does not remit the appropriate fees and completed application before the next licensing renewal period expires (the next two year cycle), the license becomes “null.” In this case, the Petitioner held an inactive license during the 1998-2000 two year-period. On or before August 31, 2000, the Petitioner should have submitted a complete application and paid the renewal fees to keep his license in good status. The Petitioner did not submit a complete application and did not remit the appropriate fees for renewal on or before August 31, 2000. Consequently, on September 1, 2000, the Petitioner’s license went into the delinquent status noted above. To clear this status the Petitioner was required to renew his license by submitting a complete renewal application with the appropriate fees on or before August 31, 2002. The Petitioner did not do so. Therefore, on September 1, 2002, the Petitioner’s license became “null” as a matter of law. The “null” status cannot be changed by paying unpaid fees. Instead, a licensee may either apply for and seek a new license or seek to re-instate the license. To that end, the Petitioner filed a request for reinstatement on or about June 9, 2006. When the Respondent denied the Petitioner’s request for reinstatement, the instant case ensued. Prior to August 31, 2002, the Petitioner did not contact the Respondent to relate personal tragedies, did not cure the delinquent renewal status, and did not pay the fees necessary to renew his inactive license. The Petitioner’s request for a refund (dated May 18, 2005) of the untimely fees paid in September 2002 was not approved. The Respondent provided no explanation for why the untimely fees were not refunded to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his license. The Respondent should, however, refund the Petitioner’s untimely paid fees. S DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Williams 513 Northwest 22nd Avenue Apartment 4 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311-7773 Deborah Bartholow Loucks, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Michael Martinez, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-2.026(4) and (6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to sections 120.52(8) and 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, Petitioner Second Chance operates jai alai games at its facility in Marion County, and Petitioner WFA owns and operates a greyhound permit and summer jai alai permit at its facility in Miami-Dade County. Petitioner WFA also indirectly owns a summer jai alai permit at the Miami Jai Alai in Miami-Dade County and owns partial interests in two jai alai permits operated at the Dania Jai Alai facility in Broward County. Pursuant to chapter 550, Intervenor owns and operates a jai alai permit at its facility in Seminole County, where it conducts live jai alai permits. Petitioners and Intervenor are regulated by the proposed rules that they challenge in these cases. Proposed rule 61D-2.026(4) (the Court Rule) provides: Jai alai games must be conducted on a three-walled court meeting the following requirements: The side wall must be at least 175 feet long and at least 35 feet in height; The front wall and back wall must be at least 35 feet in width and height; The front wall must be made of granite. All courts must have sufficient overhead coverage to ensure for the operation of scheduled performances. All courts must have a live viewing area for games. Proposed rule 61D-2.026(6) (the Roster Rule) provides: "Jai Alai permit holders must utilize a rotational system of at least eight different players or teams." The rulemaking authority cited for the Court Rule and the Roster Rule is sections 550.0251 and 550.105(3) and (10)(a). The law implemented cited for the Court Rule and the Roster Rule is sections 550.0251, 550.105, and 550.70.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated January 26, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses as real estate brokers and salespersons. Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Florida Real Estate Commission operates within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and is the entity responsible for imposing discipline on those holding real estate broker or salesperson licenses. Sections 475.02 and 475.25, Florida Statutes. On or about July 11, 1996, John and Darleen Bothe, as buyers, and John Zucarelli, as seller, entered into a contract to purchase and sell real property located in Rolling Hills, Florida. Donald L. Brady was the real estate salesperson who represented Mr. and Mrs. Bothe in the transaction, and David Taylor represented Mr. Zucarelli. Mr. Brady represented in the Contract for Sale and Purchase executed July 11, 1996, and in addenda thereto, that, for purposes of the transaction, he was the real estate licensee and Westar International was the brokerage firm with which he was associated. Although the real estate transaction closed, neither Westar International nor Mr. Brady received any commission on the transaction. The commission that was to have been paid to Westar International was placed into an escrow account by the closing agent when Mr. Brady was unable to present the license of his supervising broker at the closing. At the time of the transaction, Mr. Brady's supervising broker, David A. Brady, was not licensed as a real estate broker because he had failed to renew his license. Mr. Brady was not aware at the time that his broker was not licensed. At the time of the transaction, Donald L. Brady had a valid and current license as a real estate salesperson, license number 0537988, which was effective from April 1, 1995, through March 31, 1997. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding that Donald L. Brady did not violate Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 14th day of October, 1999.
