The Issue Whether the Respondent is entitled to a credit for unit price work which was not performed under the contract. Whether the contractor is entitled to additional payment for the electrical work on the outside stairwells and interior modifications. Whether the contractor is entitled to additional payment for installing the 3-inch drain for the HVAC discharge. Whether the Respondent is entitled to access $3,750.00 in liquidated damages against the contractor for completing the project ten (10) days beyond the scheduled completion date.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction Findings of fact 1 and 2 are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Credit for Unit Prices The findings of fact 3 through 28 contained in the Recommended Order are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference except for the following: That portion of finding of fact number 15 which states "Such a bid process does not enhance the competitive bidding process or benefit the public." This sentence is rejected in that it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The Hearing Office erroneously concluded that the inclusion of section 01026 in the bid specifications used by DNR for the Wakulla Springs Project was not in the best interest of the public. This section required that the unit price allowances be included in the base bid. The only evidence regarding the purpose of including the unit price allowances in the base bid was the testimony of Jerry Hicks. Mr. Hicks is a professional architect who has extensive experience in developing bid specifications for governmental contracts. [T. 170-171] Mr. Hicks was retained by DNR to develop the plans and specifications for the Wakulla Springs Project. [T. 173) Mr. Hicks testified that he placed the requirement that the unit price allowances be included in the base bid because the Department had a limited budget and he wanted to ensure that the Department would not be "caught at the end of the project short of funds." [T. 174] The purpose of the provision was to protect the state. [T. 174) The only evidence at the hearing indicated that the bid process used by the Department was to enhance the competitive bidding process and benefit the public by protecting the Department and ensuring the project would not go over budget. That portion of finding of fact number 26 which states: "Based on what he read, Mr. Gray did not think section 01026 required the unit price allowance to be included in the base bid." This sentence is rejected in that it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 01026 of the bid specifications states in pertinent part: The contractor shall provide in his base bid the following work related to unit prices and the separate asbestos abatement contract. A change order will be issued to credit the owner with the difference in cost or charge the owner with additional unit price quantity cost. (emphasis in original) Gray did not allege that bid specification section 01026 was unclear or that he misinterpreted it. Gray's argument was that he did not carefully read the bid specifications and that he assumed the project was a "turn-key" project. Gray's testimony indicates that when Gray carefully read the bid specifications, he agreed that the unit price allowances were suppose to be part of the base bid. When asked on direct examination if there was any reference in the bid specifications concerning unit price allowances and the inclusion of these figures in the base bid, Gray answered that there was, but "they were stuck back in another section." [T. 224] During the cross examination of Mr. Gray, the following testimony was elicited: [T. 266] Q: That is not the question. When you read [the bid specifications document), you just didn't read it carefully. You missed this section [01026]. The section was in there. Did you dismiss it? A: I guess I dismissed it. The evidence clearly indicates that Mr. Gray understood section 01026 of the bid specifications to require unit price allowances in his base bid, but he either did not read the bid specifications or he did not follow them. There is no evidence to the contrary. Gray made a mistake because he did not read the bid specifications carefully and made assumptions about the nature of the project, not because the specifications were unclear. The Hearing Officer erred in concluding that Gray found the bid specifications unclear because it is contrary to the evidence and the assertions of Gray himself. The following findings of fact are adopted in addition to those delineated by the Hearing Officer: Section 01026 of the bid specifications clearly states that the unit price allowances are to be included in the base bid. contract. Petitioner completed $442,992.00 worth of work on the initial Stairwell Amendment Findings of fact 29 through 38 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety. The HVAC Drain Findings of fact 39 through 43 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety. Liquidated Damages Findings of fact 44 through 49 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety. Prejudgment Interest Findings of fact 50 and 51 are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Conclusions These conclusions are based upon all of the Findings of Fact made heretofore. The standard upon which the award of prejudgment interest is the definability of the amount in controversy. In Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, the First District Court of Appeal said, " in Florida there has evolved a principle that prejudgment interest may be awarded when damages are a fixed sum or an amount readily ascertainable by simple calculation . . . . However, we now determine that the better view is expressed in the case of Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So.2d 562 (Fla. 4DCA 1975), where the court held that, for the purpose of assessing prejudgment interest, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date." Using either test, Petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest because the amount of money at issue was defined by the contract or by the proposed change order. All parties were always aware of the exact amounts in the change order claims, and all parties knew that the money was due Petitioner after the contract was completed on August 20, 1990. The parties even stipulated to the amounts in controversy: the amount withheld by the Respondent for unit price work is stipulated to be $33,444.60, and the amount due and unpaid on the claim for the HVAC drain was $1,014.85. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest on certain amounts owed him by the Respondent at the statutory rate of 12 percent. The computation of the amount of interest due is ministerial. The damages per day for each day of delay were fixed by the contract at $250.00 per day; however, the number of days involved was subject to evidentiary determination. The excess amount withheld for damages for not finishing on time is $750.00. See "Delay" above. The $750.00 is not subject to prejudgment interest.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the Respondent pay the Petitioner $750.00, plus $34,459.45, and prejudgment interest on the $34,459.45 in the amount of 12 percent per annum since August 20, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 16th_ day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 16th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0257 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected; not a fact. Subsumed in paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. 3-4. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as irrelevant. Subsumed in finding on substantial completion in paragraph 46 of the Recommended Order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted. Subsumed in paragraphs 6, 8, and 11 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 11 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as part of paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. The facts on the amounts of the total contract were unnecessary because the amount in controversy and the amount withheld were stipulated to or presented as facts. Adopted as paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 17 of the Recommended Order. 18-19. Subsumed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Recommended Order. 20. Adopted as paragraph 19 of the Recommended Order. 21-22. Subsumed in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Recommended Order. 23-26. Subsumed in paragraph 47 of the Recommended Order. 27-28. Adopted as paragraphs 18 and 21 of the Recommended Order. 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 28 states the amount in controversy. 30-31. Adopted as paragraph 12 of the Recommended Order. 32. Rejected as irrelevant. 33-34. Adopted as paragraphs 4 and 12 of the Recommended Order. 35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Adopted as paragraphs 4 and 12 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order. 41-43. Adopted as paragraph 24 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 25 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Adopted as paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 27 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted as paragraph 29 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 30 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 32 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 33 of the Recommended Order. Adopted. Adopted as paragraph 36 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 35 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Adopted as paragraph 38 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 39 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 40 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Adopted as paragraph 40 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts. Adopted as paragraph 44 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 69-70. Adopted as paragraph 47 of the Recommended Order. Adopted as paragraph 48 of the Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to facts regarding HVAC. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Ken Plante, Esq. General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Michael F. Coppins, Esq. DOUGLASS, COOPER, ET AL. 211 East Call Street Box 1674 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1674 Lynne Chapman, Esq. Kelly Brewton, Esq. Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard MS-35, Douglas Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be disciplined because he aided or abetted an uncertified or unregistered person, knowingly combined or conspired with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing his certificate or registration to be used by an uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade Chapter 489; acted in the capacity of a contractor under an unregistered or uncertified name; engaged in fraud, deceit, or gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting as alleged, in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e),(f),(g) and (m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to investigate construction activities in Florida and, where indicated, to file Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material, Respondent, Richard L. Melvin, was licensed as a general contractor, having been issued license number CG C022926. During times material, Respondent did not qualify Jeffrey Gaston or Tropical Exteriors & Services, Inc. (TESI), nor did said entity or contractor's name appear on Respondent's license. During times material, Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI, was never licensed nor qualified to do business as a contractor in Florida. During times material, Respondent was not a licensed roofing contractor. On or about March 31, 1987, Jeffrey Gaston contracted with Deborah and Clinton Weber to repair a roof and renovate a bathroom at their residence for the sum of $5,000.00. Respondent's name, license number, address and telephone number was listed on the Gaston/Weber contract. Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI entered into a contract with Wilfred Butler on January 12, 1987, to replace a back porch at his residence. Respondent's general contractor's license number was listed at the top of the agreement between Gaston-TESI/Butler. Checks drawn by Butler were made payable to Respondent/TESI. Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the Butler project. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Respondent admitted to authorizing Gaston or TESI to use his name and certificate number on contracts. Respondent was aware of approximately 20 contracts and several other permits wherein Gaston/TESI obtained the contracts or permits by using Respondent's name and license number. Respondent admitted receiving approximately $2,000.00 for supervising TESI. Respondent never disassociated himself from Jeffrey Gaston until May 31, 1987. Petitioner introduced ten contracts for work in Pinellas County from December 1986 to May 1987, with Respondent's name and state certification number with Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI listed as the contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) Respondent obtained a permit for Jeffrey Gaston d/b/a TESI for the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitches' home situated at 111 Aurora Avenue North, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent did not supervise the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the Stitch's residence. Respondent, as a general contractor, is responsible for all phases of work for which he contracted for and/or obtained permits. Respondent was aware that Jeffrey Gaston was not a licensed contractor in Florida. Jimmy Jimenez has never been a licensed contractor in Florida. J & J Construction Company was qualified in February 1988, under Respondent's license number, CG C022926. Thereafter, during February 1989, J & J Construction was qualified under Respondent's license number RC 0058448. Respondent did not attempt to qualify J & J Construction until he was cautioned by Petitioner's investigators Steven Pence and Dennis Force, that his construction activities amounted to "aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor." On or about December 11, 1987, Wiley Parks, Jr., entered into a contract with J & J Construction to perform construction work and remodel a home for Parks located at 1722 West Arch Street, Tampa, Florida. In conjunction with that contract, a second contract was submitted by J & J Construction for Mr. Parks, although unbeknownst to him, which utilized Respondent's name and contractor's license number at the top of the agreement. Wiley Parks spent a great deal of his time observing the construction and remodeling work by J & J. Respondent was only seen by Wiley Parks when they met at a local bank to cash a check which represented a draw submitted by Respondent for construction work done at the Arch Street construction project. Respondent obtained a permit for the Parks job on January 6, 1988, which was prior to the time he qualified J & J Construction as the entity through which he would conduct construction business. Respondent, although required to do so, never called for a final inspection on the Parks job. The floor joists at the Parks job were disapproved by the Hillsborough County Building Department and were never repaired by Respondent. Employees of J & J were observed working at the Parks job site on January 4 and 8, 1988. Respondent was, on two occasions, the subject of prior disciplinary action by Petitioner during 1987. On one occasion, probable cause was found on August 12, 1987 and the case was closed by issuing a letter of guidance to Respondent. On the second occasion, probable cause was found on October 7, 1987. Final action was taken on February 11, 1988, whereby an administrative fine of $1,000.00 was imposed against Respondent or, alternatively, a 30-day suspension of his license. Respondent paid the administrative fine within the allotted time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent's general contractor's license number CG C022926 be REVOKED. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 26th day of March, 1990.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the amended administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Ronnie L. Barfield was registered as a roofing contractor and held a state contractor's license, No. RC 0039607. At some point, records reflected the license was inactive, but this was in error. In 1987, Jack Williams lived in the house at 3101 Kings Drive in Panama City, Florida. At all pertinent times the house belonged to Evelyn Rhoads, whose daughter Anna was once married to Mr. Williams. "[B]ack in 1987," (T.10) Mr. Williams contracted with respondent Barfield, on behalf of Ms. Rhoads, to re-roof the house. Doing business as Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Mr. Barfield estimated the work would cost $5,000, before seeing the house, but ultimately presented a bill for (and was paid) $13,922.56. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent removed the existing shingles, replaced rotted portions of the decking near the chimney, installed four new skylights, installed a new drip edge or eave drip and put on new felt and fiberglass shingles. Any flashing there may have been around the chimney did not survive removal of the existing shingles. The eave drip, a strip of aluminum, "puckered" over the carport because the trusses were not uniform. At Mr. Williams' request, Mr. Barfield drove three nails through the eave drip into the fascia to flatten the metal out. Exposed to the elements, the heads of these galvanized nails rusted. On August 10, 1987, after Jack had moved out, Anna moved back in. She noticed "a lot of ridges, indentations and waves in the roof." T.16. (But this may have been nothing new. When a concrete slab foundation varies in height, so that the trusses are at different heights, it makes the roof uneven.) Waviness arising even after respondent's work would more likely have been because of poor attic ventilation than any dereliction by respondent. Anna Bartness, as she has been known since July of 1988, also noticed that the shingles capping the peak or ridge of the roof were loose and uneven. When inspected in January, ridge cap shingles were found attached with only a single nail, instead of two -- one on either side -- which is the industry standard. Eventually "the ridge cap came off it was in the yard." T.16. One of the skylights leaked, when it rained. Ms. Bartness sought Mr. Williams' assistance in locating respondent to tell him of the problems. Mr. Williams remembered getting "the telephone number where [respondent] could be reached." T.14. Whether Mr. Williams himself actually telephoned is not clear, but Ms. Bartness tried repeatedly to reach Mr. Barfield by telephone. Although she never succeeded, she left messages on a telephone answering machine and also left word with a secretary in Mr. Barfield's lawyer's office. A certified letter she mailed respondent was returned unclaimed. These efforts to reach Mr. Barfield may have coincided with time he spent in south Florida. Respondent had agreed "LABOR CARRIES A 5 YEAR WARRANTY." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. He did not learn of complaints about the work at 3101 Kings Drive until after Ms. Rhoads complained to the Department of Professional Regulation and the present proceedings began. But he had not offered to reimburse Ms. Rhoads or otherwise honor the warranty in any way, as of the time of the hearing. Giving up on Mr. Barfield, Ms. Bartness got estimates from two other roofers, David C. Stallnecker and Mayo= Rudd. Among other things, flanges around plumbing vents that had sustained damage from external sources required replacement, flashing needed to be installed around the chimney, wood there had again rotted, and ridge cap shingles needed removal and proper installation. Mr. Rudd charged her $710 for repairs he told her consisted of putting flashing around the chimney because there was none, reapplying tar or "bull," replacing a defective vent that was leaking into a skylight and, which she could see herself, replacing shingles on the roof ridge. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. On or about January 15, 1988, before these repairs, Mr. Stallnecker, like Mr. Rudd, found "no flashing on the chimney." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5; T. 44. When water began coming down the chimney in 1990, Ms. Bartness contracted with James Rutledge, doing business as Rutledge Roofing, to do additional work. He removed shingles around the chimney, replaced bad wood, installed a "membrane with plastic [r]oof cement for flashing against chimney," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and replaced felt and shingles. Unless an owner instructs him not to, a reasonably prudent roofer would install flashing around a chimney that did not already have it before laying shingles there. T. 45. Testifying at hearing, Mr. Barfield never claimed that he installed flashing around the chimney. Nor did he ever say he saw flashing around the chimney. He said flashing was built in behind the brick. You couldn't see it . . . until you pulled the brick out. T. 70. On balance, however, his testimony suggested that he assumed there was flashing around the chimney, without ever seeing it. [T]he brick masons put the flashing on unless you go where they're building these 235 houses around here they would have nailed it on the side. You hardly wouldn't do that on a $200,000 house sitting on the water, I wouldn't think. I would think it would be built in. T. 71. However reasonable this assumption, and the unstated assumption that his crew had not (inadvertently) removed the flashing in taking off the existing roof, the evidence as a whole showed there was no flashing around the chimney by the time respondent's crew put down the new shingles.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board fine respondent five hundred dollars ($500). DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of January, 1991. Copies furnished to: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rowlett W. Bryant, Esquire 833 Harrison Avenue Panama City, FL 32402
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, 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 made to the Department for violations of the requirements of chapter 489, part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for the violations set out in that section. At all times material to this case, Mr. Cote was a certified general contractor operating under License Number CGC006199 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Cote currently holds this license, and he has been a licensed general contractor since 1973. At all times material to this case, Mr. Cote was the licensed qualifying agent for JLC Enterprises, Inc. On January 12, 1995, Noel Mais, on behalf of Noel Mais Roofing, contracted with Judith Braun to re-roof property she owned located at 8914 Northwest 26th Court, Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price was $7,000.00, with $3,000.00 required as a down-payment, $3,000.00 to be paid after the roof was dried in, and $1,000.00 to be paid on completion of the project. Neither Mr. Cote nor JLC Enterprises, Inc., was a party to this contract. In late January, 1995, Mr. Mais approached Mr. Cote and requested that he apply for the necessary building permit from the City of Coral Springs. He provided to Mr. Cote a workers' compensation waiver and exemption, a Certificate of Insurance for general commercial liability insurance, and a Certificate of Competency issued by Broward County, Florida, with an expiration date of August 31, 1995. Mr. Mais also told Mr. Cote that he had submitted all of the papers necessary to register his Broward County Certificate of Competency with the state but had not yet received his registration. Mr. Cote relied on the documents and the representations of Mr. Mais regarding his registration status with the state. On or about February 1, 1995,1 Mr. Cote submitted an application to the City of Coral Springs for a building permit to re-roof property owned by Ms. Braun and located at 8914 Northwest 26th Court, Coral Springs, Florida, naming JLC Enterprises, Inc., as the contractor and identifying the estimated cost of the project at $7,000.00. Mr. Mais gave Mr. Cote $300.00 when he applied for the permit. Mr. Cote used $150.00 of this money to pay the permit application fee and $60.00 to pay for two re- inspections which had to be done on the roof. On or about February 17, 1995, the City of Coral Springs issued Permit Number 95-443.2 Mr. Mais commenced work on the project a few weeks after the contract was signed, but before Mr. Cote applied for the permit. According to Ms. Braun, Mr. Mais started "like gangbusters" and quickly stripped the old tiles off of the roof and applied the tar paper. After Mr. Cote agreed to apply for the permit, he told Mr. Mais not to work on the project until the permit was issued. According to Mr. Cote, Mr. Mais returned to work the day after the permit was issued and, the "next day," the job failed inspection because the nail spacing was not consistent with the new code. Mr. Mais re-nailed the roof according to code, but it failed re-inspection because the flashing was not painted. This was done, and the job passed a second re-inspection. Mr. Cote looked in on the job a couple of times after this and saw that nothing was being done. He contacted Mr. Mais and asked why he was not working on the project, and Mr. Mais told him that he was waiting for Ms. Braun to give him some money so he could buy the tiles. When Ms. Braun called Mr. Cote and complained that no tile had been delivered, he went to Mr. Mais's home and insisted that he "get some tile on that roof." The next day, Mr. Mais brought a load of tiles and piled them on the roof.3 Ms. Braun paid Noel Mais the $3,000.00 down-payment specified in the contract by a check dated January 12, 1995, the day the contract was executed. Then, notwithstanding the payment schedule stated in the contract, Ms. Braun paid Mr. Mais $3,000.00 by check dated January 25, 1995. She paid Mr. Mais the remaining $1,000.00 due under the contract by checks dated March 28 and 31, 1995, and April 13, 1995. After receiving full payment, Mr. Mais abandoned the job, and, when Ms. Braun told Mr. Cote she had paid Noel Mais in full for the job, Mr. Cote refused to finish the work because he had not received any portion of the payment. In November, 1995, Ms. Braun contracted with R. J. Chambers Roofing, Inc., to complete the work on her roof for $4,500.00. The work was completed, and she paid Mr. Chambers the contract price. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Cote knew that Mr. Mais was not registered with the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and that Mr. Cote stated on the permit application that his company, JLC Enterprises, Inc., was the contractor for the Braun re-roofing job even though he was not a party to the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order finding that Jacques Cote violated section 489.129(1)(e) and (n), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $1,000.00, consisting of a $500.00 fine for each of the two violations; assessing the costs of investigating and prosecuting the violations; and requiring Mr. Cote to make restitution to Judith Braun in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent John G. Gordon, Jr. was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor by License No. RC-0032501, first issued to Respondent, qualifying as an individual in 1978 and continually renewed as such since then. On June 4, 1981, Respondent was called by Ms. Allene S. Gilbert to give her an estimate on re-roofing the two flat portions of her house roof. When he went to the house, he went up on the roof by himself to look and, when he came down, he gave her an estimate of $1,400 to re-roof the two flat sections on either side of the gabled center section. He did not then, or any time thereafter, prior to doing the work, indicate there was anything wrong with the siding which connected down from the gabled roof to the flat roof. After making his inspection and giving the estimate which Ms. Gilbert accepted, he entered into an oral contract with her which, when reduced to unsigned memo form, provided that he would tear off the old roof down to the deck and replace it with a 15-year built up roof consisting of a total of five layers. He also agreed to replace the rock and all metal around the edges of the house. He specifically stated that the work he did, both materials and his workmanship, was guaranteed for 15 years against leaks. Respondent indicates he found that the metal flashing along the side of the house where the flat roof joins the siding was rusted out and he replaced it. He contends that this rust was due to the deteriorated (rotten) condition of the lap siding above the flat roof which allowed water to get in behind the flashing. In any case, during the first rain after the completion of the work, the preexisting leaks in the bedroom which prompted the roof replacement were worse and additional leaks developed inside the house. The leakage was so severe, the bathroom ceiling caved in. Ms. Gilbert called Respondent many times to get him to come out and repair the leaks, but never was able to speak with him personally. Each time she called, she would leave a message with whomever answered the phone, requesting that he come out or call, and was assured that these messages were getting relayed to Respondent, but he never returned any call and, to the best of her knowledge, he never came to her house again. However, she works during the day and would not know if he was there or not. No neighbor told her they saw someone there, and she received no note or other indication that the Respondent had come. Respondent admits that having once responded to her earlier call and seeing that the leaking was caused by the condition of the siding for which he was not responsible and about which he had previously done nothing, he was satisfied that his work was done properly and he did not call back or ever respond to any of Ms. Gilbert's other calls. He contends that the problem was not caused by him or a part of the work he had done. Therefore, he was not responsible for it. Ms. Gilbert contends, after trying to get Respondent to honor his guarantee for six months, she gave up and had someone else to do the job. The leaks are now repaired and the siding which Respondent stated was rotten, though painted once since then, has not been replaced or repaired. Respondent having entered into the contract with Ms. Gilbert, began and completed the entire project without either (1) having an occupational license as required by Section 14-39, Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach; or, (2) securing a permit for the repair as required by Section 106.1, Standard Building Code, incorporated into the Ordinance of the City of Fort Walton Beach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $250 and that he be placed on probation for six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 9th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John G. Gordon Post Office Box 498 Destine, Florida 32541 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Charles R. Boyd, was and is a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, and holds license number CG CO12754. Mr. Boyd was also the qualifying agent for Boyd-Scarp Construction Company. On May 13, 1983, the Boyd-Scarp Construction Company contracted with Paul and Debra Ciolli for the construction of a custom designed single family residence at 2385 Northeast Fallon Boulevard, Palm Bay, Florida. The contract price was $85,000. The Respondent and Thomas Scarp were equal partners in the Boyd-Scarp Construction Company and Boyd-Scarp Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Scarp was also a licensed general contractor, but was primarily responsible for financial matters in the companies, and the Respondent was primarily responsible for supervision of construction. The Respondent designed the Ciolli home, and his draftsman prepared the plans. During the course of construction, the Respondent visited the site of construction a few times (no more than once a week), but relied primarily upon his superintendents to supervise. At that time, the Boyd-Scarp Construction Company had approximately 35 homes under construction throughout Brevard County. Respondent employed several superintendents of construction at the Ciolli home. The first, Tom Wright, was having personal problems, and the Respondent fired him. The second, Rick Shite, did not do an adequate job, and the Respondent fired him. The third, Dave Bryant, left Boyd-Scarp before the home was finished. The fourth, Bill Snyder, was primarily assigned to the punch list, as was the fifth, Dave Lightholder. Mrs. Ciolli visited the construction site daily, and on several occasions noticed defects or problems in the construction. She tried each time to contact the Respondent, who was responsible for construction, but was always referred to Mr. Scarp, who was responsible for financial matters. The framing subcontractor did an inadequate job framing the walls. Many of the walls were out of square, were not plumb and true, and had discernible waves in them after the drywall was installed. Some walls had a deflection of 1/2" in four feet. The Ciolli's hid the bowed wall in the kitchen by placing the refrigerator in a spot that otherwise would not have been used for that purpose. Ceilings were one to three inches out of square with the wall. The deflection was one inch in twelve feet in the master bedroom, and one inch in four feet in the master bathroom. In the bathroom, the deflection where the ceiling met the wall on a slant prevented the later installation of squares of mirror tile. The drywall was inadequately installed. Taping and bedding was inadequately done where the drywall met the ceilings. Joints were poorly taped, or not taped at all in some cases. Nails popped loose. Some of these defects were hidden by the Ciolli's with wallpaper. The interior walls had structural cracks at load bearing points, notably located beside the fireplace, at the sliding glass doors, over windows, and below windows. The roof trusses, as installed, were inadequate: A majority of the trusses were either not anchored to the tie beam with hurricane straps, or were inadequately anchored. This was caused by a combination of improper spacing of anchors on the tie beam and variations in the spacing of the trusses. (The trusses by plan were to have been 24 inches on center.) The trusses were not installed level and plumb. Several of the trusses did not have adequate contact for purposes of load-bearing on the tie beam, and were not shimmed. One truss had been cut and had been improperly scabbed back together with smaller stock and toe nails. At least one truss showed a space between the top chord and the perpendicular support, thus making the perpendicular support inadequate as a load bearing member. Trusses over the garage were originally constructed to span 22 feet 8 inches. One foot was cut from each end, and the trusses were installed as modified, since the plans called for trusses spanning 20 feet 8 inches. It is unclear from the evidence whether the trusses had been improperly modified on site by removal of the gang nail plates, and inadequately reassembled and renailed, or were originally delivered in a defective condition. The issue is irrelevant, however, because the trusses were inadequate as installed for the reasons described above. As a result of the inadequacies in the installation of the trusses, the ridge of the main roof sags in several places, and as much as four inches in one place. Sags in the one-half inch plywood roof sheathing also exist between truss top chords. Spaces exist between the top chords of the trusses and the plywood sheathing. These warps are caused by the inadequacies of the roof trusses, and may have also been exacerbated by warping in the sheathing before or during application. As a result of the foregoing roof inadequacies, roofing nails had worked loose, shingles were beginning to pop up in places, and the roof has serious leaks. See P. Ex. 22, photograph 6. The garage roof as completed was left with an open hole in it. The hole is six inches long and one-half inch wide. During thunderstorms, water pours through the hole into the garage, and damages the wall adjoining the garage and the house. As a result of the roof inadequacies, there is dampness in ceiling areas, the ceiling finish and paint is flaking, and there is a substantial amount of mildew on walls, ceilings interfaces with floors and walls, and in closets. Without hurricane anchors, the house is unsafe in a hurricane or other storm of high wind. The back porch slab is four inches in width and does not have steel reinforcing. The plans called for a slab to have a 12 by 8 inch turn down edge with steel reinforcing (as support for future construction). Mr. and Mrs. Ciolli were concerned about these defects, and told Mr. Boyd that they did not want to close without review by an engineer. The Ciolli's were told that if they did not close, Boyd-Scarp would sue them and sell the house to someone else. The Ciollis closed. Subsequently, the Ciollis hired Paul Holmlin, and engineer and an expert in residential construction, to inspect their new residence. As a result of that inspection, Mr. and Mrs. Ciolli sued. On August 16, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Ciolli obtained a default judgment against the Boyd-Scarp Construction Company and Boyd-Scarp Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $36,000. The Respondent has now formed a new company, Charles Boyd Homes, Inc. In the last three years, the Respondent has been actively constructing residences with his new company. He has built 60 to 70 new homes a year for the last three years in the price range of $150,000 to $500,000. The Respondent has not paid the Ciollis judgment. The Respondent corrected some of the drywall installation deficiencies, but has not corrected the wall framing deficiencies and the roof deficiencies. The Respondent was of the opinion that the defects discussed above were cosmetic. The continuous lintel block around the perimeter was structurally sound and adequate, and had no defects. The defects discussed in findings of fact 7 through 18 constitute gross negligence and incompetence in the practice of contracting, and were the direct result of the Respondent's failure to supervise properly the work as qualifying agent. The Respondent has been a general contractor in Brevard County for fourteen years and has constructed over six hundred residences in value from $50,000 to $500,000. The Respondent was awarded the designation "Builder/Developer of the Year" by the Melbourne City Council in 1978 and 1979, first prize in the Parade of Homes in 1984, 1986, and 1987, the Merit Award for Workmanship, and first price in the Suntree Parade of Homes for the last three years. He is the Director of the Brevard County Homebuilder's Association this year. The Respondent's livelihood would be detrimentally affected if the maximum disciplinary action is imposed. The Respondent received a letter of guidance from the Department of Professional Regulation for failure to display his certification number in a telephone directory advertisement. No other discipline has been levied against the Respondent.
Recommendation Since the damage to Mr. and Mrs. Ciolli has not been remedied, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter its final order suspending the license of Charles R. Boyd for a period of six (6) months, and levying a fine of $2000. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1988. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2703 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 6-11. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The allegation that the linoleum was peeling is not in the administrative complaint. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 14.C. While there is clear and convincing evidence that the trusses were not uniformly 24 inches on center, the exact count of such deviations was not shown by clear and convincing evidence. There was too much conflict of expert testimony on the point. 14.F., and 25.F. There is clear and convincing evidence only that one truss chord was sawed through. The degree of spalling of exterior stucco was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Sag of the garage roof was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The last sentence is true, but subordinate, and is adopted by reference. 14.K. and P., 15-17, 20. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. This proposed finding of fact is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. This proposed finding of fact is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. 21.E. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the stipulation of the parties entered into-on the second day of the hearing. 22-24, 25.A-E, G, 26-34. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 2. The proposed finding that the supervisors were in constant contact with the Respondent and Mr. Scarp is not supported by credible evidence. 5-7. It is true that inspections were made by inspectors from the City of Palm Bay and the Veterans Administration. It is also true that the Respondent was not cited for any violations of any building codes, and that the VA inspector stated that the problems were cosmetic. But those inspectors evidentally did not inspect the roof and walls very closely, given the degree of the defects in those structural portions. The problems were not cosmetic. Moreover, those inspectors did not testify, and thus their observations are not evidenced in the record. The lack of hurricane anchors is a life safety defect. The truss system is structurally unsound in that it has caused the roof to warp, the shingles to deteriorate, and the roof to leak. The structure of a roof is intended not to leak. If it leaks, it is structurally unsound. The Respondent made no effective effort to correct the primary defects noted above. Had he done so, the defects would have been corrected. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James L. Reinman, Esquire REINMAN, HARRELL, SILBERHORN & GRAHAM, P.A. 1825 South Riverview Drive Melbourne, Florida 32901 William O'Neill, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
