Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensing of contractors in Florida and regulating the practice of contracting of all types. Specifically, the Petitioner is responsible for enforcing law which prohibits unlicensed persons from engaging in the business of contracting, or advertising themselves or business organizations as available to engage in contracting, without proper licensure. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida, who has embarked on a business of representing owners who desire to construct residences, acting as the agent of those owners in arranging for materials, labor, subcontractors, and the financing of construction. Upon the decision by the owner to construct a residence, the Respondent engages in drafting plans, to some extent, arranging for subcontractors, overseeing the details of the work and any changes or alterations in the work and plans as the project proceeds. The owner in this arrangement does not obtain workers' compensation coverage for the Respondent, as would be the case if the Respondent was an employee of the owner, nor does the owner withhold F.I.C.A. taxes from monies due the Respondent for his services. The Respondent is not licensed as a contractor in the State of Florida. On May 11, 1995, the Respondent signed a contract (hereinafter the "Kassiris Contract") with owner Gus Kassiris, to oversee the erection and construction of a new residence for Mr. Kassiris. The Respondent was to perform the following duties, pursuant to the Kassiris Contract: to make recommendations as to which subcontractor to hire; to inspect progress and review payments; consultations and solutions on construc- tion project; to engage in manpower tracking and coor- dination of resources; monitoring of contract compliance; to provide punch list services; and to engage in the preparation and de- fense of change orders, as well as cost accounting. The "punch list services" mean that the Respondent was to engage in insuring that no work was left undone or done incorrectly at the end of the project. The Respondent admitted that he conducted all inspections on the project and reviewed all requisitions for payment from the subcontractors. The amount he charged for his services was roughly equivalent to the amount a licensed contractor would charge for similar services. The Kassiris Contract did not meet the conditions for a homeowner's exemption, found in Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Kassiris Contract did not provide that the Respondent would work under the supervision of the homeowner. In fact, the Kassiris Contract provided that if the homeowner wanted changes made in the specifications, he could request a change order. The Kassiris Contract also did not provide that the homeowner would deduct F.I.C.A. and withholding taxes from the Respondent's fees or wages, as required in the homeowner's exemption standards. There was no provision requiring that the homeowner provide workers' compensation, as required by the statute, in order to make out the elements of the homeowner's exemption (from the requirement of having a contractor's license). The conditions for exemption from licensure were also not met in the implementation of the Kassiris Contract. Specifically, the homeowner did not act as his own contractor and provide all of the material supervision himself. Although he denies it, in fact, the Respondent negotiated the contracts with the subcontractors and, during the course of performance of the Kassiris Contract, the Respondent approved plan changes for the project, without the involvement or consultation of the owner. The Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor in the implementation of the contract by overseeing most details of construction of the residence. He performed the on-site inspections, dealt with subcontractors, approved the manner in which work was being performed, approved payment of subcontractors, and, in general, closely managed all details of the contracting effort. Practically, the only involvement the owner had, other than being present on the site frequently, was that the owner actually wrote the checks to pay the subcontractors and delivered them to the Respondent, who, in turn, delivered them to the subcontractors. The owner obtained the building permit at the commencement of the project. The Respondent advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, on or about June 25, 1995, that he offered services for hire as a construction consultant and for project management. On or about June 27, 1995, he entered into a contract with Paul and Valerie Stamper (hereinafter the "Stamper Contract"). The Respondent was thus charged with overseeing the erection and construction of a residence located at Lot 15 of Laurel Oak Estates Subdivision in Citrus County, Florida. He acted in the capacity of a contractor in the negotiation and formulation of this contract. According to the Stamper Contract, the Respondent's responsibilities were to include the following: make recommendations as to which subcon- tractor to hire; conduct progress inspections and payment reviews; consult concerning construction problems and arrive at solutions; engage in manpower and tracking and coor- dination of resources; monitor contract compliance; provide "punch list" services; prepare and defend any change orders; engage in cost accounting. The terms of the Stamper Contract indicate that the residence to be constructed was to be purveyed to the owner, rather than a case of the owner being the contractor actually creating the product. In order for the above- referenced exemption to apply, the homeowner must be the party functioning as a contractor on his own behalf. It is noteworthy in this regard that the Stampers gave the Respondent a $3,000.00 deposit. The Stampers later decided that they did not wish to proceed with the contract and requested return of that deposit. The Respondent refused to return the deposit money, although acknowledging that the Stamper Contract was no longer in effect. In his letter to the Stampers, responding to their request for return of the deposit, he proposed, instead, that they continue to proceed with the contract and the construction of the residence, which the Stampers no longer wished to own and occupy, in order that they could sell it. The intention to construct a residence for sale to another party directly belies the possibility that the homeowner can be his own contractor, constructing a residence for his own use in compliance with the homeowner-exemption law. It shows an intention to engage in contracting by the Respondent. The existence of facts supporting this exemption is also belied because the Respondent, in his contract with the Stampers, did not contract to have F.I.C.A. or income taxes withheld from any paychecks due him from the Stampers, nor did the Stampers contract to provide workers' compensation coverage for the Respondent. The contract also did not provide that the owners, the Stampers, would act as their own contractors and provide all material supervision themselves. In fact, the Respondent was to provide supervision. The Petitioner is responsible for enforcing the prohibition against unlicensed contracting in order to protect the public. There are frequent problems with unlicensed contractors in Florida in terms of their competence to provide quality work and their willingness to do so, as well as outright fraud and harm to the public. The contracts which unlicensed contractors enter into are illegal and unenforceable. Homeowners who contract with unlicensed contractors are not eligible for recovery under the Construction Industry Licensing Recovery Fund. On July 2, 1995, the Respondent again advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, advertising himself as available to manage the construction of residences. Based upon this notice and other information, the Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to the Respondent, ordering him to cease and desist the unlicensed practice of contracting. The Respondent contends that he is not a contractor and that he is, instead, a project manager or consultant and, therefore, not governed by the statutory provision authorizing the Notice to Cease and Desist.
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 RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 23rd day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-4534 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. 10. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. 11-14. Accepted. 15. Rejected, as being irrelevant. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Accepted, except for the next to the last sentence, which constitutes a conclusion of law. 19-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. 22-31. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the unrefuted evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law, but to the extent it might be a proposed finding of fact, as not in accord with unrefuted evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not representative of the unrefuted evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not itself being dispositive of material issues. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not being materially dispositive. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as, in part, being a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 10-12. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Mr. Mark P. Stanish 6041 Town Court Springhill, FL 34606 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated provisions of statutes governing licensure of construction contractors and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of construction contracting pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Unless specifically stated herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 version. Respondent is not licensed to practice construction contracting in the State of Florida. Neither Respondent nor his putative company, Troche’s Construction, Inc., has an active license as a construction business in this state. On or about October 31, 2012, Respondent entered into a “proposal” with Paul R. Schettino (the “Owner”) to construct a firewall across the Owner’s place of business. The proposal called for Respondent to build “an approx. 48 ft wall, to be firerocked 5/8 drywall on both sides. Studs to be 3 5/8 metal. To be built and ready for paint.” The cost of the work was to be $2,200. (One of the Department’s exhibits indicates a price of $1,650 for the work, but the actual cost is irrelevant.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, finding Respondent, Raul Troche, guilty of engaging in the business of construction contracting without a license. It is further recommended that the final order impose a minimal fine or, in the alternative, issue a notice of noncompliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 8th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Masterson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Raul Troche 70 Belleaire Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32137 J. Yvette Pressley, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the business of contracting without being registered or certified, in violation of Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004),1 as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against unlicensed persons or business organizations, who engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being registered or certified. At all times material hereto, Respondent, personally, was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Rentaman or Rentaman Construction/Remodeling did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor qualified to do business in Florida. At all times material hereto, Timothy Lee Allen was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. Beginning sometime in 2003 until September 30, 2005, Petitioner, doing business as Rentaman, operated as a sole proprietor under an occupation license in Seminole County. In October 2004, Timothy L. Allen entered into an agreement with Respondent to purchase her trailer, tools, and the right to use her business name in Polk County. Respondent was to receive a five percent commission on any job in which she assisted Allen, including bookkeeping, preparing invoices, and drafting contracts. Allen set up a business in Polk County, using the name Rentaman Construction and Remodeling in October 2004. In early November 2004, Allen negotiated with James and Diandria Mason to do repair/remodeling work on their home in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Respondent was contacted and brought in to negotiate the contract with the Masons. On or about November 11, 2004, Respondent, doing business as Rentaman Construction/Remodeling, contracted with James and Diandria Mason to, inter alia, frame the back door and replace the subflooring in the Mason's Mulberry, Florida, mobile home for $1,650.00. The entire second page of the contract was handwritten by Respondent. The first page included a handwritten workmanship warranty, written and initialed by Respondent. The contract included the sentence: "I[the owners] have reviewed and accept the terms and conditions of Sale as presented to me by Debi Gold, an agent of Rentaman." Mason paid Respondent $1,100 cash, as a deposit for the construction project. Allen was placed in charge of the work, but failed to complete the contract with the Masons. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor in November 2004, in Polk County, without being registered or certified. The total investigative costs to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $762.43.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution to Respondent, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $762.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2007.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent based on alleged violations of section 489.127(1)(f)1, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner DBPR is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 489, part I, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of contracting, pursuant to section 455.228. At all times material, Respondent, Earnest Knight, was not licensed, nor had he ever been licensed by the state of Florida to engage in contracting. At some point in the past Respondent had taken the state exam required for licensure but had not passed it. In early June 2007, Respondent met with Izell Montgomery and Laitima Wilson-Montgomery (“the Montgomerys”) to discuss building an addition to, and remodeling, the Montgomery’s home in Tallahassee, Florida. According to the unrebutted testimony of Respondent, the Montgomerys initiated the contact.2/ There is conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor to the Montgomerys at this initial meeting or at any subsequent time.3/ However, he did give the Montgomerys one of his business cards bearing the name "Knight Construction Services," drawings of a mason and a carpenter, and his contact information. Although the record is clear that no written contract existed at the commencement of the project, the testimony again conflicts as to whether a verbal contract was joined before the work began, and more important, what role Respondent was to play in bringing the project to fruition. According to the Montgomerys, Respondent was to serve as the general contractor of the project and in that capacity be responsible for entering into subcontracts for certain aspects of the project as well as overall supervision of the project. According to Respondent, his role was to "assist" the Montgomerys in the construction of their owner-built project. In return, he was to be compensated for his time. The project was a two-story addition to an existing home that would include the enlargement of the master bedroom upstairs and the enlargement of the kitchen downstairs. The successful completion of the project would entail foundation work, structural framing, heating and air-conditioning system work, electrical system work, roofing, and plumbing. On September 14, 2007, Mrs. Montgomery and Respondent went together to the City of Tallahassee Growth Management Office and applied for, and obtained, an "owner-built" building permit. According to Mrs. Montgomery, Respondent explained that the permitting process would be quicker if she applied for the permit as an owner-builder as opposed to Respondent applying as a general contractor. An owner-builder permit allows the work to be performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by the owner to an unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent. On October 30, 2007, Respondent received a proposal from Jack Bryant for the structural framing work on the project. The quoted price for the framing work was $10,000.00. The proposal was evidently accepted by Respondent since Bryant began the framing work on the project sometime thereafter. However, following a heated disagreement4/ between Respondent and Mr. Bryant, Respondent terminated the relationship with him. On December 22, 2007, Mrs. Montgomery wrote a check for $700.00 to Respondent with the intention that it be used to pay Mr. Bryant for the work he had performed prior to his termination. In fact, Mr. Bryant was paid only $600.00 by Respondent for the framing work while the $100.00 balance was retained by Respondent. Respondent hired Derrick Smith as the replacement framer to complete the framing of the project. It was agreed between Respondent and Mrs. Montgomery that payments to Mr. Smith would be made directly by Mrs. Montgomery upon approval by Respondent. On May 14, 2008, Mrs. Montgomery wrote a check for $500.00 payable to Respondent. As noted in the “memo” line of the check, this payment was compensation to Respondent for arranging for the subcontractors on the project. Respondent hired Jesse Shabazz of Al Hajj Services to perform the necessary HVAC work on the project. Respondent paid Mr. Shabazz $700 for completion of phase I of the HVAC system. During the time Respondent was supervising the project there was no written contract between the Montgomerys and Mr. Shabazz.5/ Respondent engaged George E. Gunn Surveying and Mapping to conduct a boundary survey of the project site. That survey was completed on June 15, 2007. Respondent hired R. Carver to do the electrical work on the project. Following approval by Respondent for work completed, R. Carver was paid directly by the Montgomerys. On January 24, 2008, the Montgomerys contracted directly with the Frascona Plumbing Company for all of the plumbing work associated with the project. Following approval by Respondent for work completed, Frascona Plumbing was paid directly by the Montgomerys. The Montgomerys contracted directly for the tile work and cabinetry work associated with the project. Respondent installed the insulation for the project, and did some of the landscaping and job site cleanup. Upon the completion of each phase of the project, Respondent would inform the Montgomerys that it was time to call the city and arrange for an onsite building inspection. On June 17 or 18, 2008, Respondent abandoned the project. On June 24, 2008, Respondent delivered a hand-written statement to the Montgomerys detailing the amounts he claimed were owed to him by the Montgomerys. In addition to several line items of materials costs to be reimbursed, there was also the line item "oversee job" with a corresponding charge of $2,000.00. Respondent contends that he was not paid the $2,000.00 fee appearing on the June 24, 2008, statement he presented to the Montgomerys. Ms. Montgomery contends that Respondent was paid some or all of the $2,000.00 fee, although she was not able to produce any cancelled checks or receipt to corroborate payment. However, there is no dispute that Respondent was paid at least $500.00 for his role in hiring subcontractors and “overseeing” the project. The Montgomerys were not happy with the quality of the work done on their home. Among their complaints were a leaking roof, walls that were cracking, and holes around some of the electrical outlets. The Department incurred investigative costs of $195.49 related to Complaint No. 2008-040905.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, and imposes an administrative fine of $2,000, with $1,000 payable upon entry of the final order and the other $1,000 payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides satisfactory evidence to DBPR that he obtained a state contractor’s license within that period; Requires Respondent to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $195.49. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 7th day of February, 2011.
