Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues presented, Respondent was a registered residential contractor under license number RR 0024559, issued to Kenneth Rowland qualifying Phoenix Construction Services, Inc., issued in April 1975. On May 12, 1977, Angela Close entered into a contract with C & C Roofing Company of Longwood, Florida, to enclose and make a room of the carport on her home located at 215 Ulysses Drive, Apopka, Florida. The contract, which detailed the work to be done, called for a contract price of $2,500 and stipulated the work was to be completed in approximately three weeks from start date. The amount of $1,150 was to be paid when the job was started, and the balance was to be paid upon completion and acceptance. This agreement was signed by Angela Close and J. D. Carver. Ms. Close had given the contract to Carver because she worked with his wife at Seminole Community College and had been advised by her that Carver was in financial difficulty and needed the work. The contract was signed at Close's house, where Carver came with his wife, bringing the contract to be signed. Carver did the preliminary measuring work, but when actual construction began, Respondent was present and accomplished the majority of the work. On May 26, 1977, 14 days after the contract was signed, Respondent pulled a building permit #99146 to accomplish the work called for in the contract, from the Orange County Building Department. Several weeks after the work was started, Respondent asked Ms. Close for some additional progress payments on the job. Since she had already paid Carver in full according to the terms of the contract with him, she refused to pay Respondent, telling him she had paid all that was called for under the terms of her contract with Carver. When she said this, Respondent appeared quite surprised to learn of the contract and angry as well. On June 30, 1977, Respondent wrote a letter to the Orange County Building Department notifying that office that he had stopped work on that project because of nonpayment and requesting his name and license number be removed from the permit. As a result, the permit was cancelled on July 7, 1977. In an interview with Bobby J. Hunter, Sr., an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) several years later, Respondent indicated he agreed to do the job in question for Ms. Close, a friend of Carver, for $3,500. He pulled the permit and commenced work without ever talking to Ms. Close or without having a contract from her to do it, relying on the word of Carver that it was proper to do so. He received several payments from Ms. Close, transmitted through Carver. Two were in cash, and one was a check. When Respondent found out that Ms. Close had a contract with Carver for $2,500 and had paid him in full, he realized he would not receive funds to satisfy the work he had put in on the job, and he ceased work. The investigative report prepared by Mr. Hunter includes summaries of the interviews with both Carver and Respondent which state that Carver and Respondent were partners. Rowland, in his testimony at the hearing, denied any partnership relation. In light of the fact that these summaries are second-hand hearsay, contradicted by sworn testimony of the Respondent that he was not a partner of Carver, I resolve that dispute in favor of the Respondent and find that he was not a partner of Carver. Respondent contends under oath, and I so find, that he pulled the permit to do the work without knowledge of the prior contract between Close and Carver, as a favor to Carver who was reportedly a friend of Close. It was his understanding that, though Carver made the arrangements, it was his, Respondent's contract with Close for the figure he had quoted to Carver after his first survey of the job site, $3,500. He had been told by Carver not to talk with Close, as she did not speak English well, and he admitted to having made a grand mistake in proceeding without a contract from the owner Close. Carver's reliability is not the best. Mr. Hunter, investigator for DPR, indicated that Carver made some false statements to him in other cases. As a result, though Carver alleges he and Respondent were partners, and even Respondent's statement to Hunter seems to so indicate, there was, in reality, no partnership requiring Respondent to qualify C & C Roofing on his license, though there was plans to do so in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth Rowland 4403 North Powers Drive Orlando, Florida 32808 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Roger L. Irven, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C027873. At all time material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor, doing business as Irven Construction Company. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-0714 On about June 25, 1978, Respondent pled guilty and was adjudged guilty of the felony offense of wanton endangerment in the Circuit Court of Oldham County, Kentucky. On July 25, 1978, the Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years probation by the Oldham County Circuit Court. The Respondent was represented by counsel. Respondent was placed on probation with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the Respondent receive treatment in the infirmary for his epileptic condition. The Court ordered that the Respondent be hospitalized for four (4) months in the prison infirmary. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board received applications from the Respondent to take the certified contractor's examination on December 16, 1982, April 1, 1983, August 17, 1983 and December 7, 1983. On each application, Respondent answered in the negative indicating that he had never been convicted of any offenses in this state, or elsewhere, other than a traffic violation. Respondent took the Certified Contractor's Examination four (4) times. Respondent passed the examination on the fourth attempt. On March 14, 1984, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-3393 On November 1, 1984, the Respondent contracted with Kathy and Larry Evans, 5746 Wingate Drive, Orlando, Florida, to remodel their home at a cost of $6,700.00. On November 5, 1984, the Evans' paid Irven Construction $3,350.00 towards the contract price. The specifications for the remodeling work were prepared by Irven Construction. Mr. Evans was told by the salesman for Irven Construction that the remodeling would commence within fifteen (15) days of signing the contract and be completed within forty-five (45) days of the commencement, which amounted to sixty (60) days for total completion after signing the contract. No work was performed on the Evans project until December 19 or 20, 1984, when the windows were put in. The air conditioning duct work and heating elements were put in and the old oil furnace was removed. Respondent informed the Evanses that no work was done before this because he was ill. On January 3, 1985 Irven Construction entered into a contract with Central Air, Heating and Cooling, Inc. to perform air conditioning and heating work on the Evans' home at a cost of $3,195. A few days after entering into the contract, Central Air & Heating completed only the rough-in of the contracted work. The rough-in consisted of the installation of the heating and air conditioning ducts and the furnace installation, but not the installation of the condensing unit. Central Air & Heating was given cheeks for $1,278 by Irven Construction for the rough-in work it had completed. The checks were deposited by Central Air & Heating in its bank account, but were returned because insufficient funds were on deposit to cover them. Central Air & Heating notified Irven Construction about the returned checks; the Respondent stated that he would submit another check, but failed to do so. Because it was not paid by Irven Construction, Central Air & Heating sent a Notice to Owner to the Evanses. The Evanses also received a Notice to Owner from Window Works, Inc. for custom windows which had been ordered by Irven Construction, but never paid for. Window Works filed a lien for $600 against the Evans t property due to it not being paid for the custom windows. Subsequently, the Evanses were sued in civil court by Window Works for the amount owed under the lien. The Evanses were required to pay Window Works the amount owed plus other costs, totaling $1,800. Window Works was not paid because Respondent gave the money to one of his salesmen to buy the windows. The salesman, Nr. Renfuller, kept the money and put the windows on credit. At the time that Respondent wrote the check to Central Air & Heating, Respondent thought that there was enough money in his account to cover it. Nothing was done on the Evans project in accordance with the contract after the rough-in by Central Air & Heating. At the time of the cessation of the work, the Evans job was 60% complete and the value of the work completed was approximately $3,400. On December 12, 1984, Respondent contracted with Irving Bernstein, 1018 Matchlock Drive, Orlando, Florida, to build an enclosed porch for a price of $2,000. The Bernsteins discussed the completion date of the contract with the Respondent and his brother, Richard Irven. Bernstein was told that the remodeling would commence three (3) days after Irven Construction obtained the permit for the work and that the work would be completed within seven (7) days after that. Bernstein paid Irven $100 at the time of signing the contract. Before signing the contract, Respondent informed Bernstein that several sub-contractors were available to start the remodeling, and, that construction could start as soon as the contract was signed. After signing the contract, no one immediately appeared from Irven Construction to perform the remodeling. Bernstein made several calls to Respondent and left several messages, seeking to obtain information as to when someone was coming to begin the remodeling work. When Bernstein spoke with the Respondent, the Respondent informed him that he had to obtain three (3) bids. On January 2, 1985, Bernstein paid Irven Construction $975.00, making his total payment $1,075. Respondent obtained the building permit for the Bernstein project on January 9, 1985. At the end of January, 1985, Respondent and his son arrived at the Bernstein residence to start the remodeling job. Respondent and his son worked approximately three (3) hours that day, putting in 2 x 4's around the sides. The following day, Respondent's brother and son worked on the project for approximately three (3) hours, removing some tiles off of the roof and the side molding from the house. When they left they stated that they would return the following Monday: however, no one came that Monday. That Monday morning, Bernstein called Irven Construction and spoke with Respondent's brother, Richard Irven. Respondent's brother informed Bernstein that Respondent had a bad back and that completion of the job would be delayed. Bernstein requested the return of his money, but no money was ever returned by Irven Construction. On February 21, 1984, Respondent wrote a letter to Bernstein indicating that he wanted off of the job since it appeared to him that Bernstein did not want him to finish. At the time of the cessation of work by Irven Construction, appoximately 50% of the work had en completed. Both Respondent and Bernstein believed that there was a breach of contract by the other. Bernstein contracted with another contractor, Mark Spires Construction Company, to perform the remodeling work. Bernstein's contract with Mark Spires involved more work than the contract with Respondent. Bernstein's contract with Respondent was for a simple porch close-in with no substantial roofing work. Spires Construction Company re-leveled the beams and reconstructed the 2 x 4's of the framework. To effectuate the two (2) walls envisioned by the contract of Respondent, the existing beams were to be utilized. The only thing that Respondent had to do was to tie into the existing house. The Respondent took off the top row of tiles on the roof so he could tie it in. The only improvements Respondent made to the existing roof was "ducking and drying-in". On January 14, 1985, Sam Ross entered into a contract with Irven Construction, to remodel his home's porch, at a cost of $1,550. Ross chose Irven Construction because Irven Construction had contracted to remodel the porch of his neighbor, Nr. Bernstein, and the cost of the Bernstein job sounded reasonable. Ross was informed by Irven Construction that they would be working on both his job and Bernstein's job at the same time. At the time of signing the contract, Ross paid Respondent $775. Ross discussed the commencement and completion of the project with Respondent's brother, Richard Irven. Ross was told that the work would commence within ten (10) days of the signing of the contract and would take about five (5) days thereafter for total completion. Irven Construction delivered some supplies to his home at the same time supplies were delivered to the Bernstein project site. Because commencement of work on the project was slow, Ross called Irven Construction numerous times concerning the work on his home. Respondent eventually assigned an individual named Nark Withlow to perform work on the Ross project. However, Ross did not want Withlow to work on the job because Ross felt that a certified carpenter was needed; Mark Withlow was qualified as a remodeler. Thereafter, Ross refused to allow anyone from Irven Construction to work on his home because of his dissatisfaction with Mark Withlow's assignment to his job and because he discovered the problems that Bernstein and Respondent were having. Ross requested the return of his money from Respondent. Respondent offered, by letter dated February 21, 1985, to refund $513. Ross did not respond to Respondent's letter because he wanted a full refund and felt that Respondent's offer was "ridiculous." Ross later contracted with Mark Spires Construction to perform the remodeling work, which was eventually completed. The materials left at the-project site were used by Mark Spires Construction. The value of the goods and materials which were delivered to and remained at the Ross project was between $50 and $80.00. Ross sued Irven Construction in civil court and obtained a judgment for the full amount he paid Respondent, plus court costs. Respondent was involved in an automobile accident on July 3, 1984. As a result of the accident, Respondent suffered severe head, shoulder and back injuries. In November of 1984, Respondent was hospitalized with a "trimmed disc"; in January, 1985, Respondent briefly returned to active participation in the business but reinjured his back while working on the Bernstein project. After the July 1984 accident Respondent provided little or no control or supervision to his business and was bed-ridden frequently from July 1984 to March, 1985. In addition, the automobile accident caused Respondent's seizures to return. Respondent has suffered from a seizure disorder, i.e. epilepsy, since 1975. Respondent was seizure free from 1979 to 1983. The type of seizure that the Respondent suffers from affects his memory and decision making and may last for several days following a seizure activity. Since the accident in July, 1984, Respondent has been taking medication for his back pain, i.e. Darvocet, and medication for his seizures, i.e. Tegretol, 200 mg. From August 29, 1984 to March, 1985, Respondent was having heavy seizure activity and frequented the Epileptic Foundation of Orlando for treatment at least once a month or every six weeks. He was advised by the Foundation to always take his medication and to be with someone. During the same period, he was treated by a Dr. Litchfield, a chiropractor, at least two to three times a week. The Respondent's ability to give effective directions or make decisions was impaired due to his physical problems from August 1984 to March 1985. In August or September, 1984, Davis Chaffee began working with Respondent as a salesman. After about ten (10) days to two (2) weeks as a salesman, Respondent allowed Chaffee to run the business due to the Respondent being bedridden most of the time and not being able to function as a result of the accident of July, 1984. Davis Chaffee had no construction background; his experience was in sales and business administration. To assist Chaffee in running the business, Respondent prepared an outline which included a basic scale for bids. James NcCall served as the superintendent for Irven Construction. Respondent felt that NcCall was competent to be superintendent as long as he was supervised by Respondent. After Respondent's accident of July, 1984, McCall handled all the construction aspects of the business including overall supervision of the project. McCall continued as the superintendent on the jobs, handled bids and proposals and dealt with the prints, materials and subcontractors for all the jobs. Despite Respondent's reservations about McCall's abilities, McCall was allowed to literally "run the business" because of Respondent's physical problems. Davis Chaffee had the authority to approve contracts and prepare bids without consulting McCall. Chaffee was fired by Respondent in December, 1984. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-4216 On September 27, 1984 Respondent contracted with Richard Loman to build an addition to Loman's residence at 783 Formosa Drive, Winter Park, Florida at a cost of approximately $20,000. Loman and Respondent discussed the commencement and completion date of the remodeling and Loman was told that the project would be completed within 45 days from approval of the plans and the signing of the contract. Loman paid Irven Construction $10,000 as a deposit, $500.00 on September 24, 1984 and $9,500 on October 2, 1984. In addition, Irven Construction received a contractor's draw of $3,333 on October 23, 1984 and $3,333 on November 5, 1984. As of November 5, 1984, the drywall, insulation, fixtures, toilet, vanity, heat and air, and the hot water heater remained to be completed. On January 16, 1985, the contract price was increased another $1,000 for additional electrical work which was requested by Loman. The work on the remodeling was progressing slowly and Loman repeatedly called Respondent to get someone out to complete the remodeling. Respondent repeatedly promised to send someone to complete the work. In February, 1985, a drywall person came out and completed the drywall. Loman received a letter dated February 1, 1985 from the Respondent. The letter indicated, among other things, that the Respondent was physically ill but had all intentions of complying with the contract and completing the remodeling and that he had a contractor who would contact Loman to arrange to complete the remodeling. Since the drywall person completed his work in February, 1985, no one has gone to the Loman's residence to complete the remodeling. No contractor has contacted Loman to arrange for the completion of the project and no money has been returned to Loman. At the time Irven Construction stopped work- on the Loman project, it was about 90% complete. Loman completed the job himself on June 1, 1985. Loman received, by certified mail, liens from Tillman's Plumbing and Jackson Drywall Service for the remodeling work done on his home under the contract with Respondent. Tillman's lien was $360 and Jackson Drywall's lien was $1,350. DOAH CASE NUMBER 85-4246 On August 29, 1985, Irven Construction entered into a contract with Stephen Dubin and his wife to remodel their family/living room at a cost of $7,200. In accordance with the modified specifications, electrical lights and an electrical fan were installed. James McCall, Respondent's superintendent completed most, if not all, of the electrical work. The project was completed and Irven Construction was paid in full. The Seminole County Building Department's records show that a building permit for the Dubin project was applied for, approved, and assigned a permit number, but never issued because it was not picked up. The Building Department's records also showed that no electrical permit was applied for. Respondent was required by the Seminole County Building Code to obtain a building permit before commencing the remodeling. After a building permit is issued, periodic inspections of the project site are required. Without a building permit, there are no inspections by the Building Department. During this period, the Respondent was having personal problems with the employee that was responsible for picking up the permit. The Respondent was unaware that the employee had failed to properly perform his duties by picking up the permit. Respondent was ill during this period and had very little input into the Dubin project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's license be suspended for a period of four (4) years, with the condition that he may be eligible to apply to the Board for reinstatement after a period of two (2) years and upon a showing satisfactory to the Board that his financial affairs are in good and sound condition and that he is physically capable of carrying on a contractor's business. Further, for the purposes of such an application for reinstatement, Respondent shall be required to appear before the Board for such questions as the Board feels appropriate and shall supply the Board with such documents as the Board feels necessary. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stuart G. Green, Esquire 712 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801-2994 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Partially adopted in Findings of' Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34.I Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 111. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 114. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the Respondent (None submitted).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Joseph W. Miklavic was licensed as a certified building contractor in the state of Florida, holding license number CB C006615, qualifying Security Home d/b/a Security Homes of Clearwater (Security). Since March, 1989 the Respondent's license has been on active status qualifying, Individual. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a salaried employee of Security. Ronald MacLaren was president of Security and also sole owner and president of Yankee Construction Inc. d/b/a Olympic Homes of Citrus County (Olympic). In accordance with a management agreement between Security and Olympic, the Respondent was assigned by Ronald MacLaren to oversee the operation of Olympic. Olympic was licensed to engage in construction having been qualified by Wilmon Ray Stevenson through license number RB A035005 which was in effect from June, 1987 until October, 1988 when Stevenson filed a change of status application with the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) requesting license number RB A035005 be changed to inactive status qualifying, Individual. While this application was not acted upon until February, 1989, the Board considered license number RB A035005 in effect as qualifying Olympic only until October, 1988. Effective September 26, 1988, the name of Yankee Construction, Inc. was changed to Rivercoast Homes, Inc. (Rivercoast) which apparently ceased doing business under the fictitious name of Olympic Homes of Citrus County. On September 19, 1988 Wilmon Ray Stevenson advised the Citrus County Building Department that he was no longer the "qualifier for Olympic Homes". Around this same time, the Respondent, Ronald MacLaren and the management of Olympic became aware that Stevenson would no longer be the qualifying agent for Olympic. There was no evidence that Rivercoast Homes, Inc. a/k/a Yankee Construction Inc. ever advised the Board of the name change or the termination of Stevenson as its only qualifying agent affiliation in accordance with Section 489.119(2)(3), Florida Statutes. Nor was there any evidence that Rivercoast was ever qualified by another qualifying agent pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes. In accordance with the agreement between Security and Olympic, referred to in Finding of Fact 4, the Respondent continued to oversee the Rivercoast operations until sometime around December 1988 when all of MacLaren's operations in Florida, including Security, closed down. Under Security's agreement with both Olympic and Rivercoast, Respondent's duties included working with management and subcontractors to develop construction schedules and to advise Ron MacLaren of the financial aspect of the company so that MacLaren could make funds available to pay subcontractors, etc. Respondent did not have any control over the finances of either Olympic or Rivercoast such as receiving, depositing or disbursing funds. Either in late September or early October of 1988, Respondent approached Larry Vitt, Citrus County Building Department, as to whether the Respondent could pull permits under his license for Olympic or Rivercoast. Vitt advised Respondent that unless he qualified the company he could not pull permits for that company under his license. Respondent advised MacLaren that Rivercoast would have to have a qualifying contractor in order to engage in contracting. MacLaren did not get Rivercoast qualified to engage in contracting at anytime. Respondent did not qualify Rivercoast under his contractor's license at anytime. Sometime around the last of September or the first part of October of 1988, Respondent became aware that Rivercoast a/k/a Yankee Construction, Inc. was no longer qualified under Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, and therefore, not authorized under law to engage in contracting. On August 16, 1988 Ernest and Marjorie Ellison met with Ken Smith and Gloria Stevenson of Olympic to discuss Olympic building the Ellisons a home. The Ellisons picked out a floor plan at this time and gave Olympic a $100.00 deposit to hold the price until a contract could be executed. On October 1, 1988 the Ellisons met again with Ken Smith and was introduced to the Respondent who gave them a brief run down on the status of the company and advised them that the company was in "good shape". At this meeting, Ken Smith advised the Ellisons of certain things that were required of them before construction began, including a survey. On October 31, 1988 the Ellisons signed a contract with Rivercoast to construct their home. In his capacity as a representative of Security, under the agreement between Security and Rivercoast, the Respondent signed this contract on the line designated Contractor/Representative. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent intended to sign the contract as contractor of record as the term contractor is defined in Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), and thereby impose upon himself the responsibility for the entire project. The contract price was $44,634.00. On November 1, 1977 the Ellisons delivered to Rivercoast a check for $4,363.40 which along with the $100.00 deposit paid in August represented a total down payment of $4,463.40. Respondent did not personally receive any funds from the Ellisons for Rivercoast or receive any funds for himself from the Ellisons under this contract. No permit was ever pulled or any work performed by Rivercoast under the aforementioned contract. Ernest Ellison met with Respondent on November 21, 1988 and requested that the contract be cancelled. Under the authority granted Respondent through the agreement between Security and Rivercoast, the Respondent and Ernest Ellison signed the contract as being cancelled on November 21, 1988. Although the Ellisons were offered an opportunity by the Respondent to transfer their deposit of $4,463.40 to Security and enter into a contract with Security to build their house, they declined and contracted with another contractor. On the date the contract was cancelled, Respondent advised Ernest Ellison that the down payment of $4,463.40 would be reimbursed. Although Respondent attempted to obtain a refund for the Ellisons from MacLaren and was advised by MacLaren that a refund was forthcoming, no refund of the Ellison's down payment was ever made by Rivercoast, Ronald MacLaren, the Respondent or anyone else. Respondent was aware during the negotiation and at the time the Ellison's contract was executed, that Rivercoast was not authorized by law to engage in contracting. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent ever advised the Ellisons that he would be the contractor responsible for building their home under the contract with Rivercoast or that he would be the contractor to pull the necessary permits for construction of their home. There is no evidence that Respondent had any financial interest or owned any stock or held any office in Rivercoast a/k/a Yankee Construction, Inc. Around October 1, 1988, after Stevenson had withdrawn as qualifying agent for Olympic, Rivercoast was no longer authorized to engage in the practice of contracting since it had not been qualified by another qualifying agent in accordance with Section 489.119, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the demeanor of the witnesses and the disciplinary guidelines set out in Chapter 21E- 17, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and for such violation it is recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $1,000.00. It is further recommended that Counts I, II, IV and V be dismissed DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 27th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-2046 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Not necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, and 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 14 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17 but modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Rulings of Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. - 2. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 8. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. - 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. - 16. Not material or relevant. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 13, 14 and 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but modified. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified to show license effective until October, 1988 rather than February, 1989. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 1, 7 and 20. - 26. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 but modified to show from June, 1987 until October, 1988. - 29. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 13. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 4. - 32. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8 and 9 but modified. Not material or relevant. - 36. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 8, and 9 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Not material or relevant. - 40. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, and 17, respectively. Rejected as there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to show any other contract than the one Respondent signed on October 31, 1988. Not material or relevant. Not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material or relevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Restatement of testimony not a Finding of Fact but see Finding of Fact 9. - 50. Not necessary to the conclusion reached since this matter was covered in the Preliminary Statement wherein the motion was denied. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Geoffrey Vining, P.A. 2212 South Florida Avenue Suite 300 Lakeland, FL 33803 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent Paul McAllister is a certified general contractor and was the qualifying individual for the firm of Garnett-McAllister Associates, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 1977 and until July, 1978. (Stipulation) On April 8, 1977, Respondent's firm entered into a contract with Ray Borchardt, Westchester, Illinois, for the construction of a four-unit apartment building at Lighthouse Point, Florida. The contract provided for a total price of $139,110.00, payable in five payments or "draws" in various percentages of the contract price at specified stages of construction. However, the contract did not specify a time for performance or completion of the building. It contained a clause stating "Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs - will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate." Respondent obtained a building permit for the construction of the building from the building official, City of Lighthouse Point, Florida, on May 8, 1977. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2) Prior to the commencement of construction, it was determined that foundation pilings for the building were required and therefore Borchardt sent Respondent the sum of $13,519.65 on June 9, 1977, as an additional sum over and above the contract price. At this time, he also sent the first draw in the amount of $20,866.00 even though such payment was not called for until completion of the foundation and "rough in" of plumbing and electric connections. On August 1, 1977, Borchardt paid the second draw of $20,866.00 although the roof was not on, nor had the beam been poured at the time as called for under the contract. Respondent was delayed approximately three weeks by failure of a supplier to provide the second floor concrete planking. On October 24, 1977, Borchardt paid the third draw in the amount of $34,777.00 although construction was not at the stage called for under the contract. On November 22, 1977, Borchardt paid $18,000.00 of the fourth draw and on January 23, 1978, paid the remaining portion of $16,777.00. At that time, the roof was not completed, tile work had not been started, woodwork was incomplete, and kitchen cabinets and vanities had not been installed pursuant to the terms of the contract. Borchardt had made a number of trips from Illinois to Florida during the construction period and was aware that his various partial payments were made in advance of completion of the several construction phases. He had dealt primarily with Edward J. Garnett, president of Garnett-McAllister Associates, Inc., as to the financial aspects of the project. Respondent primarily was a "field" man in charge of supervising construction. Also, Borchardt's son-in- law, Vincent A. Svegel, had moved to Florida in September, 1977, and acted as Borchardt's contact with Respondent's firm after that time. Both Respondent and Garnett informed Svegel in the fall of 1977 that the building would be completed by December 15. (Testimony of Borchardt, Svegel, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Although during the early part of 1978, five subcontractor liens were filed against the property for work and materials supplied on the project, three of these liens were eventually paid by Garnett-McAllister and the remaining two totaling over $7,000.00 were eventually paid by Borchardt. One of the latter liens was filed by Pompano Roofing Company, Inc. That firm refused to install the roofing tile until paid and the tile therefore "sat on the roof" for approximately five months. On March 13, 1978, Borchardt filed a complaint with Petitioner based on the fact that the work had not been performed according to the draw schedule and liens had been placed on the property. Borchardt also complained to James P. Simmons, the building official of Lighthouse Point about the project delays and claims of lien. As a result, on March 14, 1978, Simmons referred the complaint to Petitioner because Respondent was certified by the state. Petitioner's local inspector, Wallace Norman, issued a Notice of Violation of Section 468.112(2)(e), F.S., to Respondent on March 15, 1978, for diversion of funds based on the filing of liens by suppliers. In a meeting with Respondent and Garnett, Norman asked for an explanation of the situation. They told him that they had been building a house in Davies, Florida, and had used some of the money that Borchardt had paid them to pay suppliers on that house and they had expected to be able to put the money back into the Borchardt project when they sold and realized a profit on the other house. (Testimony of Borchardt, Svegel, Simmons, Norman, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 9, 10; Respondent's Exhibit 3) During the period between January and March, 1978, some progress was made toward completing the building, including the rough in of the plumbing and electrical systems, installation of inside lath work, installation of tub and shower stalls, and extension of a kitchen area. As late as April 19, 1978, Respondent accompanied Borchardt to a supplier to purchase windows for the building. (Testimony of Svegel, Respondent, Pet. Ex. 3) On May 29, 1978, Svegel, in behalf of Borchardt, notified building official Simmons that Garnett-McAllister Associates, Inc. had been terminated from any further work on the building due to the fact that the building permit had expired and would not be reissued, and requested authorization to finish the building. Simmons thereafter issued a building permit to complete the building to Borchardt on June 21, 1978. He also instructed his staff not to issue any more permits to Respondent due to his "poor track record" and liens which had been filed against the building under construction. Simmons issued the completion permit under the authority of Section 304.3 of the South Florida Building Code, Broward County Edition, which provided that a building permit expires and becomes null and void if work is abandoned at any time for a period of ninety days. Although Simmons considered that the time limit had elapsed because an inspection had not been called for by the builder for ninety days, he erroneously believed that the last inspection had been on January 4, 1978, when, in fact, the city's inspection records show that the plumbing department had made an inspection of rough plumbing on March 27, 1978. Simmons did not notify Respondent of the issuance of the second permit. He considered that he had inherent authority in his position to prohibit issuance of additional permits to Respondent, but didn't consider his action in this regard to be disciplinary in nature because the City of Lighthouse point does not issue contractor's licenses. Therefore, the matter was referred to Petitioner for any action against Respondent's state certification. (Testimony of Simmons, Svegel, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, 4, 11, Respondent's Exhibit 1) At some time prior to obtaining the permit to complete the building, Borchardt had refused to pay the final draw of $27,824.00 to Garnett-McAllister Associates, Inc. because the firm was so far behind on the job. Garnett had told Borchardt that be was selling another home for $80,000.00 and was going to put some of the money he realized from that sale into the Borchardt project. He wanted Borchardt to loan him $20,000.00 and take back a lien on a boat in order to have money in the interim to work on the building. When Borchardt declined to do so, Garnett told him that he could not complete the job. Borchardt also received a call from Respondent to the effect that he would finish the job on his own for $150.00 a week if Borchardt would pay the remaining costs. Borchardt informed him that he would pay nothing further until the job was completed. Garnett had also told Svegel that he had used some $25,000 to $30,000 of the Borchardt funds to construct the house in Davies and that he would put that money back into the firm's business account to use for the Borchardt building when the house was sold. (Testimony of Borchardt, Svegel, Respondent) At the time Borchardt took over completion of construction, the building was approximately 70-75 percent completed. Borchardt paid an additional sum of about $82,000.00 to complete the building which was some $54,000.00 more than the original contract price. However, about $12,000.00 of this sum constituted changes to the original specifications that had been agreed to by Borchardt during the course of construction. Some of these involved changes due to building code requirements, such as the addition of a ramp for the handicapped. Other changes were made on the recommendation of subcontractors or resulted from requests by Borchardt's daughter and son-in-law who were intending to occupy one of the apartments in the building. None of these changes was reflected in a written change order or supplemental agreement to the contract because Borchardt had agreed to the changes and neither party to the contract apparently considered it necessary to formalize these matters. Additional changes in the sum of some $12,000 were made to the building after Borchardt took over construction. These primarily dealt with carpeting, appliances and the like. (Testimony of Borchardt, Svegel, Simmons, Respondent, Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8) Respondent testified at the hearing and disclaimed knowledge of the financial affairs of the corporation which he claimed were handled exclusively by Garnett. He denied ever abandoning the project and stated that he was unaware, until June 7, 1978, that Borchardt was taking over the construction project to complete. He acknowledged that funds became a problem about mid- January, 1978, and that he then recognized that the contract price had been set at too low a figure because cost overruns were being experienced. He denied diversion of Borchardt's funds to the Davies house, and claimed that his firm did not purchase supplies for that project. He conceded, however, that the firm had one corporate business account from which suppliers on all jobs were paid. Respondent further testified that when funds for the Borchardt building became scarce, profits from other jobs were used in meeting construction costs on the building. He acknowledged receiving a salary of $8,420.00 during the course of construction and said that Garnett had also drawn a sum of approximately $11,000.00 for himself. (Testimony of Respondent) A review of the books of Garnett-McAllister Associates, Inc. by a certified public accountant indicated that they were not well kept and were frequently in error. The auditor's report reflected that the firm had expended at least $80,675.00 in direct construction costs on the project. Certain cost items could not be verified due to the failure of suppliers to respond to the auditor's inquiry. These accounts were reflected on the books of the firm at a total of approximately $1,000.00. (Testimony of Webb, Respondent's Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That Respondent's certification as a general contractor be suspended for a period of 90 days, but that he be permitted to complete any contracts which are uncompleted at the time suspension is effected. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32302 Alan C. Brandt, Jr., Esquire 1040 Bayview Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the several violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h)2.,(h)3.,(j),(k), and (n), Florida Statutes (1997), for the reasons stated in the respective Administrative Complaints and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a certified general contractor pursuant to license number CG C059414. At all relevant times, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc. ("FTG"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of FTG's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc., as required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. The St. Cyr Case On or about August 21, 1998, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis L. St. Cyr to construct an addition to the residence located at 201 South Bel Air Drive, Plantation, Florida. The contract price was $50,000. Although Mr. St. Cyr paid $2,500 to Respondent, Respondent failed to commence work and canceled the project, thereby abandoning it without just cause and without proper notification to Mr. St. Cyr. The contract did not permit Respondent to keep the $2,500 paid by Mr. St. Cyr, and Respondent failed to refund the payment within 30 days after abandonment. Out of the $2,500 he received from Mr. St. Cyr, however, Respondent paid $1,600.00 to the architect before abandoning the project. Thus, the net amount that Respondent owes to Mr. St. Cyr is $900. Petitioner incurred a total of $1,092.28 in investigative costs relating to the St. Cyr case. The Forney Case On May 22, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Mr. Warren Forney for the construction of a two-bedroom, one-bath addition to the residence located at 1698 Northeast 33rd Street, Oakland Park, Florida. The contract price was $32,500. The contract with Mr. Forney did not contain a written statement explaining the customer’s rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. On July 7, 1998, Respondent obtained permit number 98-050297 from the Oakland Park Building Department. Construction commenced on or about July 7, 1998, and continued sporadically until October 29, 1998, when Mr. Forney dismissed Respondent for failure to timely complete the project. The Oakland Park Building Department issued notices of violation against the project on August 3, September 11, and October 14, 1998, for various building code violations. Mr. Forney was forced to obtain a homeowner’s permit and subsequently hired a subcontractor to complete the work. Mr. Forney paid Respondent approximately $29,250 before relieving Respondent of his duties. To complete the project, Mr. Forney paid a total of $48,746.52, which was $15,396.52 over and above the original contract price. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,190.78 in investigative costs relating to the Forney case. The Kong Case In or around January 1998, a contractor named Lakeview Concepts hired Respondent to perform demolition work for the Kong dry cleaning store project on the property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. On or about June 17, 1998, permit 98-00002349 was issued to Respondent to perform alterations on commercial property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. Respondent, however, did not yet have a contract with the owner for this work. The next month, on or about July 30, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Shek Kong to complete the dry cleaning store project at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida, for the contract price of $22,300. Shek Kong made payments to Respondent totaling $16,000. Respondent’s work was of poor quality, however, and on or about November 6, 1998, he ceased work, though the project had not been completed. On or about November 14, 1998, Douglas Frankow, license number CB C052960, gave Mr. Kong an estimate of $20,562 to complete the project. Thereafter, on or about June 30, 1999, Mr. Kong contracted with George Settergren, another licensed contractor, to complete the project for a contract price of $27,956. On December 9, 1999, in Case No. 98-020065 08, the Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, rendered a Final Judgment against Respondent and in favor of Mr. Kong. This judgment awarded Mr. Kong the total amount of $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest per annum. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,502.78 in investigative costs relating to the Kong case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(h)2., (h)3., (j), (k), and (n), Florida Statutes, imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,700, assessing investigative costs in the aggregate amount of $5,785.84, placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of four years from the date the Final Order is entered by the Board, and awarding payment of restitution to each customer as follows: (1) to Warren Forney, the amount of $15,396.52; (2) to Shek Kong, satisfaction of the unpaid civil judgment in the amount $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest accrued thereon; and (3) to Louis L. St. Cyr, the amount of $900. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of February, 2002.
Findings Of Fact During the applicable time period, the Respondent was a certified building contractor in the state of Florida and held license number CB C026049. On or about January 6, 1986, the Respondent was hired by West Coast Remodeling & Construction Company. The Respondent was hired as an employee to supervise a building project based on a contract between West Coast and Clarence Harrod for the building of a quadriplex in Rotunda West, Florida. On January 17, 1986, the Respondent applied for a building permit for the Harrod project. The Respondent represented on the permit that he was the builder on the project instead of West Coast, who had the written contract with Harrod. Neither of the principals in West Coast, Gunnar Jacobsen or Gerald Hanley, held a building contractor's license and a licensed contractor was necessary to obtain the permit for the project. After the application for the permit was completed, but before the building permit was issued, the Respondent received a document from West Coast evidencing that the Harrod contract was assigned to him as an individual. At the time the Charlotte County Building Permit was actually issued, the Respondent was the assignee of the Harrod contract. Although the assignment was in effect on January 22, 1986, West Coast continued to receive the funds from Mr. Clarence Harrod, who was not notified of the assignment of the contract. The Respondent either allowed or acquiesced in the continued management of the project and the building funds by West Coast until April 15, 1986. Sometime between January 17, 1986, and January 31, 1986, the Respondent became a shareholder in West Coast. By April of 1986, the Respondent was a corporate officer and had a one-third interest in the corporation. The corporation had three shareholders: the Respondent, Gunnar Jacobsen, and Gerald Hanley. Although all three men were corporate officers, the Respondent was to supervise new construction projects, Jacobsen was to handle administrative affairs and solicit new work, and Hanley was to supervise the remodeling jobs obtained by Jacobsen. In April of 1986, the Respondent determined that there were insufficient funds in the corporate accounts to complete the Harrod project if overhead costs were not reduced immediately. This insight was acquired by the Respondent around the same time the following events occurred: A. Mr. Harrod complained in early April that the job was taking too long. The project was still in the framing stage, and Mr. Harrod was asked for $15,000 of the $25,184.44 draw which was set aside in the contract for the drywall phase of the project. B. Smaller projects that West Coast had in progress, such as three concrete jobs, were found to be unprofitable by the principals in the company. C. Jacobsen was complaining to the Respondent and Hanley, the other two corporate officers, that framing costs were too high on the Harrod project. D. The Respondent and Hanley had decided, between themselves, that Jacobsen was not earning his salary with the corporation because he was not acquiring the new remodeling jobs for the company that he was supposed to under their business arrangements. On April 15, 1986, Hanley and the Respondent locked Jacobsen out of the corporate offices and removed all the money in the corporate accounts, including the money involved in the Harrod project. On April 22, 1986, an agreement was signed by Jacobsen, Hanley, and Respondent which dissolved their business relationships. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondent resigned his position as an officer in West Coast and assigned his stock in the corporation to Jacobsen. The Respondent and Hanley were also required to make an accounting of the corporate funds removed from the corporate accounts on April 15, 1986. The agreement does not reveal whether the Harrod project was to remain with West Coast or the Respondent. However, the project did remain with West Coast, and the Respondent contacted the Charlotte County Building Department to remove his name from the building permit effective 8:00 a.m., April 23, 1986. When the business relationship between the corporate principals was dissolving in April, the Respondent had contact with Mr. Clarence Harrod. He did not tell the owner about the assignment of the contract to him on January 22, 1986, nor did he advise the owner of the cost overruns which he now asserts were a reason for his resignation from the corporation. The documents attached to the April 22, 1986, agreement reveal that the Respondent was aware of the need for two releases of lien totalling $40,185 on the Harrod project at the time he left the corporation and allowed the corporation to take back and continue with the Harrod project. The Respondent appears to have commingled corporate funds with the Harrod project funds when the funds were under his and Hanley's joint control. During the seven days the Respondent and Hanley had joint control of the $11,611.88 seized from West Coast, the Respondent was paid $2,026.30 and Hanley was paid $2,633. On April 22, 1986, $5,281.97 was returned to West Coast with a list of acknowledged outstanding bills totalling $1,711.17. During the period of time between the assignment of the Harrod project to the Respondent on January 22, 1986, and the takeover of the project by West Coast on April 22, 1986, the Respondent accepted his legal responsibilities as a licensed contractor only on the occasions where it best served his most immediate personal interests.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that 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 involving violations of the requirements of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set out in that section. At all times material to this case, Mr. Vega was a certified general contractor operating under a license issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, numbered CG C046448. Mr. Vega has been a licensed general contractor in Florida since 1989, and since 1994, he has been the licensed qualifying agent for Group Construction South Florida, Inc. The residence of David M. Hudson, located at 19801 Southwest 84th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida, was severely damaged in August, 1992, by Hurricane Andrew. In a letter dated October 13, 1992, Mr. Hudson, who holds a doctorate in biology and is the laboratory manager for the University of Miami Chemistry Department, proposed to Mr. Vega that he prepare plans for reconstructing the Hudson residence. On December 23, 1992, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Vega executed a contract for construction work to be performed on the Hudson residence. The parties contemplated that Mr. Vega would complete the work in accordance with the drawings and original blueprints prepared by Jose A. Sanchez, a structural engineer, at Mr. Vega's direction and based on preliminary plans approved by Mr. Hudson. Specifically, Mr. Hudson understood that the major elements of construction included in the December 23 contract were elevation of the house from one story to two stories, construction of a new living area on the second floor, and construction of a basement on the first floor to serve as a "bare bones storage area." The contract price specified in the December 23 contract was $146,338.33, with ten percent due upon acceptance of the proposal, ten percent due at completion of each of eight items of construction specified in the contract, and ten percent due upon completion of the project. The eight items of construction specified in the contract were "demolition work, rising work, tie beams, roof, doors & windows, plaster & tile, pool & fence, finish work and paint." On February 1, 1993, Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Information Department issued Permit Number 93119957 to Mr. Vega for the Hudson project. The building permit was based on the original plans for the project submitted by Mr. Vega on January 19, 1993, together with some items that were added to the plans at the county's request. Mr. Vega began work on the project on February 1, 1993, the day the permit was issued. Mr. Vega hired Ruben Armas to act as foreman for the project, and his duties included hiring and supervising day laborers and procuring materials needed for construction. At the time, Mr. Armas was not licensed, registered, or certified by either Dade County or the State of Florida. Mr. Vega had an arrangement with Mr. Armas whereby he paid Mr. Armas periodic advances on a lump sum payment that Mr. Armas was to receive when the Hudson project was complete. Mr. Vega did not deduct FICA or withholding tax from the payments made to Mr. Armas under this arrangement. Mr. Vega dealt directly with Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson regarding the project, although they would occasionally leave messages for him with Mr. Armas. Mr. Vega directly supervised Mr. Armas and gave him instructions on the work that was to be performed and the way it was to be done. Mr. Vega was routinely at the job site at least two or three times a day to inspect the work that had been done. Mr. Vega was present at the site during the entire time that cement was poured for footings or other structural elements. Mr. Vega arranged for various subcontractors to work on the project, including electricians, plumbers, air conditioning workers, roofers, carpenters, and drywall hangers. On April 14, 1993, a Department investigator conducted an inspection of the Hudson project during a "hurricane task force sweep." When she and the other members of the task force arrived on the job site, she observed Mr. Armas and two other men "inside working," but she did not observe them working or see the type of work they were doing. Mr. Armas walked out to meet the inspector and gave her a card that contained his name and phone numbers and the words "General construction & roof repair." Mr. Armas told the Department investigator that, when she arrived, he was "working on the footing for the elevation of the house." On April 21, 1993, Mr. Vega signed a Cease and Desist Agreement in which he acknowledged that the Department was investigating allegations that he had "engaged in the practice of aiding and abetting unlicensed contractor Ruben Armas." By signing the agreement, Mr. Vega agreed to cease "engaging in this activity," but he did not admit that the Department's allegations were true. The Department investigator was at the Hudson job site on April 14, 1993, for thirty minutes to an hour, during which time Mr. Vega did not appear at the site. This was the only time she was at the job site while work was being done. As the work progressed on the project, everything appeared to be going well, and Mr. Vega felt that he enjoyed a very good working relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Hudson. Mr. Hudson paid Mr. Vega a total of $116,400.00, or eighty percent, of the original contract price of $146,338.33, in ten percent increments as provided in the contract. By check dated December 23, 1992, Mr. Hudson paid the down payment of $14,633.38. By check dated February 5, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,600.00 upon completion of the demolition work. By check dated March 5, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of raising the structure to two stories. By check dated March 24, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of the tie beams. By check dated April 19, 1997, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of the roof. By check dated May 13, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 which should have been paid upon completion of the doors and windows but which he paid even though the installation of the doors and windows was not complete. By check dated June 23,1993, Mr. Hudson paid $12,000.00 of the $14,633.00 draw because, in his opinion, the project was not being completed on schedule. Finally, by check dated July 2, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $17,000.00 to bring the payments up to the amount consistent with the contract schedule for completion of the pool and fence. In a letter to Mr. Vega dated June 7, 1993, Mr. Hudson stated that he wanted to make "a major change" in the plans. Specifically, Mr. Hudson wanted to eliminate the swimming pool, which he estimated would save $20,000.00 of the $146,633.00 contract price, and use the money saved "to completely finish the downstairs to be a nice guest area," to "install the better quality carpet we want, complete wooden fence, air conditioning in 1st floor, plumbing ~ electric in 1st floor, [and] indoor wooden shutters for all windows." Mr. Hudson went on to state that he wanted certain enumerated appliances, which would cost $4,108.00, and new furniture, which he estimated would cost $6,000.00, for a total of $10,108.00. According to Mr. Hudson's proposal, Mr. Vega should be able to "finish off the 1st floor the way we want it, install the nice carpet and tile, and do all the other jobs previously listed (fence, plumbing, etc., for 1st floor) for about $10,000.00." The basement area which Mr. Hudson wanted to finish as a "nice" living area consisted of approximately 2,000 square feet and had originally been designed as a storage area, with concrete floor and walls. Mr. Vega and Mr. Hudson discussed the proposal and the costs of the changes, but they did not reach an agreement on the cost of the additional work. 3/ Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Vega to leave the job site and cease work on the project on or about July 3, 1993, and Mr. Vega did not perform any work on the Hudson residence after this time. Mr. Hudson terminated Mr. Vega from the project solely because of the dispute with Mr. Vega over the cost of the changes he had requested in his June 7 letter. Mr. Hudson did not complain to Mr. Vega about the quality of the work that had been completed, and, although he thought that the project was getting behind schedule, Mr. Hudson issued a check dated July 2, 1993, which brought the total payments to eighty percent of the original contract price. When Mr. Vega stopped work on the project, the structure contained deviations from the original plans. 4/ Some of the deviations were items shown in the original blueprints which had not been incorporated into the structure; some were items that were not shown in the original blueprints but were incorporated into the structure at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson; some were deviations in the size of openings to accommodate doors and in the location and size of windows; most were minor deviations in the placement of electrical switches and receptacles or other similar deviations. The construction was, however, generally consistent with the original plans. 5/ There were three items that were significant deviations from the original plans. The most serious deviation concerned the changes made in the dimensions of the structural slab that formed the floor of the second floor balcony off the family room, kitchen, and dining room and the roof of the first floor terrace. The original plans included a second floor balcony with a width of six feet. The Hudsons asked Mr. Vega to increase the width of the balcony, and Mr. Vega called Mr. Sanchez, the structural engineer who had prepared the original plans, and asked if the width of the slab could be increased. Mr. Sanchez approved an extension from the original six feet to eight feet, eight inches, and he advised Mr. Vega of the additional reinforcement that would be needed to accommodate the increased width. On the basis of Mr. Sanchez's approval, Mr. Vega incorporated the additional reinforcement specified by Mr. Sanchez and poured the slab to the requested width of eight feet, eight inches. Even though Mr. Vega consulted a structural engineer, he did not submit revised blueprints to the building department and obtain approval for the structural change before doing the alteration. He was aware that the building code required approval before such a change could be incorporated into a structure and that his actions violated the code. 6/ The second significant deviation from the original plans was Mr. Vega's failure to construct the fireplace shown in the original plans. According to the plans, a fireplace was to be constructed in the living room, on the second floor. Although the roof was completed and the drywall installed, no accommodation had been made for the fireplace in either the wall or the roof. Mr. Vega intended to construct the fireplace and would have done so had he not been told to cease work on the project. The third significant deviation from the original plans concerns the windows installed in the structure. No window permits or product approvals were contained in the permit file for the Hudson project. In addition, some of the windows were not the size specified in the original plans, some were too deep, and some were placed lower than the thirty inch sill height specified in the original plans. Many of the items identified as "deviations" were actually items not shown on the original plans but incorporated into the structure at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. Neither the requests for the additional items nor the costs of the items were reduced to writing by Mr. Hudson or Mr. Vega. At the time Mr. Hudson directed him to cease work on the project, Mr. Vega had contracts with subcontractors to provide the labor and materials specified in the original contract. He was prepared to complete the project in accordance with the original plans and for the original contract amount, with adjustments for the extras that had already been incorporated into the project at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. He was also prepared to correct all deficiencies and code violations in the structure. After he was terminated from the project, Mr. Vega continued to negotiate with Mr. Hudson's attorney to arrive at an agreement for completion of the project that would be satisfactory to Mr. Hudson. In a proposal submitted to Mr. Hudson's attorney in the fall of 1993, Mr. Vega offered to complete the project in seven weeks in accordance with the original plans, as modified to incorporate the changes and upgrades Mr. Hudson had requested in the June 7 letter and the changes and upgrades that had already been incorporated into the project at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. The total price for completion proposed by Mr. Vega was $56,750.00, which included the cost of the upgrades and extras and the $29,572.00 balance owing under the original contract. Mr. Hudson did not accept this proposal. Instead, he eventually hired a contractor named Robert Krieff, who did some work on the project. In February, 1994, Mr. Hudson took over the building permit himself and hired various subcontractors to work on the project. According to Mr. Hudson, in addition to the $116,400.00 he paid Mr. Vega, he has paid approximately $50,000.00 for work done after he terminated Mr. Vega, and he anticipates spending another $35,000.00 before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Hudson paid off a lien on his property for work done pursuant to his contract with Mr. Vega. A Claim of Lien in the amount of $4,712.00 was filed by Luis A. Roman on October 5, 1993, for drywall hung and finished at the Hudson residence under an arrangement with Mr. Vega. Summary of the evidence. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega willfully violated the building code with respect to the alteration of the width of the second floor balcony. Mr. Vega admitted that he knew he was violating the building code when he extended the width of the second floor balcony beyond the width specified in the original blueprints before submitting revised engineering plans to the county and receiving approval to make the alteration. This violation is one of procedure only, however, and there was no competent evidence presented to establish that Mr. Vega failed to include adequate reinforcement to compensate for the additional width prior to pouring the slab or that there were structural problems with the slab. 7/ The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega violated the building code because the work completed by Mr. Vega on the Hudson project contained deviations from the original approved plans. 8/ On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that this violation is a minor one. The Department's experts testified that the construction done on the Hudson residence by Mr. Vega was generally consistent with the approved plans and that it was commonplace for contractors in Dade County to deviate from the approved plans and later submit revised plans for approval. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega did not file product approvals or obtain window permits prior to windows being installed in the Hudson project. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient, however, to establish that these omissions on Mr. Vega's part constituted a violation of section 204.2 of the South Florida Building Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Although there was some testimony that the building code requires that product approvals be filed and window permits obtained before windows are installed, the applicable code and section were not identified by the Department's witnesses or otherwise made a part of the record. Thus, there is no evidence of the precise obligations imposed on Mr. Vega by the code that was applicable at the time of the Hudson project. As a result, it is not possible to determine whether Mr. Vega fulfilled his obligations under the code. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega assisted Mr. Armas in engaging in the unregistered or uncertified practice of contracting. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Armas performed any work on the Hudson project that could be performed only by a licensed contractor. 9/ Notwithstanding the opinions stated by the Department's experts, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega is guilty of incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting as a result of the work done on the Hudson project. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Hudson suffered financial loss in the amount of $4,712.00, which is the amount Mr. Hudson paid to clear the lien placed on his property by Luis A. Roman. Although this loss is attributable to Mr. Vega's failure to pay Mr. Roman for hanging and finishing drywall in the Hudson residence, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Hudson suffered financial loss as a result of the violation with which Mr. Vega was charged and of which he was proven guilty.
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 dismissing Counts I and III of its Administrative Complaint, finding that Gonzalo Vega is guilty of violating section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 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 3rd day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated at conclusion of hearing to the matters set forth in the following findings of fact. Stipulated Facts The Respondent was the subject of a previous administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner. The previous administrative complaint issued by Petitioner was number 76024. The Respondent did not seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the charges of the previous administrative complaint which consisted of the same fact allegations and statutory violation as set forth in the charges in the instant complaint. The Respondent and the Petitioner reached an accommodation in regard to the charges set forth in the previous administrative complaint. Petitioner entered a final order in that previous case pursuant to stipulation and settlement which imposed sanctions upon the Respondent. Such final order was signed on November 19, 1987, by J. R. Crockett, Chairman of the Construction Industry Licensing Board and was filed with the Board Clerk on November 24, 1987. The administrative complaint in Division of Administrative Hearings case number 87-5604 and Petitioner's case number 82716, the instant case, is included in the settlement of Petitioner's case number 76024. As a result of the previous administrative adjudication of the same cause of action as set forth in the present proceeding, further factual findings in this case are not warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that, in view of the parties's stipulation at hearing, a final order be entered 1) finding this administrative complaint, as set forth in Division of Administrative Hearings case number 87-5604 and Petitioner's case number 82716, should have been included in the previous disposition of Petitioner's case number 76024 and 2) dismissing further proceedings in this cause. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael B. Holden, Esquire Litigation Building, Suite 204 633 South Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether Respondent's registration as a general contractor should be suspended or revoked, or the respondent otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 468.112 (2)(a), (2)(g), and (2)(h), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Phillip H. Bare, Ocala, Florida, is registered with Respondent as a general contractor under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and was so registered throughout the year of 1977. He operates under the name of American General Corporation of Florida, but that firm has not been qualified to engage in the contracting business in Florida, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, Stipulation, Testimony of Cherry) On August 15, 1977, Respondent, as president of American General Corporation of Florida, entered into a Home Improvement Installment Contract and Note with Joe Wheeler and wife, who reside at Route 2, Box 63, Live Oak, Florida. The contract provided that for a price of $4,250 Respondent would make the following property improvements on the Wheeler residence: Build 12 X 20 Room Addition and finish with paneling, ceiling tile, & all trim. Build 6 X 14 porch with top. Replace all Rotten sills. Replace all Rotten siding. Paint house with latex paint. Repair floor joist. The Wheelers made a down payment of $350 leaving an unpaid balance of $3,900. The promissory note provided for a total financed cost of $6,629.28 payable in monthly payments over a period of seven years. On August 29, 1977, the parties entered into another such contract for additional work to the residence for the price of $1,600 as follows: Install ceiling tile in (2) bed rooms and bathroom complete with trim. Install paneling in (2) bed rooms complete. Install paneling and tile board in bath. Remove old shingles and install new 235lb asphalt shingles. Install 54" kitchen sink complete and hook to water. The Wheelers paid $100 as a down payment on the work and financed the remainder with a total deferred price of $2,100 payable in 48 consecutive monthly installments. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, Testimony of E. Wheeler, J. Wheeler) Respondent subcontracted the work on the Wheeler residence to one John Compton. Respondent did not secure a Suwannee County Building Permit for the work, nor was he licensed in that county to act in the capacity of a contractor. (Testimony of Respondent, Wilson) On September 12, 1977, Mr. Wheeler signed a Customer's Completion Certificate" wherein he acknowledged that the contract work had been satisfactorily completed. Although Respondent testified that he explained the contents of the document to Wheeler at the time it was executed, Wheeler denied the same and testified that he had not read its contents prior to signing it. (Testimony of Respondent, J. Wheeler, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Prior to completion of the work, the Wheelers noted that certain deficiencies in the work existed, including a floor that "shaked" in the new addition, looseness of wall paneling, failure to replace rotten siding and lower sills, and failure to install ceiling tile in one bedroom. They spoke to workmen on the job who said that they would return and finish the work. However, nothing further was done in spite of the fact that Respondent told Mrs. Wheeler in a telephone conversation that he would be back to complete the job. As a result, Mrs. Wheeler made a complaint to Derl W. Wilson, the building official for Suwannee County. (Testimony of E. Wheeler, J. Wheeler, Wilson) Pursuant to Mrs. Wheeler's complaint, Wilson inspected the premises at some time during the month of September, 1977, and observed that the accomplished work was of a substandard nature involving various violations of the Southern Standard Building Code which had been adopted by Suwannee County in 1975. These violations, which Respondent acknowledged at the hearing to have been committed, included the following: concrete foundation blocks improperly aligned and unsupported by required concrete pad; improper spacing of floor joists at 24 inch rather required 16 inch intervals; use of one-ply instead of two-ply flooring material; failure to extend vent stack for plumbing system in kitchen to a height of 6 inches above the roof line; failure to provide a shutoff valve for cold water line under kitchen sink; failure to cover and protect splices in wiring of ceiling light fixture; failure to install ridge board for support of roof rafters; improperly installing two inch by four inch wood braces in attic; failure to connect sewer line to septic tank. Additionally, Wilson observed various instances of poor workmanship in installation of an electric wall receptacle and connection of the roof of the new addition to the existing building. Further, he noted that due to the improper spacing of floor joists, the substandard plywood flooring was not firm and constituted a safety hazard. (Testimony of Wilson, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) After his inspection, Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent, dated October 18, 1977, pointing out the deficiencies in construction and advising that a complaint would be filed against him unless a building permit was obtained within ten days and the necessary corrections of deficiencies were made. Although Wilson testified that he did not hear from Respondent as a result of the letter, Respondent made several telephone calls to Wilson's office and was informed that he was on vacation. (Testimony of Wilson, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 7) On June 14, 1978, Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Suwannee County, Florida to a charge of improper construction arising out of the Wheeler contract, and the Court withheld adjudication of guilt in the matter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Respondent was previously convicted in the County Court of Putnam County, Florida, on August 13, 1974 of engaging in the business or acting in capacity of a contractor without being duly registered in the county pursuant to Section 468.105(2), Florida Statutes. On June 16, 1975, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida to a charge arising out of his activities as a home improvement contractor. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months and required that he "make necessary repairs to home of victim to satisfaction of Consumer Protection Section of State Attorney's Office, Eighth Judicial Circuit." (Petitioner's Exhibits 7-9) Petitioner has been a building contractor for twelve years. He testified that his subcontractor for the Wheeler job had been competent in the past and he relied on this fact in not closely inspecting the work under the Wheeler contracts. For this reason, he was unaware that the building code violations had occurred until after he had sold the Wheeler contracts and mortgages to a third party who was contacted by the Wheelers regarding the deficiencies. Respondent denied that he abandoned the work because he thought it had been completed until subsequent notification of the Wheeler complaint. He has since made attempts through Counsel to resolve the complaint by having the work performed by a contractor licensed in Suwannee County or by means of a monetary settlement. He further testified that he had inquired of Petitioner's office as to the necessity for obtaining a Suwannee County license prior to commencing the Wheeler contracts and was informed that his registration was valid for work in that county. He acknowledged that he made a "mistake" in not obtaining a building permit and in failing to supervise his subcontractor properly, but stated that the licensing rules in the various counties were "confusing." As to his prior difficulties in Putnam and Alachua Counties, Respondent testified that the Alachua matter involved a complaint raised four or five years after construction regarding quality of workmanship and that he had taken care of the matter. As to the Putnam County case, he testified that he was unaware that a building permit was necessary at the time he did the work for which he was subsequently prosecuted. It is found that Respondent's exculpatory testimony regarding his failure to obtain a building permit or county licensing, and lack of knowledge of code violations with respect to the work performed at the Wheeler residence is not credible. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 2-6)
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a general contractor be suspended for a period of one year and that an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 be imposed, for violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 23rd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. Valentine Bates, Esquire 726 NW 8th Avenue - Suite B Gainesville, Florida J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Mr. Borek was licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C 58817. He was licensed on November 18, 1996. At all times material hereto, Mr. Borek was the qualifying agent of Atlantic Coast General Contractors, Inc. (ACGC), a Florida corporation, and has been its president. ACGC was issued a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business on June 2, 1977, having been issued license number QB 07357. ACGC's license expired on September 1, 2001 and became null and void on September 1, 2003. The State of Florida, Department of State, administratively dissolved ACGC, as a corporation, on October 1, 2004, for its failure to file its annual report, as required by law; and, as a result, ACGC's authority to transact business, as a corporation, in the State of Florida was revoked on the same date. At all times material hereto, Tracey Meredith (Ms. T. Meredith) resided in and owned a home located at 7690 Northwest 16th Court, Pembroke Pines, Florida. Ms. T. Meredith wanted her mother, Jane Meredith1 (Ms. J. Meredith), to live with her so Ms. T. Meredith decided to have an addition built to her home, consisting of a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Ms. T. Meredith obtained a proposal from ACGC and five other contractors for the addition. Each contractor was aware of the purpose of the addition. Ms. T. Meredith decided to contract with ACGC, which was not the lowest or the highest bidder, but was somewhat in the middle. On June 28, 2002, a Proposal/Contract (Contract) was executed with ACGC for the addition at a cost of $32,925.00. Even though the Contract showed Ms. T. Meredith as the contracting party, it was signed by Ms. J. Meredith because she (Ms. J. Meredith) was actually paying for the addition and signing the checks. Both Mses. T. Meredith and J. Meredith were in agreement with the Contract. The Contract provided, among other things, that the addition was 15 x 21; and that the payments would be as follows: 20% at acceptance of the Contract, 20% at permit issuance, 10% at slab, 20% at wall and roof framing, 10% at roof completion, 10% at finished walls and flooring, and 10% at final completion. No dispute exists that the cost of the Contract was reasonable. No dispute exists that the Contract failed to contain a provision explaining the consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund, formerly known as the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. No dispute exists that the Contract did not provide a date for completion of the addition. Regarding a completion date for the addition, Ms. T. Meredith testified that all the other proposals provided that the addition would be completed within six to eight weeks and that, at the beginning, Mr. Borek orally communicated to her that the addition would be completed by ACGC within six to eight weeks. To the contrary, Mr. Borek testified that, at the beginning, no completion date was given to her, either orally or in writing. None of the other proposals were submitted into evidence, only the Contract with Mr. Borek, which did not provide a completion date. It would not be reasonable for Ms. T. Meredith to accept Mr. Borek's proposal without it’s being within the time period of completion of the other proposals. The undersigned finds Ms. T. Meredith's testimony more credible and makes a finding of fact that, at the time of the signing of the Contract, Mr. Borek made an oral representation that the addition would be completed by ACGC within six to eight weeks. An expert in the field of general contracting, John Yanoviak (Mr. Yanoviak), testified on behalf of the Department. The undersigned finds his testimony credible, except as specifically indicated. A reasonable amount of time to complete the addition was a maximum of three months. Mr. Borek, as the contractor, was responsible for keeping the project timely and for quality control. On June 30, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,585.00. This amount was 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. Paying this amount was in accordance with the Contract. Mr. Borek filed an application for a building permit with the City of Pembroke Pines (CPP) on or about July 3, 2002. The building permit was issued by CPP on or about October 25, 2002. Work on the addition was commenced before the issuance of the building permit. Ms. T. Meredith was aware of the date that the building permit was issued. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Ms. T. Meredith complained to Mr. Borek regarding the addition’s not being completed. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. T. Meredith indicated to Mr. Borek that, by his failure to complete the addition within a six-to- eight-week period, he was not abiding by the Contract. No evidence was presented to show that she indicated her dissatisfaction to the degree of possibly terminating the Contract with ACGC. On November 12, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,585.00. This amount was paid after Mr. Borek obtained the building permit and was 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. Paying this amount was in accordance with the Contract. On December 11, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,885.00. This amount was $300.00 more than 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that this check was written in advancing of the addition. According to the records of the CPP's building department2 (Records), a CPP form for a revision to the addition was submitted on January 6, 2003, providing for an electrical change to the addition. Further, the Records indicate that, on March 20, 2003, an application for an electrical permit was submitted and that, on March 24, 2003, the permit was approved. Also, a revision to the plans of the addition was submitted to the CPP by the architect to the addition, Hernando Acosta, according to the Records. The Records indicate that the revision to the plans was dated January 30, 2003 by Mr. Acosta, that the revision was submitted on February 7, 2003, and that the revision was approved on February 11, 2003 by the CPP. In addition, in February 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. Ms. T. Meredith received a copy of a letter from the CPP to Mr. Borek, dated February 18, 2003. The letter indicated, among other things, that the CPP had issued a "stop work status" on the addition due to Mr. Borek’s having issued a check, payable to the CPP, in the amount of $135.80, which was dishonored. Another revision, according to the Records, was submitted on March 27, 2003, regarding the trusses. The Records indicate that the revision was approved on April 17, 2003. Ms. T. Meredith became more dissatisfied with the progress toward completion on the addition by Mr. Borek to the point that she filed a complaint with the Department on May 21, 2003. In May 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. By letter dated May 22, 2003, she received notification from the CPP, as information only, that a code violation had not been corrected within the allowable ten-day period, together with a copy of CPP's letter to Mr. Borek, dated May 22, 2003, of his failure to correct the code violation. The letter to Mr. Borek indicated, among other things, that Mr. Borek had until June 11, 2003 to correct the violation, identifying the inspection date and the violation. By a letter dated May 28, 2003, Ms. T. Meredith advised Mr. Borek, among other things, that he had seven days to continue with the work on the addition in accordance with the Contract or else the Contract would be considered by her to be "null and void"; that, if he did not do so, she would be "forced" to hire another contractor, with Mr. Borek being held financially responsible for completion of the addition; and that the Contract was to be completed within six to eight weeks. On June 12, 2003, Mr. Borek contacted the investigator for the Department regarding the complaint filed by Ms. T. Meredith. Among other things, Mr. Borek informed the investigator that he (Mr. Borek) was willing to complete the addition in 30 days. By his representation, Mr. Borek indicated that he would complete the addition on or about July 12, 2003. By a letter dated June 18, 2003, Mr. Borek notified the investigator, among other things, that he was working "diligently" to complete the addition. Mr. Borek failed to complete the addition within the 30-day period, as he had represented to the Department's investigator. The Records indicate that an application for a building permit, involving the roof to the addition, was submitted on June 25, 2003. The permit was issued, according to the Records, on July 30, 2003. Further, the Records indicate that a revision, regarding the size of a window and the elimination of a door, was submitted on July 8, 2003, and approved on July 9, 2003. In July 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received another written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. By letter dated July 9, 2003, she received notification from the CPP, as information only, that a code violation had not been corrected within the allowable ten-day period, together with a copy of CPP's letter to Mr. Borek, dated July 9, 2003, of his failure to correct the code violation. The letter to Mr. Borek indicated, among other things, that Mr. Borek had until July 28, 2003, to correct the violation, identifying the inspection date and the violation. In addition, in July 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding another problem with the addition. She received a copy of a letter from the CPP to Mr. Borek, dated July 18, 2003, which indicated, among other things, that the CPP had issued a "stop work status" on the addition due to Mr. Borek having issued a check, payable to the CPP, in amount of $76.23, which was dishonored. Even though Mr. Borek failed to complete the addition within the 30-day period that he had represented to the Department's investigator and even though Ms. T. Meredith had received notification of the problems at the jobsite from the CPP, on September 10, 2003, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $4,000.00. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that this check was written in furtherance of the addition. ACGC had been paid a total of $24,055.00 of the Contract cost of $32,925.00, which was approximately 73 percent of the Contract cost. The balance of the Contract cost was $8,870.00. Mr. Borek testified that, at the time of the writing of the check for $4,000.00, he and Ms. T. Meredith agreed that he would have until on or about November 15, 2003 to complete the project. Ms. T. Meredith testified that no such agreement was made. At the time of the check for $4,000, ACGC was almost 60 days beyond the completion date represented to the Department's investigator. No testimony was presented as to why the $4,000.00 was paid to ACGC in light of such a considerable delay in completing the job by ACGC and in light of the complaint being filed with the Department. Due to the lack of an explanation for the payment of the $4,000.00 to ACGC in furtherance of the project, Mr. Borek's testimony presents a reasonable explanation. Therefore, Mr. Borek's testimony is found to be credible. Hence, a finding is made that, on or about September 10, 2003, Mr. Borek and Ms. T. Meredith orally agreed that ACGC would have until on or about November 15, 2003, to complete the addition. Ms. T. Meredith continued to be dissatisfied with the progress on the addition by ACGC. Sometime after September 10, 2003, an incident occurred which caused her to reach the conclusion that she could not allow ACGC to continue working on the project. One day when she left for work, one of ACGC's workers was painting the exterior walls. When she returned from work later that same day, the same worker for ACGC was painting the exterior walls. Ms. T. Meredith immediately directed the worker to leave and to take all of his equipment with him; the worker did so. Ms. T. Meredith contacted Mr. Borek and informed him that she would not allow him to continue with the project. Mr. Borek repeatedly requested Ms. T. Meredith to allow him to continue with the project, but she refused. By letter dated October 9, 2003, Ms. T. Meredith terminated the Contract with ACGC. She mailed the letter on the same date and faxed it on October 14, 2003. Her mother was in agreement with terminating the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith indicated, among other things, in her letter to ACGC that its failure to complete the addition as of the date of the letter, when the oral agreement was completion within six to eight weeks, left her no choice but to terminate the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith included in the letter, among other things, what remained to be completed on the project and a cost of $539.55 for damaged items at her home caused by ACGC, with an itemized list. At the time of the termination, the following work remained to be completed: purchase and installation of plumbing fixtures; sewer hookup; molding; tile work in the bathroom; installation of storm panels and flooring; some painting; installation of an air conditioner; some electrical connections; and installation of an electrical panel, electric wall plates, and an electric light fixture. Ms. T. Meredith obtained a homeowner's permit and hired someone, Adam Friedman, to assist her in completing the addition. On December 15, 2003, the CPP issued a certificate of occupancy to her. As to expenditures by Mses. T. and J. Meredith in order to complete the addition, the undersigned finds the testimony of Mr. Yanoviak credible. Mses. T. and J. Meredith expended $19,170.52 to complete the addition. The expenditures for completion were reasonable and necessary. Not included in the expenditures for completion are the following: $3,941.31 for items not included in the Contract--a fence, pavers, wood floor, upgraded bathroom fixtures or accessories, closet woodwork and various Home Depot items (totaling $238.21); $250.00 for mill work associated with chair rails; and $2,400.00 for an exterior concrete slab. Included in the expenditures for completion is the following: $1,360.00 for a split-system air conditioning unit which was not installed by ACGC. Further, included in the cost of expenditures is an adjustment in favor of Ms. T. Meredith in the amount of $1,000.00 for the elimination of a window on the west elevation of the addition, which was orally agreed to by Ms. T. Meredith and Mr. Borek after the signing of the Contract and which would have been subtracted from the cost of the Contract. After Ms. T. Meredith terminated the Contract, she filed a claim under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The claim was dated October 10, 2003, one day after she terminated the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith set forth in the claim that she was requesting $12,000.00, which she indicated was the amount to pay another contractor to complete the project. The undersigned places very little weight upon the amount requested because the claim is prior to completing the project and fails to reflect the actual costs involved in completing the project, which were realized only after completion. Damage to items at Ms. T. Meredith's home occurred, during the work being performed by ACGC, for which ACGC was responsible. The following items were affected: damaged a window magnet that was part of the home's security system at $80.00; destroyed, broken, or thrown away one large planter pot, one archway, and two large stepping stones--all at an estimate of $440.34; and broken tiles in the front of the house at $13.57. The damages totaled $533.91. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Borek had not made any payments to Ms. T. Meredith or Ms. J. Meredith for their expenditures to complete the addition or for the damages. At the time of the termination, in accordance with the oral agreement of completion by on or about November 15, 2003, ACGC had a little over 30 days to complete the addition. In light of the finding that an oral agreement had been reached to allow ACGC until on or about November 15, 2003, to complete the addition and in light of the only incident since that agreement, presented by the evidence, was the situation involving ACGC's painter, the undersigned finds that the painting situation was not substantial and that, therefore, the termination on October 9, 2003, prior to the new agreed- upon termination date, was unreasonable. Ms. T. Meredith testified that, sometime during the middle of the year 2003, for a period of "exactly" 60 days, ACGC failed to perform any work at the project. Mr. Borek denies her assertion. Ms. T. Meredith testified that she kept records on everything. When she testified as to an exact 60- day period in the middle of 2003 during which no work was being done at the project, Ms. T. Meredith did not point to any of her records to verify the assertion or provide certain beginning and ending dates. Taking into consideration the standard of proof and the burden of proof, the evidence failed to show clearly and convincingly that no work was done at the jobsite by ACGC for a period of 60 days in the middle of the year 2003. Nothing was done by Ms. T. Meredith, the architect, or CPP to delay the completion of the project. Mr. Borek admits that he had other jobs in progress when he was working on the addition. He further admits that when changes had to be made to the project, whether by the CPP or the architect or Ms. T. Meredith or himself, he had to re- arrange his schedule to accommodate the other jobs, which included re-deploying his workers and subcontractors, which in turn caused delays. Further, Mr. Borek admits that the turnaround time for any changes given to the architect for the plans to the addition was reasonable and that the turnaround time for the CPP to review the changes to the plans submitted by the architect was reasonable. Consequently, no unreasonable or inordinate delays were caused by the architect or the CPP when changes were made to the plans of the addition. Mr. Borek performed some work for Ms. T. Meredith at no cost that was not required by the Contract. The extra work at no cost included the following: the removal of trees; pouring of an exterior concrete slab; and plastering of drywall. The slow progress in completing the Contract was significant and material and resulted in the Contract’s not being performed in a reasonable time. The delays in completion of the addition were significant and were the fault of Mr. Borek. In addition to re-deploying workers for other jobs on which ACGC was working, ACGC failed to properly perform work, which resulted in failed inspections by the CPP, which resulted in numerous delays, and failed to timely obtain an electrical permit. As to the failure to timely obtain an electrical permit, the electrical permit was obtained almost five months subsequent to the issuance of the building permit by the CPP. The electrical permit was applied for on March 20, 2003 and approved on March 24, 2003. CPP's turnaround time in approving the permit was short and inconsequential. As to the failure to properly perform work, the Records indicate construction defects, which were under Mr. Borek's, the contractor's, control and which resulted in failed inspections. Furthermore, the Records indicate prior construction faults, identified in inspections, not being timely corrected, which was under Mr. Borek's control and which resulted in delays until the faults were corrected. Mr. Yanoviak testified that failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted misconduct. The undersigned finds his testimony credible. A finding of fact is made that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted misconduct. Additionally, Mr. Yanoviak testified that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted a material breach of the Contract. The undersigned finds his testimony credible, and a finding of fact is made that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted a material breach of the Contract. Further, Mr. Yanoviak testified that, such material breach, justified terminating the Contract. The undersigned finds his testimony credible only as to a general application and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that, generally, the failure to perform a construction contract within a reasonable time would justify terminating the construction contract but does not justify terminating the Contract under the circumstances presented in the instant case. Both Mr. Borek and Ms. T. Meredith orally agreed to a new date for completion of the addition, i.e., on or about November 15, 2003. To disregard the new date of completion would be manifestly unjust. Furthermore, at the time of the termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith, i.e., on October 9, 2003, the termination was unreasonable and not for just cause. Hence, a finding of fact is made that termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith, prior to the new completion date, was not justified. Mr. Yanoviak also testified that failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted abandonment of the project. The undersigned finds his testimony credible only as to general application and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that, generally, the failure to perform a construction contract within a reasonable time would constitute abandonment of a project. However, as found above, a new date for completion of the project was orally agreed upon and the new date had not expired at the time of the termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith. Hence, a finding of fact is made that, under the circumstances of the instant case, abandonment did not exist. The Department presented evidence of costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with attorney time. As of July 5, 2005, the costs for the investigation and prosecution totaled $880.18. As to prior disciplinary action, on September 9, 2004, the Department filed a Final Order in Department of Business and Professional Regulation vs. Bret Jayson Borek, Case No. 2003-069533, License No. CG Co58817 before the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In that case, an administrative complaint was filed against Mr. Borek for violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2001), by failing to comply in a material respect with a provision of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, through the failure to obtain a certificate of authority for ACGC; and for violating Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2001), by failing to satisfy a civil judgment, related to the practice of construction, within a reasonable time. Mr. Borek waived his rights to an informal hearing, and no material fact was disputed. Among other things, the Final Order imposed an administrative fine of $1,000.00, required restitution of $15,218.94 to a roofing and sheet metal company and required payment of $506.92 for investigative costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Finding that Bret Jayson Borek committed the violations set forth in Counts I, II, and III; Dismissing Count IV; and Imposing the following penalties: As to Count I, an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and revocation of the license of Bret Jayson Borek. As to Count II, an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As to Count III, an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and revocation of the license of Bret Jayson Borek. S DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _______________________________ ERROL H. POWELL 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 9th day of January, 2006.
