Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor (RC- 0034055), building contractor (CB-C033206), and certified roofing contractor (CC-C035625). At the time of hearing, license RC-0034055 had expired and was no longer in effect. Although Petitioner introduced a "certification of licensure", executed by its custodian of records which purports to establish prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Respondent, said certification references license number CG-C024378. There is no documentation in the record to establish that Respondent has license number CG-C024378, and in any event if this is, in fact, his license, this case does not involve license number CG-C024378. The records' custodian was not present to testify or to be cross-examined, and therefore this apparent discrepancy in the certification is unexplained. Further, the only documentation introduced to support prior disciplinary action by the Board against one of Respondent's licenses, is a certified copy of an order dated August 7, 1985 (Case No. 0051210), but this case involves license RC-0034055, which expired in July 1987 and is no longer in effect. Therefore, it has not been established by evidence in this record that Respondent has previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board concerning his current valid licenses, CB- C033206 and CC-C035625. Respondent was the qualifying agent at all times material hereto, of Unique Construction, Inc., 1302 North Clearview Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On February 25, 1986, George Katsarelis entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his entire house at 6 Venetian Court, Tarpon Springs, Florida. Respondent was not present when the contract was executed, and had not met Katsarelis at the time work commenced on the job. Katsarelis specified to the salesman representing Unique Construction, Inc., that he wanted to be sure all required local permits were pulled for this job. Work on the Katsarelis roof began within only a few days of the execution of the sales contact. Crews from Unique Construction tore off approximately 80% of the Katsarelis roof before a City of Tarpon Springs building inspector stopped work on the job because no permit had been obtained. Thereafter, it took two days for Unique to put a temporary cover over Katsarelis' uncovered roof while a permit was being obtained. A permit was finally obtained on March 19, 1986, and the work was completed. Katsarelis paid Unique Construction, Inc., $7,000, the full contract amount, for reroofing of his home. Between February 25, 1986, and December 1987, Katsarelis had to repeatedly call Unique Construction since his roof leaked every time it rained. A ten foot ceiling section in his Florida room eventually caved in due to these leaks. In December 1987, Respondent came to Katsarelis' home for the first time and decided to reroof the whole house for a second time. No additional payment was required or made by Katsarelis for this second reroofing job. After a hard rain in April 1988 his roof again leaked, and within a week prior to hearing, Respondent made a third attempt to correct Katsarelis' leak problem. According to expert testimony and evidence offered at hearing by Owen Baynard, who was accepted as an expert in roofing, work performed by Unique Construction on the Katsarelis roof was incompetent and the result of a lack of proper supervision of the work crews by the qualifying agent, Respondent. The job fails to meet the standards of local building practices. There was improper and insufficient preparation of the roof surface, a lack of adequate adhesive, nailing, and mopping to meet Sections 101, 107, 109 and 113 of the Southern Standard Building Code Roof Coverings standards, applicable in this case. The only way to remedy Katsarelis' continuing leak problem is to completely redo all work done by Unique Construction on his roof, and completely reroof his house in a workmanlike manner. As qualifying agent for Unique, Respondent was responsible for beginning work on Katsarelis' roof without obtaining or assuring that someone else had obtained a local permit for the job. A permit was not posted on the site when this work began, in violation of local building code requirements. Respondent failed to obtain required local building department inspections on the job. Respondent's actions on the Katsarelis job, as qualifying agent and in actions taken personally on two occasions to correct continued leakage, were incompetent and of substandard quality. On December 17, 1986, Lawrence E. Burkett entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his home on 62nd Avenue, N.E., in St. Petersburg, Florida. Work commenced shortly after this contract was executed, and upon completion Burkett paid Unique $3,657, the contract amount. Respondent admits that leaks continued to exist in Burkett's roof for nine or ten months after Unique's crews worked on his roof. Finally, on September 16, 1986, Unique's crew replaced a section of roof and this corrected the leaking. In an attempt to correct or prevent damage from leakage, Unique's crews installed pans between Burkett's drop ceiling and the roof to catch water which was leaking into his Florida room. A permit was not posted on the Burkett job, but the record does not establish whether a local permit for this job was required to be posted. On or about February 23, 1987, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the United Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. However, no action was taken against his local certificate. This reprimand resulted from a roofing job performed by Respondent on the home of Gerald T. Minnick in late 1986. Repeated attempts by Respondent to correct leakage in the Minnick roof failed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's licenses numbered CB-C033206 and CC-C035625 for a period of six (6) months and imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; provided that after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Final Order if Respondent pays said fine in full, his license shall be immediately reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of August, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 116 East 3rd Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether respondent's license should be revoked, suspended or restricted, or whether an administrative fine should be levied against him, or whether he should be reprimanded for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact James M. McCurley is a registered roofing contractor, holding Florida License No. RC 0042226. Licensed in Florida since 1982, Mr. McCurley has been in the roofing business for 25 years all told. Although he holds a state license, he is registered to do roof projects in Broward County only, 82-3201-R-R. Thomas v. Shoop, a real estate broker, manages the Mayani Biscayne Condominiums in Miami at 5995 Biscayne Boulevard, (Mayan) and the Camelot South Apartments on 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale (Camelot), which consist of three buildings (A, B and C). Above Camelot B's roof, which "is not properly set up for drainage at all," (T. 183), loomed a leaking water tower, which has only recently been fixed. In the summer of 1983, all four buildings' roofs leaked; and the roofer who had given long-term guarantees on Camelot's roofs had gone bankrupt. An associate of Mr. Shoop knew one John Emig, who was a salesman for Mr. McCurley. Messrs. Shoop and Emig visited the roofs and discussed the problems. In order to "mak[e] sure that they got a reputable roofer. . . [Mr. Shoop] did great deal of research with a list . . . [of] people that [Mr. McCurley] had done work for and were satisfied." (T. 16). Through Mr. Emig, Mr. McCurley offered to replace the 8,000-square-foot roof on Camelot B for $25,000. Further conversations eventuated instead in an agreement, reduced to a separate writing with respect to each Camelot building, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, that called for Mr. McCurley to repair, clean and paint the root and soffits of the three Camelot buildings. The contract for Camelot A characterized the work both as restoration and as preventive maintenance. Repairs were to be effected "as needed." The contracts recited the roofing contractor's "opinion [that] the following maintenance work should put this roof and mansard in the best possible condition, and that it reasonably can be expected to have up to a five year service life." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The agreements specified installation of a total of 35 vapor pressure release vents and stated that Mr. McCurley was to: Check and reseal where needed all pitch pockets, using 10-year rubberized elastomers. . . . Remove all blistering coating from the roof decks and at all such spots install a repair patch. Repair any bulges or blisters and treat all cracks as needed using elastomeric and waterproofing membrane. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 The contracts were typed on printed forms. When Mr. Emig and Mr. Shoop signed the roofing contracts on August 24, 1983, Mr. McCurley was not present. At the time the agreements were signed, "3 was substituted for "1" in the phrase, "The above work . . . carries with it our 1 year Pree Service Guarantee should any leak occur . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Unchanged was a typewritten paragraph on each contract stating: In this particular situation our warranty shall be a one year unconditional one, which is standard procedure in the industry. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Shoop dealt primarily with Mr. Emig in negotiating the contract, Mr. Shoop and Mr. McCurley went up on a roof together at one point before the contracts were signed. On September 20, 1983, an addendum to the contracts, calling for work on the buildings other than roofing, was executed. The contract price for the roofing work was less than 40 cents per square foot. The roofs in the Camelot complex were built-up tar and gravel, coated with a cementitious fill. Ordinarily insulation lies underneath a built-up roof of this kind. The vapor pressure release vents were proposed and contracted for on the assumption that insulation underlay the tar, insulation which permitted lateral movement of water and water vapor trapped by the tar and cementitious fill. Pressure attendant on vaporization of water trapped underneath the tar and fill is the apparent cause of the cracking and blistering that led to the leaks. In installing the first vapor pressure release vent, Mr. McCurley discovered that the tar had been placed directly on the roof sheathing. He explained to Mr. Shoop that there was no good reason to go forward with installation of the other vents because the impermeability of tar and fill precluded lateral movement of moisture and, therefore, its escape in any significant quantity through the vents. Mr. Shoop insisted, however, that all the vents called for by the contract go in, and Mr. McCurley complied. The vents stood useless (T. 99) but firmly affixed to the roof as recently as five or six months before the hearing. (T. 94) Thereafter, many were dislodged by the contraction and expansion of the roof, aggravating the leakage problems. To meet the contract requirement of an "elastomeric and waterproofing membrane," Mr. McCurley employed a coating he had never used before, but one which was advertised by a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Rohm & Haas, as capable of withstanding ponding water. At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. McCurley did not know that this claim was false. In the fall of 1983, he applied this coating not only to places where cementitious fill had bulged, blistered, or cracked, but also to unblemished portions of the Camelot roofs, covering them entirely twice, before applying a final coat of high gloss white paint. Before he was paid, Mr. McCurley had done everything called for by the contract. On May 30, 1984, however, Mr. Shoop told Mr. Emig that old leaks had reappeared and that new leaks had sprung open. Mr. Shoop also telephoned and left word for Mr. McCurley to this effect on June 15, 18, and 19. On July 5, 1984, Mr. Shoop wrote Mr. McCurley a letter, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, in response to which Mr. McCurley applied another acrylic waterproofing compound and plastic cement. When he finished, "it looked from a laym[a]n's point of view that it was a good job." (T. 31). In November of 1984, the B building roof still looked good but it leaked. In response to complaints, Mr. McCurley returned several times to repair blistered areas with acrylic waterproofing and to apply plastic cement. Typically these repairs prevented leaks the next hard rain but not the one following. Camelot B needs reroofing, which involves taking out the existing roof and building up a new one with tar and gravel, the approach Mr. McCurley originally recommended.) Mr. Hilson, who has spent approximately 30 years in the roofing business, testified that the coatings that Mr. McCurley used were permeable, and inappropriate for use on horizontal surfaces on that account. Specifically, after inspecting Camelot B's roof, Mr. Hilson testified: It has continued to leak from what we was shown and told. I made a note here that it takes a zero perm rating to hold back water, and these coatings apparently have no such perm rating. These coating[s] are breathable. And because they are breathable they allow water to go through them and become trapped, underneath the cementious fill. The only type of coating that we know of that these type of coatings were normally used on vertical surfaces where water can't stand on them, showing these photographs here the water where it does pond on this coating, it deteriorates the coating. It actually eats it. The fungus attacks it. Basically that's it, except where the bottom statement that I made is that these type of coatings cannot hold back water and should not be used to try to hold back water. And anybody with any roofing knowledge should understand or know they can't hold back water. (T. 71, 72). Respondent McCurley testified that he did not know what numerical "perm rating" the material he used had been given, but that he relied on the manufacturer's representations that it would withstand ponding, when he told Mr. Shoop that he thought it would work. He did not dispute that the coating had failed. Mr. Hilson was of the opinion that not even an impermeable coating would have worked, because it would not only have prevented water's penetrating, but would also have trapped moisture already in the cementitious fill. In his view, when the trapped water vaporized, it "would have blown the system off". Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. McCurley also contracted with Mr. Shoop to work on the roof of the Mayani apartment building in Miami. For $1200.00, he undertook, among other things, to check and reseal as needed "litch [sic] pans," repair three leaks in the deck, cover "all bald spots with gravel," and install Gravel Lok over the entire gravel roof area. The leak repairs were unconditionally guaranteed for a year. After work was completed, Mr. McCurley received full payment on September 6, 1983. Before he began work, Mr. McCurley telephoned some government office in Dade County and asked whether a permit was "required to put a cement coating over a gravel built-up roof," (T. 9) and was told that none was required. After the present proceedings were instituted he called again and got the same answer. As a practical matter, persons not licensed as roofers, including "the average painter, goes out and does a waterproof of a roof." (T. 103) Repair of the three leaks probably cost Mr. McCurley $30.00. (T. 99) When he began on the Mayani roof Mr. McCurley was aware that Dade County's code is similar to Broward County's, which incorporates the South Florida Building Code, and knew specifically that Dade County required a permit for roofing repairs "after Three Hundred dollars," (T. 98) a permit he was ineligible to obtain. Dade County does indeed require permits for the "application, construction or repair of any roof covering. . .exceeding three hundred dollars (S300.00) in value of labor and materials, . . . or for work exceeding 2 roofing squares in extent," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, and the requirement applied to the job Mr. McCurley did at Mayani. (T. 66). When Mr. Shoop reported the Camelot leaks to Mr. Emig on May 30, 1984, he also reported leaks at Mayani that had appeared after heavy rains in Miami. Eventually respondent repaired the Mayani roof, but problems developed again in November of 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor and a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license numbers CC C027427 and CB C023123. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, MCI was a corporation engaged in roofing contracting, and Respondent was its qualifying agent. A re-roofing job by MCI on the shared roof of two townhouses located at 105 and 106 Woodland Road, the Village of Palm Springs, Florida (the Village), is at issue in this proceeding. These two townhouses are part of a building consisting of four townhouses. All four townhouses have a shared roof. Essentially, the work by MCI was to re-roof half of the entire roof. At the times material to this proceeding Lawrence Gauer owned the townhouse at 105 Woodland Road (Gauer townhouse) and RCM owned the townhouse at 106 Woodland Road (RCM townhouse). Both townhouses are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Village. Mr. Malt, Respondent's brother, owns RCM. Mr. Malt is a certified general contractor, developer, and real estate broker. Mr. Malt has extensive experience building townhouses, having built over 4,000 dwelling units, including the townhouses where the work at issue in this proceeding occurred. Mr. Malt also owns the company that manufactured the engineered pre-stressed concrete structural members that served as the foundation for the roof at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Malt is not a licensed roofing contractor, and his general contractor’s license does not authorize him to perform roofing work. In the fall of 1998, Mr. Malt determined that the RCM townhouse should be re-roofed. Mr. Malt contacted the owners of the other three townhouses to determine whether they wanted to re-roof their portions of the shared roof. Mr. Gauer decided to have his part of the shared roof re-roofed with Mr. Malt, but the owners of the other two townhouses declined. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent authorized Mr. Malt to act as an agent for MCI. On January 7, 1999, MCI contracted with Mr. Gauer and with RCM to perform the work at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Gauer signed the contract in his capacity as owner of his townhouse. Mr. Malt signed the contract on behalf of RCM as owner of its townhouse. Mr. Malt also signed the contract on behalf of MCI in his capacity as its agent. The total amount of the contract was $5,000, with each owner (Mr. Gauer and RCM) being responsible for payment of $2,500. The contract required each owner to pay $1,250 upon execution of the contract with the balance due within five days ". . . of completion (inspection by the Village . . .)". On or about January 7, 1999, Mr. Gauer paid $1,850 to MCI. There was no explanation as to why Mr. Gauer paid more than the contract required on that date. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract, and the contract did not contain a written statement explaining the rights of consumers under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. On January 13, 1999, Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, applied to the Village for the requisite building permits for the subject work. On January 13, 1999, the Village issued two separate permits, one for each townhouse, authorizing the re- roofing work contemplated by the subject contract. Each permit reflected that the valuation of the work was $2,500. Consistent with the applicable building code, the Village's building department issued a notice with each permit that because the roof was flat, the roof had to provide positive drainage to prevent the ponding of water or the roof had to be constructed of specific water retaining material. Mr. Malt, as agent for MCI, hired the crew that performed the roofing work at issue in this proceeding. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Malt supervised the roofing crew that worked on the two townhouses. Prior to beginning work on the roof, Mr. Malt checked weather forecasts for the area. On January 13, 1999, the roofing crew removed the existing roofing material from the roof. At the end of the workday, the crew covered the exposed roof with plastic sheeting commonly referred to as Visqueen. For a flat roof, the accepted standard in the roofing industry is to remove only as much roofing material as can be replaced with finished roofing material the same day. A plastic sheeting such as Visqueen is inadequate to protect an exposed flat roof from a heavy rainfall. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof on January 13, 1999, constituted negligence. On the night of January 13, 1999, an unexpected heavy rainfall event occurred. As a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing extensive damage. The work crew spent most of January 14, 1999, cleaning up following the rain event the previous day. As of Friday, January 15, 1999, the roof was still exposed. On that date, MCI installed a base coat of hot asphalt and insulation, which was inadequate to waterproof the flat roof. At the end of the workday, the roofing crew covered the roof with Visqueen and left for the weekend. On January 16, 1999, additional heavy rains occurred. Again, as a consequence of the rainfall and the inadequately protected roof, substantial amounts of rainfall intruded in both townhouses, causing additional damage to both townhouses. The failure to adequately protect the exposed roof constituted negligence. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance company paid his policy limits for emergency services and repairs to his townhouse. The repairs were completed on or about February 19, 1999. Mr. Gauer subrogated his rights against MCI to his insurance company. There was a civil action pending by the insurance company against MCI at the time of the final hearing based on the subrogation rights. Mr. Gauer's homeowner's insurance did not cover damages to his or Mr. Poitivent's personal property. The value of those losses was not established. During the week beginning January 18, 1999, MCI installed new roofing material on the roof. In doing so, the roofing crew covered the clothes dryer vent for each townhouse with roofing material. As a result, Mr. Gauer's clothes dryer did not vent properly, and he paid an independent contractor $250.00 to inspect and clean out the dryer vent. MCI promptly corrected the deficient work after Mr. Gauer told Mr. Malt that his dryer vent had been covered during the re-roofing. The accepted standard in the roofing industry is that roof vents are not to be covered over without some specific instruction to do so. MCI's failure to adhere to that standard constituted negligence. MCI asserted that it completed the roofing work in 1999. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Craig Johns was a building inspector for the Village. Mr. Johns inspected the subject roof on the following dates in 1999: June 15, July 15, August 12, and August 30. Following each inspection, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not pass inspection. Among other deficiencies, Mr. Johns found that the roof did not provide positive drainage, which was required for a flat roof covered in asphalt. 2/ As of the final hearing, MCI had not obtained a passing final inspection from the Village's building department. Mr. Malt established that Respondent had just cause to believe that MCI had completed all work on the project in 1999. Consequently, Respondent is not guilty of abandoning the work within the meaning of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997). As of June 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution in this case, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, totaled $794.23. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, V, and VI of the Administrative Complaint. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count I is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count II is an administrative fine in the amount of $100. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count V is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. The recommended penalty for the violation alleged in Count VI is an administrative fine in the amount of $500. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay Mr. Gauer restitution in the amount of $250. It is further recommended that the final order require Respondent to pay investigative costs in the amount of $794.23. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 5th day of November, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative fine or other disciplinary action imposed for allegedly acting as a contractor without a license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Edsel Mathews, operated a business under the name of Home Repair Roofing in Monticello, Florida. Records of Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), establish that Respondent holds no licenses from that Board and thus he is not authorized to engage in any professions regulated by the Board. Gessie Lee Choice owns a residence at 1701 South Campbell Street, Perry, Florida. In 1995, her home was partially destroyed in a fire. Based on a recommendation by her lender, who was refinancing the repair work, Choice selected Respondent to repair her home. Relevant portions of the City Code of the City of Perry (City) were not made a part of this record. However, testimony established that under the licensing scheme for the City, an individual who has a specialty contractor license from the City may perform residential carpentry work if he works under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Alternatively, the same work may be performed by the license holder if the property owner obtains a building permit and signs an affidavit that he or she will be supervising the work. The license does not, however, authorize the holder to perform air-conditioning, electrical, or plumbing work even if the owner supervises the project. In addition, roofing work involving structural changes can only be performed under the auspices of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent held a valid specialty contractor license from the City. On August 7, 1995, Choice obtained a building permit from the City and executed an affidavit stating that she would be supervising the work. Under these circumstances, Respondent was authorized to perform all work on the house except that relating to the plumbing, electrical, and air-conditioning systems. Also, he could not perform any structural work on her roof. The evidence is conflicting as to the representations Respondent made to Choice regarding his qualifications before the two parties executed a contract. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that he represented he was a "subcontractor," but was not a licensed contractor within the Board's purview. While there is a conflict as to representations regarding his ability to perform plumbing and electrical work, it is found that Respondent simply agreed to procure for Choice a licensed plumber and electrician to do that type of work. Under the agreement executed by Choice, Respondent agreed to "furnish and perform the labor necessary for the completion" of a wide array of work. The items to be completed are listed on Petitioner's exhibit 3 and include removing asbestos from the outside of her house, enlarging three bedrooms and bath, removing an existing tin roof, installing new rafters, reroofing the home, building new cabinets and installing new plumbing and wiring for the kitchen, remodeling the existing bathrooms, building a utility room, installing new windows, insulating walls and ceilings, drywalling all ceilings, installing new carpet and vinyl, and placing vinyl siding on outside of home. Respondent established that even though the contract lists a number of items outside the scope of his authority, he intended to get licensed contractors to perform all work for which he held no authority under his city license. Choice agreed with this assertion. Despite Respondent's offer to obtain other contractors to perform the electrical and plumbing work, Choice selected her own licensed contractors to do that work. She also hired another individual to remove the asbestos from her home. Respondent performed a part of the remaining work, including the installation of a new roof. This latter work involved structural changes upon the house. Respondent made two draws totaling $13,200.00 from the escrowed funds. Also, in September 1995, Choice paid Respondent $446.00 in personal funds to purchase plywood to be placed on the floor and walls of the house. There is no allegation, however, that he failed to perform an equivalent amount of work before he was told by a Board inspector to stop working on the project. A short time after Respondent terminated work, a City building inspector, David Parker, inspected the roofing work performed by Respondent. Parker found that the truss system did not meet building code requirements. Because of numerous code violations, which are enumerated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9, the entire roof system had to be removed and reinstalled. Parker also noted that Respondent's work involved structural changes not authorized under his license. In mitigation, however, it is found that Respondent believed that he was authorized to do this work under his local license. Choice was forced to hire a licensed roofing contractor to reroof her home. That contractor described Respondent's workmanship as "not good." In order to correct the deficiencies and complete the remodeling project, Choice expended another $12,000.00 over and above her original contract price of $33,490.00. Except for this incident, there is no evidence of Respondent violating Board rules and statutes relating to contracting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and that a fine in the amount of $1,000.00 be imposed, to be paid within such time as the Board deems appropriate. A decision on Petitioner's request for the assessment of costs against Respondent under Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, is deferred to the Board. Finally, Counts I and II should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 14267 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Clifford L. Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 1057 Monticello, Florida 32345 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Carlos Morejon, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified building contractor and as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license numbers CB C056745 and RR 0066530, respectively.3 In early 1993, following the landfall of Hurricane Andrew, Respondent and Sergio Casiano, a family friend, resolved to "start a company" to engage in contracting. At the time, Casiano was not certified or registered to engage in contracting, a circumstance known to Respondent; however, he apparently had years of experience in the construction trade. Conversely, Respondent, although certified and registered, was lacking in experience. According to Respondent, both he and Casiano would bid or contract jobs, and Casiano (variously described by Respondent as his field manager, superintendent, supervisor, or foreman) would actually oversee the construction, subject to Respondent's supervision "as much as my abilities" allowed.4 The Moreno job Pertinent to this case, Henry and Ester Moreno own, and have owned since approximately 1986, a single-family residence located at 8361 Southwest 47th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. As sited, the home is located in unincorporated Dade County. In early October 1993, the Morenos were driving in their neighborhood when they observed a house being re-roofed with a clay roof tile of a color and style they wanted installed on their home. The Morenos stopped and inquired of the owner regarding the contractor, and the owner advised them he would have the contractor contact them. That evening, Casiano telephoned the Morenos and arranged to meet with them at their home. At the meeting, the Morenos explained that they wanted to replace their existing shingles with clay roof tiles, and discussed price with Casiano; however, no agreement was reached. Before he left, Casiano gave them his business card. The card identified Casiano as the "manager" of a business described as follows: C.M. STATE BUILDING CONTRACTOR ROOFING CONTRACTOR CC# 19424 / CBC # 056745 Between Respondent and Casiano, "C.M." was understood to stand for Carlos Morejon. In August 1994, the Morenos finally resolved to have their home re-roofed, and they telephoned Casiano at the telephone number displayed on his business card. Casiano met with the Morenos on or about August 26, 1994, at which time they entered into a written agreement to remove and replace their existing roofing material. The agreement named Carlos Morejon as the contractor and Henry and Ester Moreno as the owners. Type of construction was noted as residential; project location was noted as 8361 S.W. 47th Street, Miami, Florida; and the owners' telephone number was noted as (305) 226-0503. Contract price was $6,200. The agreement was signed by Mr. and Mrs. Moreno, as owners, and Sergio Casiano, as project supervisor.5 Upon execution of the agreement, and consistent with its terms, the Morenos gave Casiano a check for fifty percent of the contract price ($3,100). The check, at Casiano's direction, was made payable to his order. Under the terms of the agreement, the balance of the contract price was to be paid as the work progressed. On August 30, 1994, with information provided by Casiano regarding the Moreno project, Respondent completed and signed a permit application, and submitted it to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department. The application identified the job address as 8361 S.W. 47th Street; the improvement as re-roofing, with a value of $6,000; and the owners' name and address as "Henry Moreno & Esther," 8361 S.W. 47th Street, Miami, Florida, with a telephone number of 226-0503. The application was also signed by Esther Moreno, as owner. The application was approved and the permit (number 94148351) was issued on August 31, 1994.6 Consistent with the terms of the agreement, the old roof material was removed, and the roof prepared to accept the new tile; however, cement roof tile was delivered instead of clay tile as requested by the Morenos. When advised of the error, Casiano removed the cement tiles from the job site, and on January 20, 1995, ordered clay tile from Metro Roof Tile, Inc. (Metro Roof), a local manufacturer of roof tiles. The clay tile was promptly delivered and installed. Up to that date, the Morenos had paid Casiano $5,650 of the contract price,7 with the balance of $550 due on final inspection. Casiano neglected to pay Metro Roof for the clay tile installed on the Moreno property, and on February 24, 1995, Metro Roof served the Morenos with a Notice to Owner stating that it had furnished materials for improvement of the property upon the order of Casiano. Subsequently, on April 5, 1995, Metro Roof filed a claim of lien against the property for the value of the clay tiles ($1,061.42), and served a copy of the claim of lien on the Morenos. Notwithstanding the pending claim of lien, as well as the lack of a final inspection, the Morenos met with Casiano on September 11, 1995, and inexplicably tendered to him the final payment ($550) that was due under the contract. Subsequently, the last inspection of the roof noted ten to fifteen loose tiles, and the project failed inspection. On November 22, 1995, Metro Roof, having failed to receive satisfaction of its lien, filed a civil action to foreclose its lien. The Morenos were duly served with a copy of the civil action, and on December 20, 1996, a "Final Judgment for Construction Lien Foreclosure" was rendered. The amount awarded was $1,234.42, and represented principal ($1,061.42), filing fee ($129.00), and service of process fee ($44.00). The Morenos satisfied the judgment by payment of the full amount awarded. The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, Petitioner offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $701.96, as of April 23, 1998. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). Previous disciplinary action On March 28, 1995, Petitioner issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent imposing an administrative fine of $500 for failure to provide proof, in response to a random audit, of having completed all required continuing education requirements before renewing his license. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing, as a penalty for such violation, an administrative fine in the sum of $1,500; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $701.96; ordering the payment of $1,234.32 to Henry and Esther Moreno as restitution; and requiring Respondent to furnish the Construction Industry Licensing Board with proof that the Moreno roof work has successfully passed a final inspection. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order dismiss Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be disciplined for failure to comply with provisions of Florida law?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George F. Garrard, is licensed as a registered roofing contractor holding State of Florida license number RC 0045805. On May 14, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Ronald Skinner to reroof a house located at 2226 Eudine Drive, in Jacksonville, Florida. The contract provided that Respondent would: "Tear off the entire roof to sheeting. Haul off all debris. Install 5 ply-build-up roof. New metal edging." In exchange for the work, the contract called for Respondent to receive $1100.00, $600.00 to be paid in advance for materials and $500.00 to be paid upon completion of the job. 2. Mr. Skinner paid Respondent the $600.00 advance for materials and work on the roof began the following day. While the work on the roof was in progress, Mr. Skinner conducted periodic inspections and noticed that the felt had buckled up. Mr. Skinner asked Respondent how he was going to fix the felt and Respondent said that he could fix the felt by cutting out the buckled parts and patching the felt. Mr. Skinner responded that he had a patched roof before and did not want another; he wanted a new roof. Respondent promised he would fix the problem. Prior to the work being completed, Respondent made a telephone call to Mr. Skinner and asked for payment of the remaining balance on the contract in order to purchase the materials needed to finish the job. Mr. Skinner agreed to meet John T. Garrard (Respondent's son) at the house and pay the balance. Respondent authorized Mr. Skinner to pay John T. Garrard. When Mr. Skinner arrived at the house, John T. Garrard and another person were unloading rocks from a pick-up truck and placing the rocks in a pile on the carport roof. Mr. Skinner paid John T. Garrard $500.00 and John T. Garrard wrote "Paid in Full" on the face of the contract and signed his name. A few minutes after Mr. Skinner left the house, John T. Garrard and the other person also left the house. Two or three days later, Mr. Skinner returned to the house. He noticed that no further work had been done. The rocks which had been unloaded from the pickup truck were still in a pile on top of the carport. Mr. Skinner was afraid the weight of the rocks would damage the carport so he spread the rocks on the roof. There were not enough rocks to cover the whole roof. Also, the rocks were loose because no tar had been spread on the roof to hold the rocks in place. Mr. Skinner contacted Respondent or someone in his household several times, and Respondent assured him he would finish the job. No further work was done on the roof by Respondent. Mr. Skinner last contacted Respondent by letter dated January 26, 1987, wherein he asked that Respondent finish the job since he had been paid in full. On the date of the hearing, the roofing job had not been completed. The rocks were still insufficient to cover the entire roof, no tar had been spread to hold the rocks in place, and the felt was still buckled in various places. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the reroofing job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $2,000 on Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 30th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 120 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 George F. Garrard 4622 Tabernacle Place, East Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Does the unsatisfied civil judgment in ABC v Millman et al, Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB relate to practice of Respondent’s profession, thus establishing that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes,(2009)? If he committed the violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Construction Industry Licensing Board has certified Millman as a General Contractor and a Roofing Contractor under the authority of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In 2009 and 2010, he held license numbers CGC l1522 (General) and CCC 1327057 (Roofing). Millman’s licenses are presently inactive. Millman has actively practiced the licensed professions of general contractor and roofing contractor in Florida since 1977. The Department and its predecessor agencies have never taken any disciplinary action against him. At all times material to this proceeding, Affiliated was a Construction Qualified Business in the State of Florida, certified under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, holding license number QB45287. Millman was the Primary Qualifying Agent for Affiliated under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, at all times material to this proceeding. On December 26, 2005, Millman signed a credit application with American Builders and Contractors Supply Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Supply Co. Inc. (ABC), on behalf of Affiliated. Millman listed his Certified General Contractor’s License (CGC 011522) on the credit application and personal guarantee Although Millman provided his General Contractor’s license number on the application, ABC did not require a license number. The application indicates that the account is related to “low and steep slope roofing.” The account was for the purchase of roofing materials and supplies. On December 29, 2005, Millman signed a personal guarantee of the Affiliated account with ABC. Millman’s personal guarantee made him personally liable for Affiliated’s obligation to pay ABC. ABC granted the application and opened a line of credit for Millman and Affiliated. Millman and Affiliated used the account to purchase roofing supplies on credit. They purchased and paid for over $800,000 worth of supplies from 2006 into 2009. This is separate from the goods and materials that were the subject of the lawsuit described below. Most of the materials and supplies that Affiliated purchased on the ABC account were for specific roofing projects. But some, as Millman acknowledged in his testimony, were to maintain roofing materials in the Affiliated warehouse. He used these on small jobs and to supplement materials purchased for larger, specific jobs. All the goods and materials purchased related to Millman’s practice of the roofing contracting profession. In 2007 Millman and Affiliated started having financial difficulties. Millman’s business began failing. The failure of a lender that took over a construction project it was financing resulted in the lender not paying Millman for approximately $500,000 worth of his company’s work. This contributed to Millman’s business failure. In addition to Millman’s problems paying ABC, his landlord was evicting him. Millman worked hard during these difficulties to meet his obligations to ABC. He liquidated his Individual Retirement Account and his life savings to make sure he paid for all charges for supplies used for specified customers. He did this to protect customers from the risk of liens being placed on their properties. Millman advised ABC that he was being evicted from his warehouse. He told ABC that the warehouse contained materials obtained with his line of credit that had not been paid for. Millman did not have the ability to return the materials to ABC. As eviction neared, he urged ABC to retrieve the materials before eviction. ABC did not act to retrieve the materials. The landlord evicted Millman. What happened to the materials is not known. On March 4, 2008, ABC sued Millman and Affiliated in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. ABC sought payment for goods and materials purchased on the account and delivered to Millman and Affiliated between January 31, 2007, and January 31, 2008. The court assigned the action Case Number 50 2008 CA 006245 XXXX MB. The goods and materials for which ABC sought payment were roofing goods and materials. They included roofing felt, roofing cement, shingles, plywood, lumber, roofing nails, lead sheets, insulation, roof tile cement, lead boots for pipes, roofing paint, asphalt, and galvanized roof edging. Much, although not all, of the material was delivered to roof tops. Many invoices for the material describe the roof for which the material is intended by height and pitch. The goods and materials related to Millman’s profession of roofing contractor. On June 17, 2008, barely three months after ABC filed suit, Millman entered into a Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default with ABC. Millman agreed in the Stipulation for Payment with Judgment upon Default, that both he as an individual and Affiliated are indebted to ABC in the amount of $45,617.02. This amount included interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The stipulation included a schedule of eight payments starting with a payment of $2,500.00 on May 30, 2008, and ending with a payment of $22,720.02 on December 30, 2008. Millman made payments from January 1, 2007, forward, even during and after the collection litigation. Millman made over $16,000.00 of those payments. But he did not make all of them. As Millman made payments, he took care to designate payments for supplies allocated to a specific customer and job. He did this to protect his customers from liens and to make sure that documents he signed attesting that supplies for specific jobs had been paid for were honest and correct. On August 3, 2009, the court rendered a Final Judgment After Stipulation in ABC’s collection action. The court adjudged that ABC recover $29,617.02 together with interest at the rate of 11 percent per annum accruing from May 31, 2008, from Affiliated and Millman, jointly and severally. The judgment is for debt incurred relating to Millman’s practice of his licensed profession of roofing contracting. It is not related to Millman’s licensed profession of general contracting. ABC continued to actively pursue collecting the judgment. It garnished Millman’s bank account with Bank Atlantic and obtained $662.61. Millman and Affiliated have not fully satisfied the judgment within a reasonable period of time. The Department incurred $216.00 in costs for the investigation and this action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Harris M. Millman, violated Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties: Payment of an administrative fine of $500.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. Payment of costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $216.00 within 180 days of entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. Since January, 1982, he has been the qualifying agent for Tropical Clima-Coat Inc. (Tropical). On September 21, 1983, Tropical entered into a written contract with Bertha Guerry and her husband Joseph, in which it agreed, for $2,449.10, to perform the following roofing work on the Guerrys' residence, which was located at 2185 S.W. 38th Street in Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Remove loose gravel and dirt from existing roof surface/flat deck. Apply Tropical Clima-Coat's resin- based cement to fill holes and cracks in the roof surface. Apply acrylic primer to provide maximum adhesion for acrylic waterproofing. Apply acrylic waterproofing, creating a uniform, bonded, elastomeric, watertight surface. Apply White Acrylic Roof Finish as a durable, mildew-resistant wear barrier. The contract further provided that the Guerrys were to receive a "5 year, 100% warranty against leaks." The work specified in the contract was completed on October 31, 1983, and the Guerrys thereupon paid Tropical in full. Tropical, in turn, gave the Guerrys a written warranty signed by its Vice-President, which provided, in part, as follows: If within 5 years after Tropical Clima- Coat applies its Roof System to your roof, a leak develops because of the failure of our roofing system,* we will repair it free. * Damage excluded from warranty: Tropical Clima-Coat shall not be liable for any leaks or damage caused by riots or vandalism, termites or other insects, penetration of the roof or waterproofing system by nails; nor shall Tropical Clima-Coat be liable for leaks or damage caused by acts of God, including but not limited to: lightening, gale, hurricane, tornado, hailstorm, flood, earthquake, or unusual phenomena of the elements; nor from damage to roof due to settlement, distortion, dry rot, failure or cracking of the roof deck, walls, partitions, or foundation of the structure; nor defects or failure of materials used as a roof base, over which our waterproofing system is applied; nor by biological growth, traffic upon the roof or any similar cause. The warranty also contained the following provision prescribing the time and manner in which claims under the warranty had to be made: The owner of the roof will notify Tropical Clima-Coat immediately by certified mail, at its main office (3746 N.W. 16th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311) of any leaks alleged to result from causes not excluded from coverage by this warranty. Such notification must be mailed within 30 days of discovery of the need for repairs, and all correspondence must include the above Certificate Number. In June, 1986, Mrs. Guerry noticed that there was a leak in her roof above the living room. She telephoned Tropical and requested that it repair the leak in accordance with the warranty she and her husband had been given. Tropical responded promptly to Mrs. Guerry's request. It sent one of its workers to the Guerry residence and he patched the leak. Arrangements were made for the worker to return to the Guerry residence and pressure clean the roof. Pursuant to these arrangements, the worker came back to the residence and pressure cleaned the roof as he had promised. It took him two hours to complete the task. Following the pressure cleaning of the roof, Mrs. Guerry discovered that there were now leaks in the roof above the kitchen. Having made this discovery, she again telephoned Tropical and requested that it repair these newly-discovered leaks. As it had done in response to her previous telephonic request, Tropical dispatched a worker to the Guerry residence, albeit not as promptly as on the prior occasion. The worker applied black ceramic granules to the surface of the roof in an attempt to alleviate the problem. The Guerrys now had a black roof instead of the white roof for which they had contracted. Mrs. Guerry again telephoned Tropical and complained about the new color of her roof. Tropical responded by having a worker go to the Guerry residence and spray paint the roof white. The paint, however, did not adhere well to the granular material on the roof. Furthermore, Mrs. Guerry observed new leaks in the roof. On September 8, 1986, she telephoned Tropical to advise it of these recent developments. Respondent visited the Guerry residence the next day. He told Mrs. Guerry that Tropical intended to remove the granules and recoat the roof with an asphalt material imbedded with a polyester fabric for greater strength to prevent against leaks. He further assured her that, upon completion of the repair work, the roof would be white. On September 15, 1986, a crew of Tropical workers were on the Guerrys' roof with approximately 80 to 100 gallons of asphalt when a sudden, unexpected heavy rainstorm interrupted their work. The rainwater mixed with the asphalt and created "black goo," some of which fell from the roof onto the sides of the house, the porch, the driveway, the sidewalks, the grass, the bushes, and the trees. Tropical had its workers endeavor to clean up the mess that the rainstorm had created. They used mineral spirits in an attempt to remove the hardened remains of the "black goo" from the porch, the driveway and the sidewalks and swept the residue onto the grass, bushes and trees. In so doing, they contaminated the soil and killed the vegetation. Respondent was responsible for the decision to use mineral spirits in the cleanup effort. He did not realize, as he should have, that the use of this substance would result in environmental damage. The cleanup progressed slowly. Frustrated by the lack of substantial progress, Mrs. Guerry telephoned Respondent and demanded that he go to her home and do something about the situation. Respondent did not believe that his presence at the home would help matters any and he told Mrs. Guerry so. Nonetheless, on September 17, 1986, he paid his final visit to the Guerry residence. During his visit, Respondent met with Mrs. Guerry for approximately an hour and a half. Mrs. Guerry expressed to Respondent her outrage concerning the situation. Respondent recognized that Mrs. Guerry had a right to be annoyed and that Tropical needed to take action to remedy her plight. He wrote down on a piece of paper the following things that Tropical would do for the Guerrys: FIX ROOF LOOSEN SOIL W/RAKE 4. REMOVE "STICKINESS" FROM DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK 3. REMOVE BLACK FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE (STAINS WILL REMAIN) REMOVE "STICKINESS" FROM CHATTAHOOCHEE REMOVE STICKINESS FROM DECORATIVE WALL (STAINS WILL REMAIN) REMOVE STICKINESS FROM SIDEWALKING STONES REMOVE BLACK FROM CHAT @ BACK DOOR SOD- TO BE DETERMINED LATER Respondent indicated he would sign this document and he asked Mrs. Guerry to do the same to acknowledge their understanding and agreement as to the remedial action Tropical was to take. Mrs. Guerry refused. Nonetheless, the cleanup effort continued. Mrs. Guerry, however, did not permit Tropical to continue its repair work on the roof. Concerned about the damage that had been done to the vegetation on her property, Mrs. Guerry contacted a horticultural consultant, Robert G. Haelhle. Haelhle surveyed the property on September 18, 1986. Following his survey he wrote a letter to the Guerrys advising them of the following: On September 18, 1986, I visited the Guerry property at Mrs. Guerry's request. The landscape plantings are in real trouble due to a mineral spirits spill. Mineral spirits and water were used to clean up roofing tar that washed off the roof after a heavy rainstorm. The kerosene [sic] and water mixture washed over the lawn, around the base of a West Indian Cherry tree (very rare), an arborvitae, and a 165 foot Ixora hedge on the east and west sides of the house. The Ixora hedge is over 7 feet tall and 30 years old and would not be replaceable. The mineral spirits/water mix will poison the soil and eventually could affect the water table. All affected soil will have to be removed from the area before any new planting can be accomplished. The West Indian Cherry was starting to yellow and the grass was dying at the time of my visit. Time is of the essence to preserve the remaining plantings. The kerosene [sic]/water mix poisons the root system of the plants and does not allow for normal water penetration. I am not optimistic about the remaining plantings. I contacted Jane McCarthy of the Environmental Quality Board, tel: 765- 5881. She was to send an inspector to assess the soil damage at the site. Neither Tropical nor Respondent replaced the "plantings" that had been damaged or destroyed as a result of the cleanup effort. On September 22, 1989, Mrs. Guerry telephoned Respondent. She reiterated that she did not want any work done on the roof until she had an independent expert inspect it and provide her with guidance. That same day, Edward T. Weiner, a licensed architect hired by the Guerrys, inspected their roof. Based on his observations of the condition of the roof, it was Weiner's opinion that the repair work done by Tropical was unacceptable and that a new roof needed to be installed. He so advised the Guerrys by letter dated September 29, 1986. The Guerrys also hired an attorney, Craig W. Lekach, to furnish them legal advice and representation concerning their dealings with Tropical. On September 23, 1986, Lekach telephoned Respondent and instructed him to "get busy" with the repair work that needed to be done. The following day, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Guerry and told her that he was anxious to complete the repair work on her roof. Mrs. Guerry took the opportunity to again express her displeasure with the work Tropical had done. She also indicated that she had yet to hear from Weiner regarding his assessment of the condition of the roof. That same day, September 24, 1986, Respondent received word that a Broward County Environmental Compliance Officer had inspected the Guerrys' property and determined that mineral spirits used in the cleanup effort had contaminated soil on the property. Respondent was further informed that the excavation of the contaminated soil would remedy the situation. Having received permission from the Guerrys' attorney to proceed with the repair work, Respondent sent a crew to the Guerry residence on September 25, 1986, to vent the roof. Mrs. Guerry, however, did not allow the workers to install the vents. Another telephone conversation between Mrs. Guerry and Respondent ensued. Respondent reiterated that it was his desire to finish the work that needed to be done on the roof. Mrs. Guerry, in turn, indicated that she would not let Tropical continue its work on the roof until she had Weiner's report in hand and had the opportunity to further discuss the matter with her attorney, her son and others with whom she had consulted. The conversation ended with Respondent telling Mrs. Guerry that he would be waiting to hear from her. On September 26, 1989, Respondent wrote a letter to Attorney Lekach in which he complained that Mrs. Guerry was interfering with Tropical's efforts to make her whole. The letter read, in part, as follows: We do carry casualty insurance and I feel it may be best to supply you with the name and address of our agent and allow him to coordinate with Mrs. Guerry's homeowners agent. Truly, this situation is considered an "act of God" and I do not believe that we can adequately communicate with the customer as she is in such an excited state we now find her implacable. We would be glad to install the proper roof vents and do the final painting of her roof if she will permit us. If she will not, then we must close the file and direct her to our insurance company. This is really unfortunate! Sound roofing practices were utilized; we were careful to watch the weather and, although we had a sudden cloudburst, we did stay around to try to clean up. We have not been negligent and we have spent considerable time and money to resolve the situation. Please advise at your earliest convenience. Respondent next heard from Lekach on October 9, 1986. Later that same day, pursuant to Lekach's request, Respondent met with Lekach and discussed "the problems at the Guerry residence." The following day, Lekach sent Respondent a letter memorializing the highlights of their discussion. The letter provided, in part, as follows: You will be permitted access to the Guerry property for the following purposes: Inspection of the roof, cleaning of the yard which will include replacement of sod as necessary, replacement of topsoil as necessary, and removal of tar. The performance of the above shall neither be construed as an admission of liability on your part, nor an acceptance of this work as being satisfactory or complete. I agree, however, that it is imperative that steps be taken immediately to mitigate the damage. Further we will both be doing the following: obtain information about repair methods and costs for chattahoochee surface. obtain information about repair methods for the "staining" problem on walls and patio so that the area can be painted. review proposals for correction or replacement of roof, if necessary. There is going to have to be a certain amount of good faith between you and Mrs. Guerry if this situation is to be resolved without litigation. Accordingly, we are now permitting you access to the property in the hope that you will also attend to the other matters set forth above. Mrs. Guerry has been hesitant to accept a partial resolution of this problem without your commitment to complete all of the repairs and this is the reason that the cleanup was delayed in some respects. Hopefully, we will be able to work towards resolving all aspects of the damage. On October 11, 1986, Respondent dispatched a crew to the Guerry property to perform the excavation work that was necessary to remove the soil that had been contaminated by the mineral spirits used in the cleanup effort. On this occasion, the workers were given access to the property for this purpose and they removed and replaced the contaminated soil. On October 13, 1986, Tropical sent a crew to the Guerry property to inspect their roof. Mrs. Guerry would not permit the Tropical workers to enter the premises. She indicated that she would not allow the workers on her property to inspect or repair the roof until she had heard from all those with whom she had consulted regarding the matter. Having been denied access to the property by Mrs. Guerry, the workers left without performing their inspection. At no time thereafter did the Guerrys directly contact Tropical and request that the workers return to the residence to finish the repair of the roof. In the absence of any such direct communication from the Guerrys, Tropical did not attempt to do any further repair work on the roof after October 13, 1986. On October 6, 1986, the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board had issued a notice of violation citing Tropical with discharg[ing] a substance (mineral spirits) to ground." A hearing on the charge was held before the Board on November 7, 1986. Respondent appeared on behalf of Tropical at the hearing. He admitted that Tropical was guilty of discharging a pollutant, to wit: mineral spirits, into the soil, although he explained that the violation was a product of ignorance on his part regarding the qualities of mineral spirits. Based on this admission of guilt, the Board imposed a $500.00 fine, which was subsequently paid by Respondent. In late 1986, the Guerrys filed with the Department of Professional Regulation a complaint against Respondent. An investigation of the complaint was conducted, following which an initial determination was made that there was "presently no probable cause to find that [Respondent] violated the contractor disciplinary statutes." Respondent was notified of this determination by letter dated May 14, 1987. This determination of no probable cause was subsequently reversed. On January 11, 1989, an administrative complaint was filed by the Department charging Respondent with wrongdoing in connection with the work performed on the Guerry home. The Guerrys no longer own the home. The property was purchased by Broward County in furtherance of the County's airport expansion project. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In early 1987, Respondent was fined $500.00 for failing to obtain a permit as required by local law. In March, 1988, he was fined $1,500.00 for failing to call for all required inspections. In August, 1988, he was fined $500.00 for proceeding without a required permit, failing to obtain all required inspections, failing to reasonably honor a guarantee, and displaying gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of gross negligence and incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with his supervision of the cleanup of the Guerry residence; (2) suspending Respondent's license for six months and imposing a fine of $1500 for said violation; and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent that are set forth in the instant Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of November, 1989.
