Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Count II of the administrative complaint and that his licenses be suspended for a two year period; Count I should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer 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 30th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent entered into a contract with Anthony Cocco and his wife in August of 1977, to construct a single-family residence. By June of 1978, work on the project had virtually ceased, although Respondent caused some landscaping work to be done after that date. In October, 1978, Respondent gave notice to Cocco of a default on the contract. This led to civil litigation on the contract between the parties which was unresolved at the time of the subject hearing. Respondent was licensed as a residential contractor in 1970. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The Respondent was also licensed at the time of the hearing. See Petitioner's Exhibit #2. No evidence was received that the Respondent was licensed at any time between the date he entered into the contract with Cocco and the date that Respondent gave notice of default. Regarding the Respondent's licensure between August of 1977, and October, 1978, the only evidence received was the Petitioner's Exhibit #2, which states in pertinent part: ... Said licensee was licensed September 1970 and has been current for all years licensed.
Recommendation Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Respondent's Motion for Directed Verdict is granted, and it is recommended that this cause be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer 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 19th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jane E. Heerema, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 George E. Tragos, Esquire 487 Mandalay Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 23 and 27 of the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor licensure examination administered in July 1996, and, if so, whether the additional credit would give him a passing grade. Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Questions 11, 23, and 35 of the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor licensure examination administered in April 1997 and, if so, whether the additional credit would give him a passing grade.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Contract Administration section of the General Contractor’s licensure examination in July 1996 and in April 1997. Between the two exams, Petitioner passed all sections of the examination except the Contract Administration section. Petitioner’s score on the Contract Administration section of the July 1996 examination, as graded by Respondent’s Bureau of Testing, was 65. His score on the Contract Administration section of the April 1997 examination was 67.5. For both examinations, there were 40 questions on the Contract Administration section. A candidate had to achieve a score of 70 to pass that section of the examination. Because each question was equally weighted, a candidate would have to correctly answer 28 questions to earn the passing score. All questions challenged by Petitioner were multiple- choice questions where the candidate was instructed to give the best answer from four possible choices. Prior to the examinations, the candidates were given a list of approved reference materials. The candidates were permitted to refer to those reference materials while taking the examinations. Respondent’s score of 65 on the July 1996 examination was based on the Bureau of Testing’s determination that Petitioner correctly answered 26 of the 40 questions. To earn a passing grade on the Contract Administration section of the July 1996 examination, Petitioner would have to receive credit for correctly answering two additional questions. His score of 67.5 on the April 1997 was based on the determination that he correctly answered 27 of the 40 questions. To earn a passing grade on the Contract Administration section of the April 1997 examination, Petitioner would have to receive credit for correctly answering one additional question. QUESTION 23 OF THE JULY 1996 EXAM The correct answer for Question 23 of the July examination is choice “D.” Of the four possible responses, choice “D” is the best answer to the question. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “A.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the best answer. The answer selected by Petitioner would not be the most accurate and cost-effective because the methodology he selected would not detect errors made by the first person performing the computations. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 23 of the July 1996 exam. QUESTION 27 OF THE JULY 1996 EXAM The correct answer for Question 27 of the July examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “B.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 27 of the July 1996 exam. QUESTION 11 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The correct answer for Question 11 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “D.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 11 of the April 1997 exam. QUESTION 23 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The best answer for Question 23 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “A.” While there is some support in the reference material for Petitioner's answer, the greater weight of the evidence established that his choice was not the best answer. Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the best answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 23 of the April 1997 exam. QUESTION 35 OF THE APRIL 1997 EXAM The correct answer for Question 11 of the April 1997 examination is choice “C.” This correct answer is supported by reference materials made available to all candidates. Petitioner’s answer to this question was choice “D.” Petitioner did not receive credit for his response to this question because he did not select the correct answer to the question. The challenged question is a question that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The challenged question is not beyond the scope of knowledge that a candidate for licensure should have. The challenged question is not ambiguous. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Question 11 of the April 1997 exam.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order that dismisses the challenges brought by Petitioner to Questions 23 and 27 on the July 1996 exam and to Questions 11, 23, and 35 of the April 1997 exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1997, 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 (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 December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Kenneth Marshall 624 Southwest 11th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 John Preston Seiler, Esquire 2900 East Oakland Park Boulevard, No. 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the factual stipulations of the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent Melvin A. Grosz is a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 006311. He has been licensed since the 1960s. COUNT I In November of 1950, respondent entered into a contract with W. J. Murphy to install windows and do other renovation work on Mr. Murphy's residence located at 3312 N. San Miguel, Tampa, Florida. Respondent received from the Murphys an advancement in the amount of $1,250 for the work to be performed. While respondent did do some cleaning work, he failed to do any further work or supply any labor in performance of the contract. In February of 1951, respondent executed a "Stipulation of Settlement and Promissory Note" with the Murphys, agreeing that he failed to perform any work or supply any labor, acknowledging that he owed the Murphys $1,250 and agreeing to pay the Murphys $250 per month for five consecutive months beginning on March 10, 1951. As of the date of the hearing in this matter, respondent had made no payments to the Murphys. COUNT II On or about October 9, 1980, respondent entered into a contract with Vera Reid for the sum of $3,245 to do certain remodeling on her residence at 203 North Tampania Street, Tampa, Florida. After having completed about 40 percent of the construction work and after having received $3,100 of the contract amount, respondent abandoned the Reid construction project during December of 1950. COUNT III On or about December 19, 1980, respondent entered into a contract with James F. and Mary L. Stewart to construct a residence in Lutz, Florida, on a sliding total price basis not to exceed $25,000. Respondent was to be the general building contractor and as to coordinate and supervise all subcontractors and perform other duties. Pursuant to his contract with the Stewarts, respondent did obtain the first subcontractor and did some preliminary work. Respondent received $1,300 from the Stewarts, but performed only minimal work, valued at approximately $300, prior to abandoning the Stewart project. Respondent's promises to repay the Stewarts were never fulfilled. COUNT IV In June of 1981, a direct information was filed against the respondent charging that, on March 21, 1981, he unlawfully obtained or used windows belonging to another, the value of said windows being in excess of $100. On March 2, 1952, respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of grand theft in the second degree. The Circuit Court of Hillsborough County entered an Order on March 2, 1952, withholding adjudication of guilt, and placing respondent on probation for a period of two years. As a condition of probation, respondent was to make restitution in the amount of $423.92, with probation to terminate automatically upon the payment of such restitution. The respondent did subsequently make the required restitution payment. COUNT V On or about September 1, 1951, the City of Tampa revoked respondent's Certificate of Competency due to his violation of Tampa Code, Chapter 45, Article III, Division 4, Section 45-75(c). This action was based upon his abandonment of the Reid project discussed in Findings of Fact (4) and (5) of this Recommended Order. MITIGATION Respondent admits the factual allegations and charges set forth above. He states that during the times involved in these charges, he was experiencing numerous family and financial problems, was taking antidepressant medication and was unable to function properly, and his daughter was involved in a serious accident. He no longer takes medication and feels that he is now capable of working. Respondent desires to pay the Murphys, Stewarts and Ms. Reid the monies he owes them and feels that he would be able to do so within 90 to 120 days if given the opportunity to work as a registered residential contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 459.129(1)(b),(h),(i) and Florida Statutes (1979), that an administrative fine in the amount of $500 be imposed against him and that respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. If, at the end of six (6) months respondent has not made restitution to the Murphys, the Stewarts and Ms. Reid, respondent's certificate of registration as a contractor should be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer 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 12th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Mr. James Linnan 547 North Monroe Street (Suite 204) Executive Director Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Construction Industry Licensing Board Melvin A. Grosz Post Office Box 2 2511 Marlin Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Tampa, Florida 33611 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a registered building contractor and as a registered general contractor. On or about August 4, 1982, Hoffman, representing B & B Constructors, Inc., contracted with Vernon Swanger to build an addition to the Swanger residence at 4412 West Lelia Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price for the addition to the Swanger residence was $9,150. On August 4, 1982, Swanger made the initial payment to Hoffman of $3,000 by check on this contract. Prior to the signing of this contract, Hoffman had contacted Respondent, who agreed to pull the permit for this project and who signed a blank proposal which was subsequently completed, executed by Swanger and Hoffman on 4 August 1982, and became Exhibit 2 in these proceedings. On or about August 16, 1982, Respondent obtained a permit for the addition to the Swanger residence from the City of Tampa Building Department showing Respondent as the licensed contractor for the job. Although Respondent signed the stipulation of facts that "All or the greater part of the $3,000.00 which was the first or initial payment on the contract for the Swanger addition was diverted from the construction work," Hoffman testified in Exhibit 25 that he used the $3,000 to buy materials for the project and to pay his (Hoffman's) salary for his work on the project. Under the facts here presented, Hoffman was the only one who knew for what this $3,000 had been used. In his deposition Hoffman testified that an excessive number of rainy days resulted in cost overruns resulting in insufficient money to complete the project. At no time relevant hereto was Hoffman of B & B Constructors, Inc., licensed as a contractor by the State of Florida. Respondent visited the Swanger residence once or twice while the work was in process, but all materials were ordered by Hoffman, all subcontractors were hired by Hoffman or Swanger, Hoffman was the one supervising the project, and Respondent's participation and supervision was, at best, pro forma. At no time was Respondent the qualifying agent for B & B Constructors, Inc., although Respondent briefly considered acquiring B & B Constructors, Inc., at or about the time the contract with Swanger was negotiated. The City of Tampa, Florida, is the local government with jurisdiction of the area, which is part of Hillsborough County, where Respondent is qualified as a licensed contractor. On or about January 11, 1983, as the result of a complaint filed by Swanger, Respondent's license to practice contracting in Tampa was revoked by the City of Tampa Unified Construction Trades Board. Respondent testified that he paid for the permit pulled for the Swanger project out of his own pocket and was never reimbursed by Hoffman. However, in Exhibit 25, Hoffman testified that he gave Respondent $100 in cash with which to pull the permit and his agreement with Respondent was to pay Respondent 3 percent of the contract price to pull the permit as licensed contractor.
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that Respondent is guilty of all charges alleged except violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, involving diversion of funds. In view of Respondent's voluntary inactivation of his license since June 1983 it is recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for six (6) months from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George W. Brown 11222 Russell Drive Seffner, Florida 33584 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Colin Spruce, was issued a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR-COI5679, in an active status, in June, 1930, as an individual. This license was renewed, as an individual, for the 1981-83 licensing period, which expired on June 30, 1983. This license has not been renewed and is in a delinquent status. Respondent at no time qualified Angle Enterprises, Inc., to engage in contracting in Florida. James D. Roland and his wife own nine low-income family apartment buildings in Melbourne. On November 2, 1981, the Rolands signed a contract with Respondent to rehabilitate these apartments with funds provided on loan from the federal government. Respondent signed the contract on November 3, 1981, and began work on November 9, 1981. He fully completed one of the nine buildings and partially completed one other. He also did some work on the roofs of all. On or about January 13, 1982, Respondent called Mr. Roland's home and left word he would be out of town for several days. He never returned to work on the project. The work was 35 percent complete when Respondent abandoned the project. Later, Mr. Roland completed the project himself at an overrun of approximately $2,500 above the contract price. Aside from one minor modification which cost an additional $261, there were no changes to the plans and specifications when Roland took over. It was only later that Roland got word that the subcontractors had not been paid. He paid off those who filed liens against his property. During the course of his work on the Rolands' property, Respondent, in his own name or as Angle Enterprises, Inc., entered into agreements with several subcontractors, including Scotty's, Berger Roofing, Melbourne Insulation, City Gas Co., and Jackson Electric, all of which provided either materials or services, or both, for this project. Scotty's provided materials valued at $16,513.24, but was paid only $6,751.46, leaving an unpaid balance of $9,761.78 for which the company filed a lien against the Rolands' property. This sum, left unpaid by Respondent, was subsequently paid by Mr. Roland. Berger Roofing, Inc., furnished labor and materials for the porch roofs on each of the project's buildings during late November and early December, 1981, and was due $750 from Respondent for this job. Respondent did not ever pay, and Berger also filed a lien against the property. This lien was also satisfied through payment by Mr. Roland. Melbourne Insulation furnished labor and materials to the project through contract with Respondent for approximately $2,000 of which only one-half was paid by Respondent. The balance has not been paid, though no lien was filed here because of an oversight by claimant's lawyer. City Gas Company is still owed $1,524.75 of the $4,784.33 it billed Respondent for labor and materials (heaters) it provided for the project for a contract it had with Respondent dated December 1, 1981. No lien was filed for the unpaid amount here, either. Jackson Electric performed electrical work on the project which included removing plates, switches, and fixtures from one of the buildings in November, 1981, based on an agreement with Respondent. The contractor was about to start work on a second building in the project, but due to the fact that Respondent was a slow payer on previous jobs done for him, the additional work was not started and Jackson was never paid for the work done. Respondent also failed to pay the wages he owed to several of his employees, including David Jones and Carl Cramer. Jones worked for Angle Enterprises, the company owned by Respondent and under which he did business from November, 1981, to January, 1982, in a job on Roland's buildings which involved stripping the roofs off the buildings and painting. He was not paid for his final week of work, which ended on January 15, 1982. He is owed for 32 hours work at $5.75 per hour. He considered himself a close personal friend of Respondent who gave no advance notice that he would not pay his employees. Cramer and a third employee (Mr. Kibben) also were not paid their earned wages by Respondent. He was working at the time in question as a carpenter/foreman for Respondent. On the last morning of work, Friday, January 15, 1982, Respondent told him that the accountant would come by and pay him and the other men that afternoon. Respondent then left and was not seen again, nor was the accountant or the wages. Cramer was due 32 hours pay at $7 per hour. During the time he was working on this project, Respondent submitted four draw requests and was paid on three. These draws were submitted to Mr. Grinstead at the Community Development Office for approval and were approved when Grinstead checked to see that the approximate work was done. Mr. Grinstead was at the project site almost every day. The last time he saw Respondent there was on or about January 15, 1982. As of that date, the work was not completed, but Respondent did not go back. Mr. Grinstead approved three draws. These were: December 10, 1981, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's; December 21, 1981, for 54,000, payable to Respondent; and January 8, 1982, for $13,000 payable to Roland, Respondent, and Scotty's. A fourth draw request on December 12, 1981, for $2,400 was denied by Y. Grinstead because sufficient additional work was not done to justify it. All three approved checks were cashed. As to the check for $13,000 dated January 8, 1982, Roland signed it and Respondent took it to Scotty's, where he convinced the credit manager to endorse it in exchange for his, Respondent's (Angle Enterprises'), check dated January 11, 1982, in the amount of $7,446.61. Thereafter, the same day, Respondent signed a stop-payment order at his bank on which that check was drawn, listing as his reason for that action a corporate reorganization. Payment was stopped, and Scotty's was not paid by Respondent. On the basis of Respondent's conduct regarding the check, an information charging him with altering a worthless check and grand theft (second degree) was filed in the Circuit Court in Brevard County, Florida, on June 1, 1982. Thereafter, on November 30, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to both offenses and was placed on probation for five years. Conditions of probation included full restitution of the $13,000 and a prohibition from engaging in construction or repair services without permission of the court.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's certified residential contractor's license be revoked. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 5th day of April, 1984. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer 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 5th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Colin Spruce 1001 SW Conover Avenue Palm Bay, Florida 32907 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
