Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material hereto. His license number is RC-0035594. On or about April 26, 1985 Respondent, doing business as Pinellas Roofing Service, contracted with Bausch and Lomb to reroof their plant in Manatee County, at a contract price of $31,150. Respondent admits that at no time material hereto was he licensed to engage in contracting in Manatee County. Pinellas Roofing thereafter began, and partially performed, this job for which it was paid a total of $28,035. Petitioner alleges, and Respondent denies, that Respondent diverted funds received from this job for other purposes, and was thereafter unable to fulfill the terms of the contract with Bausch and Lomb. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence in support of this charge. Respondent never completed this job and took no steps to inform Bausch and Lomb that he would not complete the contract or make other arrangements for its completion. He left several thousand dollars worth of material on the roof, exposed, when he walked off this job, and this resulted in these materials being substantially destroyed. During the job, he did not take precautions to assure that the roof did not leak during heavy rainstorms. In fact, on at least three occasions, leaks caused damage to the interior of the plant and Respondent could not be reached. Therefore, Bausch and Lomb had to have another roofing contractor make emergency repairs on June 25, July 15 and September 3, 1985, at a total additional cost of $4,150. Since Respondent did not complete the contract, and left the roof unfinished, Bausch and Lomb contracted on September 17, 1985 with Bernard J. Lozon, Inc., to complete the job, and make certain additional repairs, at a cost of $24,000. In the opinion of Bernard J. Lozon, who was accepted as an expert in roofing contracting, the actual work that was done by Pinellas Roofing was satisfactory. However, Respondent's actions in walking off the job and leaving the roof unattended without completing the job is an unacceptable practice in roofing contracting, and constitutes incompetence and misconduct. Respondent failed to properly supervise this job. He relied upon his son to hire the necessary crews, pay them, handle financial aspects of the job, and assure its completion. His testimony indicates he fails to understand his own responsibility for supervising and completing the work for which he contracted, and which was performed under his license. At no time material hereto did Respondent qualify Pinellas Roofing Service with Petitioner. Respondent failed to apply for and obtain a Manatee County building permit for the roofing job in question, and also failed to request the county building department to perform inspections of the work performed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County has adopted and follows the 1979 edition of the Standard for Installation of Roof Coverings, Southern Building Code, as amended in 1981. This Code requires all contractors performing work in Manatee County to be registered in Manatee County, and to obtain permits for all roof replacements and repairs in excess of $200, as well as obtain inspections of all such work to insure compliance with the Code. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the local building code. When Respondent submitted his proposal on April 16, 1985 for the Bausch and Lomb job, he specifically acknowledged, in writing, that "all work (is) to be done according to owner specifications sheet." (Emphasis supplied). At hearing, Respondent contended that when he submitted his proposal he never saw the project specification sheet which was thereafter attached to his contract with Bausch and Lomb and made a part thereof. Rather, he testified that his proposal referred to certain specifications that appeared on project drawings which he reviewed prior to submitting his proposal. After considering the demeanor of the witnesses and all of the evidence presented, and particularly the fact that Respondent referred to the "specifications sheet" and not "drawings" in his proposal, it is specifically found that Respondent had knowledge of, and did in fact submit his proposal based upon the "specifications sheet" which ultimately became a part of his contract. As such, he was bound thereby in the performance of work under this contract. In pertinent part, the "specifications sheet" requires that the contractor obtain all necessary permits from Manatee County, that notice be given to the owner in advance of work that will produce excessive amounts of dust or tar fumes so proper precautions could be taken, that roofing materials be stored in a manner that protects them from damage or adverse weather conditions during construction, and that the contractor provide a two year written guarantee at the conclusion of the job. Respondent failed to comply with these requirements of the specifications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's registration for a period of ninety (90) days and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 22nd day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3698 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 3,4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5,6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 2, 3. 5-7 Addressed in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 5. 8,9 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 10. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Michael Schlesinger, Esquire 655 Ulmerton Road Building 11-A Large, Fl 33541 Fred Seely Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Fl 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Fl 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 The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton, was licensed as a roofing contractor in Florida under license number RC0030867, but at the time of the misconduct alleged herein, the license was delinquent and invalid. Respondent's license was placed on delinquent status for non-renewal when it expired on June 30, 1987 and was considered invalid until reinstated in April, 1988. The Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for the licensing of contractors in this state. On August 27, 1987, John M. Mack and his wife contracted with Respondent, doing business as Roofing Enterprises, to replace the roof on their 70 year old house in Clearwater. The contract called for Respondent to remove the old roof, replace all rotten wood, and install fiberglass shingles as well as all other actions part thereof, including cleanup. For this, the Macks agreed to pay Respondent $2,930.00 to be paid one- third at commencement, one-third when dried in, and the balance due upon completion. The term "dried in" means to cover the roof base with felt and secure it so as to prevent moisture incursion. This constitutes the subsurface for the final roof surface. The contract did not provide a completion date. Respondent guaranteed his work for five years. Respondent started work on September 9, 1989 and was paid the first $1,000.00 by check. He started tearing off the existing roof and five days later, when only one quarter of the existing roof had been removed, requested the second installment of the contract price. Mr. Mack was out of town at the time, but Mrs. Mack gave him a second $1,000.00 check. At that time, far less than one third of the project had been completed. After that second payment was made, Respondent did "minimal work" on the project. He would appear at the job only intermittently and when he did, would leave after only a short while. When Mr. Mack asked about this, Respondent indicated it was too hot to work after 11:00 in the morning. He also complained that because the sub-roof was made of hard, old white pine, it was very difficult to remove the old nails. For several days in early November, 1987, Respondent did not show up for work and Mack's efforts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful. He finally filed a complaint with both the Better Business Bureau and the Department of Professional Regulation. Finally, on November 14, 1987, Respondent came to the work site and left after two hours indicating he had a meeting with other contractors on other jobs. The next day, when Respondent did not show up, Mr. Mack went to his house whereupon Respondent stated he had spent most of the $2,000.00 the Macks had given him on other projects and to pay his workers and did not have enough funds to finish the job. Mr. Archer, the only employee to work on the Mack property has not been paid at all for his work. Nonetheless, Mr. Mack instructed Respondent to do what he could with what was left and when that was gone, he would pay the balance. Though Respondent had previously indicated to Mr. Mack that he had secured all required permits, the day after the above discussion, he stated he had not done so and left the job site to get it without doing any work that day. Over the next 11 days, Respondent spent a total of 20 hours on the job. On November 17, 1987 it rained and because the roof was not secure, water leaked into the house. The following day, Respondent did not arrive for work until 10:00 AM. On November 19, 1987, when Mr. Mack called the lumber yard from which Respondent had ordered the shingles, he was told they were scheduled for delivery COD and were on their way. When they arrived, Mr. Mack refused to accept them and pay for them because he had already paid Respondent $2,000. Respondent, when told of this development, agreed to borrow the money for them from his brother but was unable to do so, and in order to get the job finally done, Mr. Mack agreed to pay approximately $200.00 for them. They were ultimately delivered. The next day, Respondent telephoned Mr. Mack and said he was coming to the site and would stay until the job was done. However, he did not get there until after 10 and left at 3:30 PM with the job incomplete. At 8:00 AM the following morning, Respondent again called Mr. Mack and reported he did not have enough money for the required flashings. He indicated he would come to work and finish up the shingling, but did not show up at all that day. On the day after, Respondent came with his wife who worked with him for a short while. On this occasion, Mack gave Respondent some more money for supplies, but Respondent left again before the job was complete. Respondent neither showed up for work nor called on both the next two days, but on the following day, November 25, 1987, he finally finished up the job except for the gravel roof on the rear house and the front part of the main house. Because the Macks had a tenant in the rear house who they did not want disturbed, they did not permit Respondent to work there, but he did finally finish up the front of the main house roof and the work that was accomplished was done satisfactorily. There was, however, an unused chimney on the main house which Respondent should have removed and roofed over. Instead, he improperly attempted to roof around it and since he was unable to make the area water tight, it resulted in severe leakage into the house which caused damage to several ceilings and some furniture. Throughout the entire course of the work, Respondent applied improper pressure to the Macks. He repeatedly threatened to file for bankruptcy and not complete the work, prompting the Macks to pay him before contractually called for. At the time for final payment, when Mr. Mack indicated he wanted to have the job checked before making that last payment, Respondent became angry and walked off. He has not been seen or heard from since. As a result of Respondent's failure to properly manage his funds and accomplish the job in a timely and professional manner, the Macks have sustained substantial damage to their property and have had to expend additional funds to get the work done properly. Respondent should have identified the unused chimney at the time he bid for the job and provided for its removal. If this would cost more, he should have so indicated. His failure to identify the problem and correct it constitutes negligence since it is impossible to properly roof around such an obstruction without leaks. Based on the information available to him, Mr. Verse, the Department's expert, concluded Respondent was guilty of gross negligence because: He was required to get a permit for this project and failed to do so, He was required to request inspections of the project as it progressed and failed to do so, He took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the job, (roofs are usually replaced in an expedient manner because re-roofing generates exposure of the house and contents to weather conditions), He failed to properly place the felt and thereafter cover it with the final coat in a timely manner (qualified roofers recognize that felt is insufficient roofing to prevent leaking), He diverted funds from this project to others for which they were not intended, He failed to properly supervise his employees, He did not complete the work called for under the contract, He failed to honor his warranty, and He failed to properly remove the old chimney as a part of the re-roofing process. With the exception of the failure to complete the job which was caused by Mr. Mack's refusal to allow Respondent to complete the roofing project on the gravel roof, Respondent's actions as outlined herein constituted gross negligence. In addition, he violated existing local law by failing to get a permit and have the required inspections made; he failed to perform in a timely manner; he diverted funds; he abandoned the job without it being completed; and he failed to honor his warranty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Bruce D. Gayton's, license as a registered roofing contractor be suspended for three years under such provisions for reinstatement as may be deemed appropriate by the Board, and that he be fined $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce D. Gayton 15010 113th Avenue #32 Largo, Florida 34644-4305 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact James Wells is a registered building contractor having been issued license number RB 0008753. In June, 1985, Christiane J. Guignard hired James Wells to do repairing and rebuilding on parts of her home, including roofing work. The roofing work consisted of building a roof extension with hot tar and gravel roofing and a shingle roof. Guignard maintains that Wells agreed to guarantee his roof work against leaks for five years. Wells maintains that there was no explicit warranty, but he understood that he was responsible for "about a year" for leaks in his work. Wells did the work agreed on and completed it at the end of July, 1985. Guignard paid Wells a total of $4,575 for all of the work he had done. Prior to Wells' roofing work, Guignard had three leaks in her roof. Wells' work eliminated those leaks. According to Guignard, she had five leaks after Wells completed his work: 3 leaks around chimneys, 1 leak in a valley, and 1 leak in the overhang roof. Guignard called Wells and he came to perform repairs at the end of August, 1985. He applied silicon in the valley, around the chimneys and around a picture window, and he inserted extra shingles in the valley. According to Guignard, none of the leaks stopped. According to Guignard, she called Wells incessantly from the end of August, 1985, to March, 1987, regarding the leaks. Wells came back several times to inspect the roof for leaks. Wells determined that one leak was the result of an electrician who put a hole and two nails in the roof. Wells repaired this leak even though it was not the result of his work. Wells flashed two chimneys. In June or July, 1985, Wells replaced the shingles in the valley. Wells repaired all the leaks except the one in the overhang. Wells never found any evidence of a leak in that area. Guignard believes that area is leaking because the siding has become discolored and because she saw rain water running around the siding when she stood under the overhang in a heavy rain. Wells says that he told Guignard that the possibility existed that excess rain water from a heavy rain could run down the siding because of the slant of the roof. He saw the discoloration of the siding and says it results from the tree buds of a nearby tree falling on the roof, mixing with rain water, and running over the siding. Wells told Guignard that she needed to treat the siding with a water sealer to seal the wood. Sealing the wood was not part of his job and Guignard said she would do it, but never has. No independent or expert testimony was offered to show that a leak exists in the overhang or that any leak which is alleged to exist is the result of Wells' work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against James Wells. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5603 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Wells Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted as a Conclusion of Law. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9-11 are rejected as being unnecessary for the resolution of this matter. Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 695 Quincy, Florida 32351 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license number is CC C020246. Respondent is vice president of Dean Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (The Dean Company), Post Office Box 2077, Clearwater, Florida. By proposal submitted March 31, 1983, and accepted by Marshall Kent on April 1, 1983, the Dean Company contracted to remove the existing roof on Kent's residence and replace same at a price of $8,600 (Exhibit 1). The work was supposed to start April 11, 1983 and be completed on April 15, 1983. This contract was signed on behalf of Dean Company by Bruce A. Williams, Respondent, as vice president of Dean Company and by Marshall Kent. Kent is an experienced residential contractor who acknowledged having built approximately 2,000 homes. While removing the existing roof, Dean Company workers found the 30-year old house had three plys of roofing applied since the house was constructed and to remove this thick roof heavier equipment that normal was required. Kent's residence had a tectum roof decking which consists of a metallic-fiber substance which has a long life and serves as inside ceiling and outside roof decking over which built up roofing is applied. While removing the existing roof the tectum deck was fractured and Kent ordered Dean Company workers off the Job. By letter dated April 18, 1983 (Exhibit 6) Respondent advised Kent that the cost of replacing the damaged tectum would be borne by the Dean Company and it was necessary to get on with the project before additional damage was done through the areas of roof exposed by removal of the original roof. Upon seeing Exhibit 6, K. A. Williams, president of Dean Company and father of the Respondent, concluded that the problems may have been exacerbated by a personality conflict between Respondent and Kent, and turned the job over to R. L. MacMurry, another vice president at Dean Company, who had considerable experience in the roofing business. By letter dated Apri1 19, 1983 (Exhibit 7) MacMurry, on behalf of Dean Company, advised Kent that since he questioned their ability to properly install the new decking to replace the damaged decking they would employ the services of a general contractor to replace the damaged tectum, and if the replaced tectum did not match the original tectum they would have the entire ceiling painted. Kent denies receiving this letter. Kent refused these offers and by letter dated April 21, 1983 "Exhibit 8) R. A. Williams pointed out that Kent's refusal to allow Dean Company to immediately complete the roofing work in progress could lead to serious damage from water intrusion and that such damage would be Kent's responsibility. On Friday, April 29, 1983 a meeting was held between the Kents, Williams and MacMurry at which Dean Company -agreed to immediately recommence roof work, bring in a general contractor to replace the damaged decking and complete the contract. Kent demurred until the agreement was reduced to writing, preferably by an attorney. Kent prepared an endorsement on Exhibit 9 in which responsibility for the repairs was, in Kent's opinion, shifted to the general contractor. This endorsement was accepted by the parties on May 3, 1983. The residence was reroofed in accordance with the latter agreement and Kent never advised Dean Company that all work was not satisfactorily completed. Dean Company provided Kent with a five (5) year Roofing Guarantee (Exhibit 11) dated May 10, 1983, which was forwarded to Kent by letter dated May 11, 1983 (Exhibit 10) with an invoice for the total owed on the job (Exhibit 14). Kent responded with letter dated May 17, 1983 (Exhibit 23) contending he was not whole, the job was not. complete and the guarantee was a joke. Kent considered the Roofing Guarantee suspect because it was a form used by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association. Shortly after this time Kent was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and upon his release from the hospital in August 1983 he found that a mechanic's lien had been placed on his property by Dean Company. He also found what he believed to be leaks into the ceiling of a bedroom but made no complaint to Dean Company. Kent then hired a roofer, Chuck Goldsmith, to inspect the work done on his roof. When Goldsmith tried to negotiate the dispute between Kent and Dean Company, Kent fired him. Kent then hired William A. Cox, an architect and roofing consultant, to inspect the roof and advise what needed to be done. Cox inspected the roof in late October 1983 and submitted a list of discrepancies he recommended for correction. In one place he was able to insert a knife blade between the Fla. roof and the vertical wall against which the roof abuts which indicated no sheathing had been installed. Expert witnesses opined that without metal sheathing the roof would have leaked within six to eighteen months and the roof could never have been intact for the 30 years the house had been built without sheathing at such a joint. The vertical side of the original flashing would have been under the stucco at this point and there was no evidence that the stucco was disturbed when the new roof was first installed by Dean Company. New flashing was subsequently installed by Dean Company at this juncture but no one testified respecting the flashing observed or not present when this new roof was removed to insert the new flashing. Failure to insert flashing at such a juncture of horizontal roof and vertical wall would constitute a violation of the Standard Building Code. The report Cox gave to Kent was not made known to Dean until January 1984. By letter dated August 21, 1984 (Exhibit 13) Clark and Logan advised K. A. Williams that they would do all of the work listed in the Cox report on the Kent residence. This work was done in August 1984. Kent contends the leak continued in his bedroom after the work was completed but he never relayed this information to either Clark and Logan or to Dean Company. He has yet to pay one penny for the work done on his roof. Kent considered Clark and Logan to be the prime contractor on the job at the time the August 1984 work was done. Kent further testified that following that work Clark and Logan abandoned the job and he also filed a complaint against that general contractor. Since April 1983 following the damage to the tectum decking, Respondent, Bruce Williams, has had no responsibility for, and did no supervision of, the reroofing of Kent's residence. When the roof was inspected by the Pinellas County Building Inspector he found the workmanship done on this job only slightly below standard. At one place-on the roof Cox found the lower section of flashing overlapped the upper section of flashing which would have permitted water to enter under the flashing. This was a mistake but not an uncommon one for roofers to make. When pointed out to Dean Company the situation was promptly corrected.
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, licensed as a registered roofing contractor, certified roofing contractor, and certified building contractor, committed various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his licenses.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Joseph H. Rayl, holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of registered roofing contractor license no. RC 0034055; certified roofing contractor license no. CC C035625; and certified building contractor license no. CB C033206. Petitioner previously disciplined Respondent's license RC 0034055 through the imposition of a $250 fine by order dated July 11, 1985; and Respondent's license CB C033206 by suspension of license for six months and imposition of a fine of $2,500. Petitioner also found probable cause for three cases in 1987 that were closed with letters of guidance to Respondent. Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Unique Construction, Inc., (Unique) at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Further, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Superior Roofing & Construction Inc., (Superior) since February, 1988. On June 19, 1984, Mary Lois Brining, owner of a day care center for children known as Town and Country Schools of Bradenton in Manatee County, Florida, entered into a contract with Respondent to reroof the day care center. Respondent's personnel arrived at the school and removed the roof. Heavy rainfall then caused extensive damage to the interior of the facility and Brining complained to Unique. A representative of the company assured her that the situation would be resolved. Brining later paid Unique $623 to paint the school's interior, in addition to the cost of the roof replacement. While Respondent was never present during the construction, his workmen finished the roofing project on June 26, 1984. When leaks to the roof developed after completion of the job, Brining advised Unique of the leakage on numerous occasions. No action was taken by Respondent or Unique in response to Brining's telephone calls about the roof's leakage. Water leakage also damaged the carpet in Brining's facility, which she replaced at a cost of $2,000. In 1988, Brining finally hired another roofing company to correct the roof leakage. Helen M. Hayes, a resident of Gulfport, Florida, contracted with Unique to reroof the flat portion of the roof to her home on April 12, 1984, for a sum of $2,890. The job was finished on April 15, 1984. Two days later, the roof leaked. Hayes advised Unique and a representative came to the house and attempted to stop the leaks. After every rain, the roof leaked and Hayes would advise Unique. She never saw or spoke with Respondent. Finally, after 22 contacts with the company over a period of two and a half years, Hayes contacted local government building authorities. The building inspector for the City of Gulfport inspected the roof and told the company to replace it. Unique's workmen removed the roof in July, 1986, and left the house uncovered. That same day 10 inches of rain fell in the area of the residence, resulting in extensive damage to the home's interior and clothing which Hayes had stored in the home. Hayes called the police. The police called the building inspector who, in turn, called the roofing company. On July 28, 1986, Unique completed replacing the roof on Hayes' house. That new roof still leaks, the floor to the house is cracked from the leakage, the carpet has been saturated with water, plaster from the ceiling is falling to the floor, and there are water stains on the ceiling and walls throughout the residence. The proof further establishes that the City of Gulfport, located in Pinellas County, Florida, retained a private contractor to conduct an inspection of Hayes' roofing job in July of 1986. That inspection established that the roof should be replaced with a roof complying with building code requirements. Notably, while Unique obtained permits for the job, no final inspection of the project was ever obtained by Respondent's company in accordance with the Southern Building Code adopted as an ordinance by the City of Gulfport. James Oliver Prince is a resident of Lake Hthchineha, a settlement located in Polk County, Florida. He has never met Respondent. Prince entered into a contract with Unique in September of 1985. The reroofing job was completed on or about September 26, 1985. Leaks developed with the onset of the first rain after the completion of the job. Prince notified Unique and a representative came out to the residence to attempt to repair the roof and stop the leaks. This procedure continued on numerous occasions until November of 1987 when Prince attempted to contact Unique regarding the roof's leakage only to be informed that the telephone had been disconnected. Prince tried to locate Unique at the various offices listed on his contract, but received no answer. Eventually, due to the seriousness of the leaks and his inability to contact Unique, Prince hired a carpenter and replaced the roof at a cost of approximately $6,000. As established by testimony of Charles Fant, fire chief and building official for the City of Treasure Island, Florida, Unique obtained a construction permit for a reroofing job for the home of Vincent Ferraro located at 62 North Dolphin Drive in that city. The city has adopted the Southern Building Code as a city ordinance. However, the company never obtained the required final inspection for that job as required by the building code. On August 13, 1986, Carl and Ludie Buice of Bellview, Florida entered into a contract with Unique for a reroofing job on their home. Carl Buice passed away in November of 1986 Later, their son assisted Ms. Buice when leaks developed in the roof by attempting to contact the roofing company. The son, Alfred Buice, was unable to contact Unique. He then contacted the local offices of the Better Business Bureau; thereafter a representative of Superior, Respondent's successor company to Unique, came to the Buice residence on or about May 25, 1988, and gave Alfred Buice a check for $200 in connection with money previously spent by Buice to repair leaks to the roof. Even after repairs, the roof continued to leak to the point that it began to cave in around the roof's edges. Eventually, Alfred Buice had his mother's residence reroofed by another contractor on March 21, 1989, for $5,800. Testimony of Petitioner's expert witness establishes that Respondent was grossly negligent in meeting his qualifying agent responsibilities to supervise financial activities and construction practices of Unique. Further, Respondent's subordinates, who actually carried out roofing activities, performed those tasks incompetently. Respondent failed to comply with existing construction industry practices to inspect jobs where successive complaints were lodged by customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's licenses as a registered roofing contractor, certified roofing contractor, and certified building contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County. Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-42. Addressed. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 320 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. 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, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
