The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s certification as an electrical contractor should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, William L. Crump, Jr., was certified as an electrical contractor under license C-1217 (ER003415), and was on record as qualifying contractor for Crump Electrical Service, which he owned. On September 25, 1997, a representative of Crump Electrical Services submitted a Proposal to Mrs. Christina Windsor, wife of the complaining witness herein, for the upgrading of the electrical panel in the Windsor’s home to 200 amperes. The price quoted for this service was $875.00. Small print on the proposal form indicates that permit fees, if required, are in addition to the cost cited. That same day, September 25, 1997, Mrs. Windsor authorized the work to be done. The work was done as called for. Respondent claims the proposal was made and the work done in response to an emergency call from the Windsors. September 25, 1997, was a Thursday. The city permitting office was open and a permit could have been obtained. No permit for the work was pulled at the time by either the Windsors or Respondent. Mr. Crump was of the opinion that because the Windsors had no power, the work should be done immediately without the delay of getting a permit. Though, he claims, he did not know of it at the time, he has subsequently learned that at the time in issue, the city had a policy whereby, in an emergency situation, a contractor could call in and get oral permission to do work requiring a permit, subsequently paying for and receiving the written permit. This was not done by either the Windsors or the Respondent. Mr. Crump did not pull the required permit after the work was done, or cause it to be pulled by an employee, because of the provision in the proposal form that the property owner was responsible for the cost of the permit. He claims to have advised the Windsors of the need for the permit and believed they had pulled it. The Windsors did not provide him with the extra funds for the permit and did not advise him they had not, or would not, obtain the permit. Though required, at no time was the permit pulled. Mr. Crump’s son and business associate, Todd Crump, contends that the real dispute in this issue relates not to whether the required permit was obtained, but to the Crumps’ failure to provide a statement as to the actual cause of the fire which necessitated the placement of the new electrical panel in the Windsor’s house. Todd contends that after talking with Mr. Dennison, the company’s representative who obtained the purchase order, shortly after the work was done, he got the impression the Windsors were going to obtain the permit. He did not find out that the permit had not been pulled until a month or so after he turned the request for the above-mentioned cause statement over to his father. Todd admits he should have followed up to see if the permit was pulled, but did not. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Crump filed a statement denying any intentional wrongdoing, and indicating his intent to give up his “personal business.” It is not known just what the term “personal business“ means. He claims that over the years he has donated significant amounts of professional service to the homeless and other needy persons in his area, but has ceased doing so because of the actions of the Board in attempting to discipline him. He contends the charges against him are unjustified and unwarranted and he implies there is a vendetta against him by the Executive Director of the Board. No independent evidence of this was presented. In a submittal subsequent to hearing, the Board Director recommended imposition of the maximum administrative fine of $1,000, a reprimand, and a one-year probation period with the requirement to file monthly reports on all work contracted.
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 imposing on Respondent William L. Crump, Jr., an administrative fine of $500.00 and a reprimand, and placing Respondent’s license on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may proscribe. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 William L. Crump, Jr. 2112-J Sunnydale Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 34625
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph B. Smith is the holder of a registered electrical contractor's license, number ER 0007369, issued by the State of Florida. During the month of May, 1981, the Respondent obtained an electrical permit for work on apartments located at the corner of Stockton and Forbes Streets, in Jacksonville, Florida. The work was contracted for by Ronnie D. Norvelle. Gary Moore performed the electrical work on the project. Neither of these men was employed by or under the supervision of the Respondent. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the Respondent's permanent record. The basis for the action taken by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, was the violation of Section 950.111(a), Code of Ordinances of the City of Jacksonville.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number ER 0007369 held by the Respondent, Joseph B. Smith, be revoked. THIS ORDER ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph B. Smith 6335 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At no time material hereto has Respondent been certified or licensed as an electrical contractor pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes. In September 1997, Respondent contracted with William and Carol Pike of McAlpin, Florida, for the installation of a room addition to the Pike's mobile home. The addition was not new, but had been used by a previous customer. The addition was to be connected to the main part of the house. The installation of the addition was completed in October 1997. The Pikes paid the full contract price of $8,636.00 to Respondent for the installation of the addition. The installation of the room addition required certain electrical work including: the addition had to be wired to the existing mobile home; electrical outlets and lights were wired into the addition; and a new outside light was added at the back door. The Pikes did not have any problems with the wiring of the room addition until April 6, 2001, when a power outage occurred in the area resulting in the Pike's losing electrical power. When the electricity was restored, the Pikes still had no electricity in the room addition. The Pikes contacted the local power company and upon checking, the Pikes were informed that the problem was inside their home. The morning after the power outage, the Pikes called Corbett's Mobile Home Center in an effort to get someone out to their home that day for the needed repairs. Robert Corbett was out of town and they were unable to reach anyone there who could come out to the Pike's home that day which was a Saturday. The Pike's then called Steve Frazier at Santa Fe Electrical Services, to check out the problem. Upon examination, Mr. Frazier found several problems with the electrical wiring under the house including open splices, wires spliced together, hot and ground wires reversed and no junction boxes on the wire junctions. Mr. Frazier recommended that the Pikes contact the original contractor to fix the problem and to leave the breaker off for their safety. The Pikes contacted Respondent and Respondent sent "Billy" to the Pike's residence on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. Billy was unable to correct the problem. The Pikes requested that Respondent send out the original permit with the repairmen. Respondent sent Billy and another person out to attempt to fix the problem but they were unsuccessful in doing so and did not bring any permit. The Pikes were not comfortable with what they perceived to be the level of competency of these employees of Respondent and they asked the men to leave. The Pikes then hired Steve Frazier to correct the wiring problems with the room addition. The electrical work performed by Frazier to correct the wiring problems included: re-wiring and running new wire to outlets; installation of several junction boxes; and repairing open splices in the walls and ceiling. Mr. Frazier obtained the appropriate permit, completed the work of rewiring and obtained a final inspection which was approved. The Pikes paid $855.00 to Santa Fe Electrical Services for this repair work. The Pikes filed a complaint with the Suwannee County Licensing Board. According to Pat Sura, a building inspector with the Suwannee County Building Department, the installation of the room addition is akin to the construction of an addition at a site and requires an electrical license and a permit. This differs from wiring a double-wide mobile home together, as that does not require a permit. The Department incurred investigative costs in the amount of $659.48 in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, that an administrative penalty of $1,000.00 be imposed, and that Respondent pay Petitioner's costs of investigation in the amount of $659.48. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 6, 1982, the Petitioner, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, J. Hugh Smith, a registered electrical contractor, who holds license number ER 0004272. The Respondent is the President of Electric Hugh Company, Inc. Electric Hugh Company is the entity through which the Respondent engaged in the business of electrical contracting in the City of Jacksonville. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville met and considered charges filed against the Respondent for failure to use certified craftsmen. A Mr. Etheridge, an employee of Respondent, was permitted to engage in electrical contracting work unsupervised by a certified craftsman without being licensed as a certified craftsman. By so doing, Respondent violated Section 950.110(a), Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida. 1/ For that code violation, Respondent's certificate was suspended for a period of six (6) months. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and testimony of John R. Bond, Executive Director -- Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville) On June 2, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board convened another meeting to consider other charges filed against Respondent based on an alleged failure (by Respondent) to pull electrical permits on four instances wherein a permit was required. At that time, Respondent's certification was revoked effective June 2, 1982, and that revocation remains in effect. The action by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, City of Jacksonville, has been reviewed by Petitioner. By way of mitigation, Respondent opined that he considered the two years in which his license has been revoked by the City of Jacksonville as sufficient penalty for the violation. Respondent did not substantively contest the charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's registered electrical contractor's license number ER 0004272 be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of April 1984.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as an electrical contractor. Respondent holds license EC 0002526. Respondent does business as M. H. Electrical Services (M. H. Electrical) at 11512 41st Court North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of construction contracting in the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On May 15, 2007, M. H. Electrical, though the Respondent, drafted a proposal for electrical services to be done on a residence being constructed by Mr. Malone. The location of the residence is 1664 88th Road North, Royal Palm Beach Acreage, Florida. The contract price totaled $5,140.00. Work on the project commenced on May 17, 2007. There were many problems with the work performed by Respondent’s company that were ultimately corrected by Mr. Malone. Respondent’s workmen installed 15 “12 gauge” wires in a 3/4 pipe underground that was inconsistent with the applicable building code. Respondent’s workmen installed a pipe running from one electrical panel to another incorrectly. Respondent’s workmen wired attic fans in a manner that overloaded an electrical panel. Respondent’s workmen installed a ground rod of only three and a half feet. The applicable building code required a ground rod of eight feet. A kick plate is a metal piece that protects electrical wires from being pierced when sheetrock is being installed. Petitioner asserted that Respondent failed to install kick plates. Respondent’s testimony established that kick plates were not necessary due to the depth of the wall studs that were utilized. Respondent’s workmen installed two wires incorrectly in the laundry room of the house. The wires were cut, which caused a fire hazard. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent’s workmen cut the wires. Respondent’s workmen failed to properly ground whirlpool tub wires for two whirlpools by failing to ground the wires to the main pipe as required by the applicable building code. The work did not progress as contemplated by Mr. Malone and by Respondent. As owner of the premises, Mr. Malone called for all inspections of the electrical work. These inspections were performed by employees of the Palm Beach County, Florida, Planning, Zoning and Building Department (the County Building Department). The following is the inspection history between May 21 and October 10, 2007: Temporary Power scheduled for May 21 was cancelled. Temporary power on May 22 passed. Rough electric on June 8 failed. Rough electric on July 9 passed. Rough electric on October 10 failed. The progress of the work was impeded for two primary reasons. First, the testimony of the Respondent, which the undersigned finds to be credible, established that on more than one occasion Mr. Malone did not have necessary materials at the building site. Second, Respondent fired the lead electrician on the subject project approximately two weeks into the project. Following communications with an employee of Florida Power and Light (FPL), Mr. Malone determined that portions of the work performed by Respondent’s employees did not meet the applicable building code. The record is not clear whether this communication occurred before or after the passed inspection on July 9. The last date on which one of Respondent’s employees worked on the project was July 23, 2007. Mr. Malone paid M. H. Electrical the full contract price on July 25, 2007. Mr. Malone and Respondent had a conversation about the communication with the FPL employee. Mr. Malone refused to tell Respondent the name of the FPL employee who stated that some of the work did not meet code. The date of this conversation was not established. Mr. Malone testified that when he paid Respondent on July 25, he believed that a list of ten items needed to be repaired. Mr. Malone further testified that he paid Respondent before these items had been repaired because he believed that Respondent would return to make all necessary repairs. The undersigned finds this testimony to be credible. As of July 25, 2007, when payment was made in full, Respondent knew or should have known that there existed on this project a list of repairs to the electrical wiring that needed to be done. After July 25, 2007, Mr. Malone made repeated efforts to contact Respondent. In response to those calls, Respondent sent an employee to the site to discuss Mr. Malone’s concerns. A locked gate prevented that employee’s entry on the building site. The date of that event was not established. On or before October 10, 2007, Mr. Malone requested another inspection from the County Building Department. That inspection failed. A failed inspection means that there were one or more deficiencies that had to be corrected before the job could progress. The inspector posted a Correction Notice, which advised that the following needed to be done before the job would be accepted: a smoke detector in the master bedroom would have to be relocated to a higher part of the ceiling; a conduit would have to be rerun (this is the deficiency described in paragraph 5 of this Recommended Order); and a ground rod would have to be replaced (this is the deficiency described in paragraph 8 of this Recommended Order). On October 11, 2007, two of Respondent’s employees went to the building site to make any needed corrections. Mr. Malone refused to let the employees on the property. Respondent did not return any of the funds paid by Mr. Malone. Respondent did not terminate the contract. Mr. Malone made all necessary electrical repairs. On April 2, 2008, the project passed final inspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of the violation in Count II. It is further RECOMMENDED that for the Count I violation, the final order issue a reprimand to Respondent and impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 2009.
