The Issue Whether Petitioner, William P. Pearson, Jr., is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111 Florida Statutes and Rule 221-6,35. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of William P. Pearson, Jr. and had admitted five exhibits. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Richard Hartog, Investigator, and Douglas A. Shropshire, the Department of Professional Regulation's senior attorney for the prosecution of all Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board cases, and had admitted five exhibits. At close of formal hearing, Petitioner elected to make oral closing argument and to file no post-hearing proposals. Respondent elected to file a transcript of proceedings and written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 10 days of filing transcript. Respondent's proposals are ruled on within the appendix to this recommended order pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs associated with his defense against charges contained in an administrative complaint filed and prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation which was styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industrv Licensing Board v. William P. Pearson, Jr., DOAH Case No. 85-0672. The administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-0672 contained two counts. Count I alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(c) through violation of Section 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1983), which statutory section addresses making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in the practice of the profession of construction. Count II alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1983) by not complying with the specific escrow requirements imposed by the consumer protection Statute, Section 501.1375(2) Florida Statutes and violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), which latter statutory section addresses gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The state agency was therefore not a nominal party only but was an accusing and principal party. Petitioner seeks an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $3,568.75 together with costs of $11.10. Respondent, in its Amended Response to Petitioner's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, did not challenge the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs set forth in Petitioner's affidavit attached and incorporated in his Amended Motion and specifically stipulated to reasonableness and necessity at formal hearing. Accordingly, the foregoing amounts are found to be necessary and reasonable. Pearson Construction Co., Inc.'s domicile during the whole of DOAH Case No. 85-0672's initial prosecution was Charlotte County, Florida. It had no employees other than William P. Pearson, Jr. and his wife, who worked without compensation. William P. Pearson, Jr. was the president and qualifying agent of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. which was a Florida corporation at all times material to the initial prosecution. The combined net worth of William P. Pearson, Jr. and of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. never exceeded two million dollars and presently petitioner Pearson's personal net worth does not exceed two million dollars. In early 1986, prior to initiating this instant fee and costs recovery case, Mr. Pearson failed to update payment of his corporate fees and Pearson Construction Co., Inc. was automatically dissolved by the secretary of State. Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) notified John Vlasek of its intent to investigate his complaint against Petitioner in late July 1984. DPR's investigation was conducted by Investigator Richard Hartog. Mr. Hartog has been employed by the Respondent since November 1982 and has been its investigator since March 1983. He has a degree in criminal justice and 23 years prior experience as a detective with the Police Department of Nassau County, New York. Investigator Hartog was first made aware of vlasek's complaint against Pearson Construction Co., Inc. by way of a memorandum dated July 16, 1984 received directly from the State Attorney's Office for the 20th Judicial Circuit. Attached to the State Attorney's memorandum was a 6 page consumer complaint form signed by John A. Vlasek. Hartog determined that William P. Pearson, Jr. was the qualifying agent for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. and then telephoned DPR's complaint section in Tallahassee, giving the complaint section the basis of the information received from the State Attorney's Office and statutory citations for alleged violations of sections 489.129(1)(m), 455.227(1)(a) and 501.1375 Florida statutes. His purpose was to obtain a complaint number to continue the investigation. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Petitioner William P. Pearson, Jr. regarding the allegations underlying Vlasek's complaint. Upon completion of the investigation the Department's investigator prepared an investigative report. The investigative report includes a narrative summary of the investigator's interview with Pearson. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the investigator's interview of Pearson: Mr. Pearson states he built a good number of homes a year. Last year he built thirty-nine (39) homes. Mr. Pearson was readvised of the allegations made by Mr. Vlasek, a prospective buyer of one of Pearson's spec homes. Mr. Pearson maintains the reason the house was not completed on June 12, 1984, the date originally stipulated in the contract, was the fact Mr. Vlasek was not in a hurry to have the house completed. Mr. Pearson stated he is not aware of the requirements of P.S. 501.1375, therefore, he did not handle the deposit according to the requirement set forth. The money was used to complete the spec house for Vlasek. Mr. Pearson states he received a letter from the First Federal Savings and, Loan of Charlotte County indicating Mr. Vlasek obtained an extension of his loan commitment with the bank. Mr. Malone, who was present, verifies that such a letter was received by Mr. Pearson. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Barbara Lowe, a loan officer for the First Federal Savings and Loan of Charlotte County. The investigator interviewed Ms. Lowe to determine "whether the bank had, in fact, sent a letter to Mr. Pearson indicating that an extension to Mr. Vlasek's 45-day loan had been extended." The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the interview of Ms. Lowe: Barbara Lowe, who states she handled the transaction, states no such letter was mailed to Pearson Construction. It would not be appropriate to grant an extension in this type of action. Mr. Vlasek would be required to enter into a separate agreement for an additional forty-five (45) days thereby nullifying the original commitent. This was not done by Mr. Vlasek, therefore, the original commitment expired 5/31/84. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Tom Hannon, a loan officer with the First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Charlotte County. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following finding: Mr. Hannon contacted this office to relate that the loan commitment obtained by Vlasek was for a period of forty-five (45) days between 4/19/84 and 5/31/84. There is no record a thirty (30) day extension was asked for or granted according to the records. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Jack R. Malone who was a salesman for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation relates that Malone stated the deposit money was not required to be deposited in an escrow account but when referred to section 501.1375 Malone stated money might have been given to an attorney, presumably for escrow, and further Malone related that: Mr. Vlasek became very impatient because he said very little was being done to complete his house. He was concerned because the terms of his loan agreement was a commitment which expired June 1, 1984. The completed investigative report as forwarded by the investigator to the Department's legal section consisted, in part, of the following: a three page narrative summary of the investigator' s findings; a copy of the memorandum and accompanying executed consumer complaint form; a First Federal savings and Loan Association loan transfer commitment to John and Madelyn Vlasek; a copy of section 501.1375, Florida statutes; a copy of the April 1984 contract between Pearson Construction Company and John and Madelyn Vlasek reflecting a completion date altered from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Douglas A. Shropshire was the DPR attorney responsible for reviewing the investigative report with regard to making a recommendation to the probable Cause Panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The complaint against Petitioner was a "case of first impression" in that DPR had not previously investigated a complaint alleging a violation of the escrow requirement of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes. As a result of the complaint against Petitioner, Mr. Shropshire requested that a law clerk prepare a memorandum of law with regard to the relationship between Section 501.1375, Florida Statutes and the regulation of licensed contractors under Chapter 489 Florida Statutes. On or about September 21, 1984 the law clerk provided Mr. Shropshire with a two page memorandum of law exploring the relationship between Chapter 501, Florida Statutes and the regulation of the construction industry. The memorandum reached the general conclusion that licensed contractors were subject to the provisions of Chapter 501 Florida Statutes. In preparing his recommendation to the Probable Cause Panel, Shropshire reviewed both Hartog's investigative report with all attachments and the law clerk's memorandum of law. On January 10, 1985 DPR, through Mr. Shropshire, made a probable cause recommendation to the Construction Industry Licensing Board Probable Cause Panel. Prior to January 10, 1985 DPR had provided each panel member with a copy of the DPR's probable cause package. The probable-cause package as reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel consisted of the following: a cover sheet setting forth the Subject's name, case number and statutory violations; a proposed administrative complaint; a copy of the narrative portion of the Department's investigative report. The Probable Cause Panel did not review a copy of the Vlasek-Pearson contract which provided it was not contingent on financing, which provided for forfeit to Pearson of Vlasek's deposit upon Vlasek's default, and which provided for escrow of Vlasek's deposit pending closing of the transaction. However, this item was reviewed by the DPR attorney before making the probable cause recommendation and the copy of this item reviewed showed that the completion date had been altered, allegedly by Malone. Petitioner stipulated to the correctness of the procedure employed in impaneling the Probable Cause panel. Each panel member had the opportunity to review the probable cause package before the Probable Cause Panel was convened. Each panel member had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the probable cause materials prior to the meeting. The Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel was Mr. Roy Adams. Mr. Adams is a certified general contractor. The other probable cause member was Mr. Joseph Richards. Mr. Richards is a pharmacist and is a public member of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Neither Mr. Richards nor Mr. Adams is an attorney. The Construction Industry Licensing Board is not involved in the investigation or prosecution of a complaint. In making the determination of probable cause the panel members discussed the allegations contained in the complaint with both DPR's prosecuting attorney and their independent advisor from the Department of Legal Affairs. On January 10, 1985 the Probable Cause Panel found probable cause to believe Petitioner violated Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The panel's finding of probable cause included, but was not limited to, the violations alleged by DPR in its recommendation. The Probable Cause Panel directed DPR to file a formal complaint. On January 16, 1985 DPR's Secretary signed a formal administrative complaint charging Petitioner with violating the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes reviewed by the panel plus Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes. Petitioner denied all the allegations in the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On August 20, 1985 a formal hearing was conducted before the undersigned hearing officer. Petitioner interposed the defense that Section 501.1375 Florida Statutes did not apply to him because he had constructed less than 10 houses in the year 1984 despite constructing more than 20 homes per year in most years. Section 501.1375 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Building Contractor" means any person who, for compensation, constructs and sells one-family or two-family residential dwelling units, except for a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. "Developer" means either a building contractor who offers new residential dwelling units for sale or any person who offers a new one-family or two-family dwelling unit for sale except a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. The Recommended Order entered December 20, 1985 found as fact that: On April 12, 1984 John and Madelyn Vlasek contracted with Pearson Construction Company for the purchase of a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. . . .The contract specified a $2,000 escrow deposit on the purchase price of $68,500. On April 12, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearson Construction Company with $200 in cash toward the escrow deposit. On April 13, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearso Construction Company with a check in the amount of $1,800 toward the escrow deposit. The contract specified the deposit was to be held in escrow pending closing of the transaction. . . .The contract referred to above was not contingent on the buyer obtaining financing. However, the deposit was not placed in escrow as specified in the contract and as required under the terms of the contract. Instead, it was used by the Respondent in purchasing lighting fixtures, carpeting, tiling and other accoutrements in colors and styles selected by John R. Vlasek. On April 23, 1984, the Vlaseks executed the loan transfer commitment. . . .After executing the loan transfer commitment, Vlasek realized that the commitment would expire prior to the June 12, 1984 closing date. Vlasek then notified Pearson Construction Company of the discrepancy between the expiration date of the loan commitment and the actual closing date. Upon being informed of the discrepancy, Jack R. Malone agreed to modify the closing date. Malone expressly modified the contract by changing the closing date from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Vlasek subsequently informed the Respondent of the change of the closing date. When informed of the change, Respondent indicated the home would be substantially completed by June 1, 1984. . . .Vlasek was repeatedly assured by Malone and other members of the construction team (not Pearson) that the home would be completed by June 2, 1984. . . .the Vlasek contract was rescinded . . .Pearson Construction Company, Inc. and William P. Pearson constructed a total of 8, possibly 9 houses during the calendar year of 1984. In most previous years he has constructed in excess of 20 houses per year. The findings and conclusions of law of the recommended order are replete with analyses of credibility of witnesses. The conclusions of law discuss such diverse legal concepts as the differences in actual versus apparent authority and ratification of an agent's/employee's misrepresentations by his employer, reasonable reliance thereon, and whether section 501.1375 should be applied annually (10 houses constructed per year) or upon a pattern of annual house construction (8-9 houses in 1984 versus more than 20 houses each previous year). The recommended order determined that DPR had failed to establish Count I (misleading, deceptive or fraudulent representations) by clear and convincing evidence and found only a "minimal" violation of Section 429.129(1)(m) had been established within Count II due to the petitioner's failure to escrow. By Final Order dated March 17, 1986, the Board adopted the findings of fact in toto. The final order rejected the conclusions of law and dismissed the administrative complaint. No evidence was introduced to indicate or otherwise explain why the Board rejected the hearing officer's conclusions of law.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, as charged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding, which alleged that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes (2009),1 by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor; and Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, including roofing contractors, in the State of Florida. At all times material, Respondent was a certified roofing contractor, having been issued License No. CCC 1328032 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB"). Respondent was the qualifier of Partnership Remodeling and Roofing Services, Inc. On February 10, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract with William Heston to re-roof Heston's home located at 6002 Cocos Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33908. The agreed price of the contract was $13,970.00. On or about February 10, 2009, Heston gave Respondent a check in the amount of $7,000.00 as a deposit, payable to Partnership Roofing Services. After being paid the deposit, Respondent did obtain a permit and filed a Notice of Commencement, but Respondent failed to commence work according to the contract. Heston attempted to contact Respondent numerous times to prompt him to start performing the work, to no avail. On March 6, 2009, Heston sent a letter to Respondent asking for the return of his deposit. Although Respondent claims that he had other financial obligations which prevented him from making restitution to the homeowner, Respondent verbally agreed numerous times to return the deposit to Heston, but he failed to do so. The percentage of contracted work completed was zero, while the percentage of the contract price paid to Respondent was 50 percent. The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $427.00. Respondent has not had a prior disciplinary action filed against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, issue a final order, as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. Ordering Respondent to pay financial restitution to the consumer, William Heston, in the amount of $7,000.00, representing the deposit paid to Respondent. Requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $427.12. Suspending Respondent's license to practice contracting (No. CCC 1328032) for a period of one year, followed by probation for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of July, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing Company is a roofing contractor registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Smith does not hold any license issued by local construction licensing boards which does not license roofing contractors. Smith admitted that he had commenced construction projects without acquiring the appropriate building permits from the local building officials. Calvin Smith identified a contract, Exhibit 2, which he had entered into with Gary Smith d/b/a Sirmons Roofing regarding the repair of the roof of his house. This contract called for the replacement of bad wood, which was understood by the parties to refer to rotten wood planking and rafters. Calvin Smith stated that after construction commenced and the old roof had been removed, his house had suffered rain damage although Gary Smith had advised him that the roof had been dried in. Gary Smith explained that he had in fact laid the requisite felt paper on the roof but that a severe wind and rain storm and occurred immediately following which had destroyed the felt paper. Smith stated that a crew was on the job during the storm at all times trying to keep the felt nailed down and maintain the water-tight integrity of the roof. There were no delays following the removal of the roof in replacing the felt and diligently proceeding with the re-roofing. Several days after the storm the roof had been finished, the plywood ceiling of the family room of Calvin Smith's house was partially removed to permit the insulation to be replaced. At this time Calvin Smith discovered rotten wood which Smith felt should have been removed and replaced by Gary Smith pursuant to their contract. Gary Smith stated that he had found one rotten rafter, but that he had advised Calvin Smith of the fact that it was there and that Calvin Smith realized that he was not replacing it. Gary Smith stated that he had removed and replaced all the rotten wood in the roof and that the rotten wood discovered by Calvin Smith was on that portion of the family room roof which was under the eaves of the pre-existing roof of the house where it could only be seen upon removal of the family room ceiling. Gary Smith further testified that subsequent to finding the rotten wood, Calvin Smith had not permitted him to correct the job and that he had not personally seen the rotten wood, pictures of which Calvin Smith had identified. Calvin Smith identified photographs of the interior and exterior of the roof as repaired by Gary Smith. These photographs were received as Exhibits 3 and 8. Exhibits 7 and 8 were photographs of the exterior of the roof. Exhibit 8 is a photograph of a shingle which was not properly installed. Gary Smith admitted that the shingle was not properly installed but stated that it would have been corrected prior to finishing the job. Exhibit 7 is a photograph showing a course of shingles which does not have the proper overlap. Gary Smith explained that this short run of shingles was necessary to even up or balance the runs on both sides of a hip in the roof because the distance from the eave to the top or peak of the hip was not the same on both sides. Gary Smith also pointed out that in both photographs the shingles are laid so that the bottom of the upper course of shingles comes to or overlaps the lower course of shingles to the top of the tab, causing good contact between the shingles and the adhesive strips. Contrary to the assertion of Calvin Smith that the shingles had been laid in such a manner that the adhesive strips did not touch. Calvin Smith had identified Exhibit 6 as photograph of roof flashing on the family room roof which he asserted was improperly installed. Gary Smith stated that the flashing in Exhibit 6 was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and that the roof on the family room had the requisite number of layers of felt and tar as required by the building code. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of the roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he could not identify the purported location of the underside of roof depicted in Exhibit 5 and identified by Calvin Smith as being in the middle of the family room. Gary Smith stated that he had shown the rotten beam indicated in Exhibit 4 to Calvin Smith and that Calvin Smith had known that he was not replacing the bean because replacement would have required the removal of the family room ceiling as well as the sheeting on the roof over the beam. Gary Smith stated that the wood shown in Exhibit 3 was not rotten but water stained and that the beam was sufficiently solid to hold the weight of the roofing materials on top of it and to nail the new sheeting into. Tommy Thompson, construction inspection supervisor of the City of Jacksonville, inspected the roof of Calvin Smith's home. Thompson found that the shingles had not been lapped properly, that some shingles had been laid so that the ceiling strips would not adhere properly, that rotten rafters and wood had been left, that the correct number of nails had not been placed in the shingles, that metal flashing around the chimney had not been installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, and that one, twelve inch hold had been left in the roof sheeting. Thompson identified the Building Code of the City of Jacksonville and those portions of the code relating to installation of roofing materials. Thompson stated that the items mentioned in the paragraph above constituted violations of the code. Thompson also pointed out that it was a violation of the code to commence construction or repair of a roof without obtaining the requisite building permit. J. R. Bond, Executive Director of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of the City of Jacksonville, stated that the board did not certify roofers. The ordinances of the City of Jacksonville empower the Construction Trades Qualifying Board to hear complaints against state registered but unlicensed contractors. However, the board lacks authority to take direct action against persons who are state registered but unlicensed. The board may only request that the city building official not issue the individual any further building permits. The building official must exercise his own independent authority and judgment in determining whether to suspend an individual's right to obtain building permits. The building official suspended Smith's privilege to obtain permits without a hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Smith's registration as a roofing contractor be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Telephone: 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Gary A. Smith Sirmons Roofing Company 3845 Edidin Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 78-1780 GARY A. SMITH d/b/a SIMMONS ROOFING CO., RC 0030047, 3845 Edidin Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32211, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact In June 1987, petitioner, Karl T. Christiansen, was an examinee on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Uniform National Examination for landscape architects. He had previously passed Sections 1 and 2 in the June, 1986 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and licensure is granted by respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years' experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. After the examination was completed by the candidates, all examinations, including that of Christiansen, were blind-graded by the graders using the Evaluation Guide as a tool. By notice dated October 23, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that he had received the following scores on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the examination: Design Application 84.4 PASS Design Implementation 70.8 FAIL Florida Section 76.2 PASS On December 14, 1987, petitioner was given an opportunity to meet with Board representatives in Tallahassee and present objections concerning his score on Section 4 of the examination. Because of Christiansen's concerns, the Board regraded his examination a second time and raised his overall score from 70.8 to 72.4. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, petitioner requested a formal hearing. At hearing petitioner lodged objections to scores received on twenty- one questions in Subparts A, B and C of Section 4 of the examination. These objections are contained in joint composite exhibit 1 received in evidence. It was Christiansen's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating his solutions, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate his answers. In addition, Christiansen contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which he was not given credit. Other than his own testimony, petitioner did not present any other evidence to support his contentions. Indeed, his own witness, a Fort Lauderdale landscape architect with thirty years experience, concluded that the Board was correct in failing Christiansen and that Christiansen had not demonstrated adequate competence on the examination to justify a passing grade. In support of its position, respondent presented an expert, Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect with three years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded petitioner's examination and assigned it a score of 73.4, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions but lower scores to others, for an overall average of 73.4. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Christiansen's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where petitioner had not received the desired grade, he had misinterpreted the instructions, prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. Therefore, petitioner's grade should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on section 4 of the June, 1987 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent negligently practiced engineering in the preparation of construction plans for a residential structure and airplane hanger.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these matters, Respondent has been a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 37862. Respondent is the engineer of record for the residential and airplane hanger project (Rutman project). On Sheet 6 of 8 of the drawings prepared for the Rutman project, Respondent failed to reference sections or details found in the plan for the project. Specifically, Sheet 6 indicates the floor truss layout for the ground and second floors, but fails to indicate what the framing members are supported upon, a very significant fact, in that one who is reading the plan would not be instructed in how to construct that portion of the work. On Sheet 5 of 8, which indicates the layout of the framing members of the roof, no specific information is provided showing how to construct, support or connect the members and no reference is made to any other parts of the plans. Respondent's drawings fail to specify or indicate anywhere on the plans the proper reinforcing for the masonry column. On Sheet 2 of 2 - Hanger, and on Sheet 1 of 3 - Floor Plan, Respondent has called for a 24-inch by 24-inch reinforced masonry column that supports a W24 x 55 Steel I-beam that is 48 feet 8 inch long. There is no specification for column ties, which are reinforcing bar loops that are to be placed around the vertical steel within a column, as required by the American Concrete Institute's Code (ACI) provision 530. ACI 530 is used by all engineers in Florida that design masonry columns. These technical codes for concrete have been provided by ACI since 1904. ACI 530, Section 5.9.1.6(a), relating to lateral ties, provides that longitudinal reinforcement shall be enclosed by lateral ties at least 1/4 inch in diameter. Respondent's drawings fail to provide the required lateral ties. According to ACI 530, Section 5.9.1.4, vertical column reinforcement must not be less than .0025 times the nominal area of the column or approximately 1.44 square inches of steel. Respondent's drawing provides only 1.24 square inches of steel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for negligence in this matter, and placing him on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Rankin, Esquire The Law Offices of David P. Rankin, P.A. 14502 North Dale Mabry Boulevard, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33618 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulations 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted sufficient additional credit for exam factors which would be sufficient to receive a passing grade on the design implementation portion of the June 1989 landscape architecture examination.
Findings Of Fact In June 1989, Petitioner, Deborah Martohue, was an examinee on Section 4, Parts A and B, of the Uniform National Examination for Landscape Architects. She had previously passed Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the June 1988 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. Licensure is granted by Respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the subjective portions of the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. Prior to the administration of the exam, master graders from all 43 states who use the exam meet and critique both the examination questions and the evaluation guide to insure uniformity. By notice, Petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that she had received a failing scaled score of 64.8158 on Section 4, Design Implementation, of the examination. A minimum scaled score of 74.5 is required for a passing grade. On October 30, 1989, Petitioner reviewed her examination and using the evaluation guide, disputed 25 points concerning the scoring on Section 4 of the examination. As a result of Petitioner's concerns, the Board assigned a new person to regrade her examination. As a result Petitioner's overall scaled score was raised form 64.8158 to 73.1489. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner objected to the scores received on Section 4A, Factors 2 and 3, out of a total of four factors, and Section 4B, Factors 1,3,4,5, and 6, out of a total of nine factors, of the examination. It is Petitioner's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating her solutions to the problems, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate her answers. In addition, Petitioner contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which she was not given credit. Other than her own testimony, Petitioner did not present any other competent evidence to support her contentions. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of C. Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect and master grader with five years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet, and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded Petitioner's examination and assigned it a scaled score of 70.3712, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions, but lower scores to others for an overall average of 70.3. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Petitioner's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where Petitioner had not received the desired grade, she had prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. The evidence does not support a conclusion that Petitioner's examination was graded arbitrarily or capriciously, or that Respondent failed to conduct the examination fairly, uniformly and in accordance with its own rules and regulations, or that the examination instructions were insufficient and misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying Petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on Section 4 of the June 1989 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-1567 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 15. Rejected: paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (restatement of the testimony or argument) COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Martohue 1315 Margate Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Ard Executive Director Landscape Architecture Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
