Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Graciela Zara was a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida having license number RC 0035417. Respondent qualified Rolando Lopez Roofing Corp. at all times material to the complaint. Roofing work was done on the building located at 8413 8415 Hardin Avenue; however, the roofing work was not done by Rolando Lopez Roofing, but rather by Chungo, an employee of M. G. Construction Company, the owner of the building. Certain materials for the roofing work were delivered to 8413-8415 Harding Avenue by Tops All Roofing & Building Products, Inc., and those materials were ordered by Rolando Lopez and/or Renee Garcia. Rolando Lopez Roofing performed roofing work at the the bank at Las Americas Shopping Plaza, 8500 N.W. 85th Street; however, there was no evidence presented that Rolando Lopez Roofing failed to obtain a permit for the work it performed. Tropical Roofing entered into a contract for roofing work at the home of Mr. Sosa, 3001 S.W. 96th Avenue, Miami, Florida. 2/ The work was subcontracted to and done by Rolando Lopez Roofing. Although a permit for the work was required, respondent failed to obtain a permit. The respondent was responsible for obtaining the permit because the contractor that performs the work is responsible for obtaining the permit. Leon Gomez entered into a contract with Rene Garcia for roofing work at 309 Pinecrest Drive. Rene Garcia performed the roofing work on the house and was paid for the work by Mr. Gomez. However, the permit for the roofing work was obtained by the respondent. Roofing work was performed at the home of Felipe Acosta, 401 Flagami Boulevard, Miami, Florida. The permit for the roofing work was obtained by respondent. The contract for the work was with Rolando Lopez Roofing. The roofing work was performed by Rene Garcia and other workers that Mr. Acosta did not know. Mr. Acosta does not know Rulando Lopez. The contract negotiations and the payment for the job were handled by Mr. Acosta's brother. Mr. Acosta did not know whether Rene Garcia or Rolando Lopez received payment for she roofing work, but he knows his brother paid one of them. The roofing work was performed pursuant to the contract with Rolando Lopez Roofing. On June 1, 1983, Rolando Lopez Roofing Corp. issued a check for $11,667.86 to Tops All Roofing & Building Products. The check was returned by the bank stamped "Account Closed." On September 16, 1983, Rolando Lopez was adjudicated guilty of issuing a worthless check in violation of Section 832.05. Mr. Lopez paid $5,000 in restitution to Tops All Roofing & Building Products, but he was unable to pay the remaining amount because he has been unable to get any work. There was no evidence that Rolando Lopez Roofing Corp. failed to pay creditors for materials furnished. Although Rolando Lopez failed to make full restitution to Tops All Roofing and Building Products for the $11,667.86 check that was returned, there was no evidence that the check was for building supplies furnished to Rolando Lopez Roofing. Rolando Lopez testified that the check was written for the benefit of his nephew, Rene Garcia, to be used as collateral. Further, there was no evidence that Tops All Roofing & Building Products had furnished any building materials to Rolando Lopez Roofing prior to June 1, 1983, the date of the check. There was no evidence presented that Rene Garcia was not licensed by the State of Florida as a registered or certified roofing contractor
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE GRUBBS 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 January, 1985.
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging an inadequate performance in work done for a customer, Louise A. Bright. In particular, Respondent is said to have proceeded to do work for Ms. Bright without having obtained a timely permit to commence the work, in violation of local law, by his deliberate action or through improper supervision. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In addition, Respondent is accused of having done business under a name other than the name reflected on his license, as issued by Petitioner, the name which he had done business under having not been qualified with Petitioner. Again, this constitutes alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Finally, Respondent is accused of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct and/or deceit in connection with work based upon his personal activities or his failure to properly supervise, leading to a performance which did not provide a reasonably watertight roof, which roof leaked; the improper installation of window seals, resulting in water draining towards the interior; and misconduct in the competitive-bid process associated with the Bright job. The administrative complaint points out that the Respondent had previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in an unrelated case.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, has the responsibility of prosecuting administrative complaints brought by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The authority for the activities of these entities is announced in Chapters 120, 455 and 49, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules promulgated under the authority of those statutes. At times pertinent to this inquiry, Respondent has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified residential contractor. His license number is CR C0277268. The license he holds is as an individual. Respondent has not served as a qualifying agent for a company known as Stratton Construction Company. Ms. Louise A. Bright of 5143 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, was interested in having remodeling and re-roofing work done at her home at that address under the auspices of the HUD Rehabilitation Program. In this connection, she sought bids from two contractors other than Respondent. The intention of those two contractors in submission of sealed bids to Ms. Bright was to secure their contents from being disclosed to competitors, such as Respondent. Respondent contacted Ms. Bright about bidding on this project. This solicitation of Ms. Bright was not inappropriate. It was inappropriate for Respondent, once he entered into discussions with Ms. Bright at her home, to insist on Ms. Bright revealing the contents of his competitors' bids. Ms. Bright told Respondent that she did not think this was an appropriate arrangement. Respondent replied that it was done all the time. Respondent kept asking Ms. Bright about different items in one competitor's bid quotation. Eventually, Ms. Bright tired of the discussion and laid one of the two proposals on her table and Respondent examined it and began to describe how he thought he could undercut the price of his competitor. As Robert H. Adams, a certified residential contractor licensed by the State of Florida, testified in the hearing, it was an act of misconduct for Respondent to ask for the contents of the sealed bid of the competitor before submitting his own bid. In fact, Respondent did not offer his terms until he had had the opportunity to examine the position of a competitor and the terms of that competitor's bid. On May 28, 1987, Ms. Bright and Respondent entered into a contract to have the remodeling work done at her home and the roof work. The roof work was constituted of shingles in one portion and the installation of materials which approximate a built-up roof in another portion. The price of the contract was $15,140.00. Respondent entered into the contract with Ms. Bright under the name of Stratton Construction Company. Respondent commenced the work sometime around June 8 or 10, 1987. Respondent, under the name of Stratton Construction Company, obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, for purposes of the re- roofing work only. That permit was obtained on June 11, 1987, after the overall work began at the residence. Although it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a permit from the City of Jacksonville to do the remodeling portion of the work, as contemplated by requirements of the City of Jacksonville's Building Code, the remodeling permit was never obtained before commencement of the work, nor at any other time, as the record stands. As the work proceeded, several change orders were executed on May 28, 1987, June 2, 1987 and June 3, 1987. A fourth change order was not allowed. The reason for its rejection was based upon the perception of an official with HUD, Hank Pocopanni, who felt that the cost of the fourth change order was too expensive. The ultimate contract price was $15,130.00. Based upon the progress of the work, 30% and 60% payments on the contract amount were rendered based upon a 40% and 80% completion. At the time of the second draw, the roof had been installed. The roof in question, although needing repair, had not been leaking prior to the work that was done on it. The roofing work was done at the residence by Bailey's Roofing of 2922 West 6th Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32205. The inspections on the quality of the roof work which were done by the HUD and the City of Jacksonville were not detailed inspections. The inspections by the City of Jacksonville were merely to see that the roof had been installed. The more complete inspection of the roof which would have been done by HUD was to be performed at the time of the final inspection. That final inspection never occurred because Ms. Bright and Respondent terminated their relationship as owner and contractor under the contract. Respondent has also placed a claim of lien against Ms. Bright for the balance of the contract money not disbursed. The roof has leaked in a bedroom in the home, as well as in the breakfast room and around one of the chimneys, running down rafters from the chimney. In addition, as Mr. Adams pointed out in his expert opinion testimony, which is accepted, the prefab chimney structure, which had heavy asphalt cement placed upon the top of the cap, was an inappropriate installation because chimneys produce heat and one should not put asphalt cement next to them. Respondent has sufficient expertise to understand the inappropriateness of this form of installation. It is not necessary for him to be a roofing contractor to understand that this was an incorrect choice. Nor does he need to be a roofing contractor to understand, as Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified that the shingles on the roof were improperly installed and the fact that the shingles had been improperly cut because they did not cover the eaves drip completely. A certified residential contractor, such as Respondent, has the necessary expertise to understand the re-roofing by use of shingles. Respondent is also capable of understanding that the installation of flashing material around the chimney at the home was unsightly and improper, as identified by Mr. Adams, whose expertise is accepted and opinion is credited. Mr. Adams also identified the fact of a 48-inch overhang at the rear of the house without vertical support columns or beams and some concern about the stability of that situation. On balance, his opinion does not seem to state with certainty that this, indeed, is a problem. Likewise, his opinion about the part of the roof which is, by nature, more akin to a built-up roof and its potential for physical damage because of problems with its membrane is not credited because he is not found to be an expert in those types of roofs. According to Mr. Adams, the problems with the roof and window seals were representative of incompetence and lack of proper supervision on the part of Respondent. This opinion of Mr. Adams is accepted. Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified the fact that the window seals, which had been installed in this project, did not have an appropriate slope to allow them to divert water away from the windows, resulting in the possibility of water intrusion into the house. This refers to rainwater. His opinion is accepted. Although a copy of a punchlist dated August 25, 1987, which Respondent had and is shown as Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, makes reference to repairs of a roof leak in bedroom 1, on February 2, 1988, Ms. Bright was still having problems with the roof as evidenced by correspondence directed to Stratton Construction Company on that date. Respondent has been disciplined in the past by the imposition of a $100.00 fine in DOAH Case No. 87-2699. This pertained to a contract of August 14, 1986 with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street, Jacksonville, Florida. It was the finding in that case that prior to that situation, Respondent had only built new homes in Florida and was unaware of the necessity to obtain a permit to affect repairs to the interior of the home other than the permit he had obtained. The facts went on to describe how Respondent was aware of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room but only applied for that permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed and he was in dispute with the homeowners. As a consequence, Respondent was found in violation of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and the fine imposed.
Recommendation In accordance with Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, having in mind Respondent's disciplinary history, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which imposes an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2164 Petitioner's facts are responded to as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found, except its suggestion of problems other than those associated with the roof and the window seals, which other problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to problems other than with the roof and the window seals, which problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to comments by Mr. Adams related to the roofing membrane, which is found to be beyond his expertise. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Stuart Stratton 3365 Silver Palm Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32250
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or other business organization. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered, certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of licensure.1 The Zapata job Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard, Miami, Florida. On August 1, 1996,2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of $8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing, Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996, Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then, nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or about September 5, 1996.3 On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed.4 With the discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without financial loss to the Zapatas.5 Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage Respondent's liability and property damage insurance policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.) The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, the Department offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled $306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Previous disciplinary action On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor] to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately $4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996, Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1997), and Subsections 489.129(1)(n) and (o), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Frazier was licensed by the Department as a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC CO56955 as Ronald Lee Frazier, d/b/a Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak. On or about November 24, 1995, Frazier, contracted with Victor and Janie Anderson to remove and replace the roof of the Anderson's home at 433 111th Street, Marathon, Florida, for $4,657.25. The Andersons paid the full contract price to Frazier in two increments. On or about November 24, 1995, they paid $2,328.62, and on or about January 25, 1996, they paid $2,328.63. In January 1996, Frazier removed and replaced the Anderson's roof, but Frazier applied the new roofing material without first installing a base sheet or moisture barrier. No evidence was presented on the specific manufacturer's specification for the product installed by Frazier; however, the evidence did establish that typical manufacturers' specifications for products such as urethane require the installation of a base sheet before such products are applied. The Monroe County Building Code does require that self-adhesive roofs such as the one installed by Frazier must have a one ply ASTM D226 type II anchor sheet with a four-inch headlap. In other words, the roof should have a base sheet of 30-pound felt before the urethane is applied. The base sheet or moisture barrier helps keep water off the roof, and it also facilitates removal and replacement of the roof. Failure to install the base sheet contributed to the development of roof leaks which the Andersons began noticing approximately 17 months after the work was done, a much shorter time than the normal life expectancy for the urethane roof materials that Frazier used. Frazier's failure to install a base sheet on the Andersons' roof constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. The only way to correct Frazier's work on the Anderson's roof is to remove the roof installed by Frazier and install a new roof in a proper manner. The Andersons began noticing leaks in the roof in June 1997. They notified Frazier by telephone and by letters. Frazier and his employees inspected the Anderson's roof and agreed to perform work to stop the leaks. In September 1997, Frazier went to the Anderson's home and began attempting to work on the roof. Monroe County roofing inspector Al Forrest met with Frazier that day at the Anderson's home and discussed the work that needed to be done. Frazier agreed to correct the deficiencies in the roof; however, Frazier left that day without completing the work and never returned to perform further work. On or about December 1, 1995, Vivian Haverly contracted with Frazier to repair the leaky roof on her home at 1711 Avalon Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. Frazier was to install a new urethane roof on Ms. Haverly's house. Among other things, the contract called for Frazier to "raise the A/C unit on stand as per code." The contract price was $5,039.00. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. Haverly paid Frazier $1,039.00 on December 1, 1995, and $3,900 on January 19, 1996. The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) has been adopted as the building code by all counties in Florida except for Dade and Broward Counties. Section 1509.1.2 of the SBCCI provides that "[r]oof coverings shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof." Frazier's crew worked on Ms. Haverly's roof but never fixed the leaks. The leaks worsened, causing damage in the interior of Ms. Haverly's house. Frazier failed to raise the roof-mounted air conditioning equipment and sprayed urethane on the air conditioning unit, damaging it to the point that the air conditioner became inoperable and had to be replaced at a cost of $2,700. Frazier did not spray urethane on the portion of the roof below the air conditioning unit as he should have done. Ms. Haverly had to have another company repair her roof. On or about April 18, 1997, John Ward entered into a contract with Frazier as Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak to repair the roof of a two-story building in Marathon, Florida, owned by Virginia Ward and managed for her by her son John Ward. Frazier was to apply a urethane coating to the roof and fix roof leaks for $4,200. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 in the amount of $1,219.18. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case No. 99-3573 in the amount of $244.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did not violate Subsections 489.119(2) and 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 98-5212; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), as set forth in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 and Count II of Case No. 99-3573; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count II of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; suspending Ronald Lee Frazier's license for six months; assessing costs of $1,463.83 for investigation and prosecution in Case Nos. 98-5213, 99-2186, and 99-3573; and taking no action to enforce or collect payment of the fines or assessed costs without authorization of the bankruptcy court unless Ronald Lee Frazier's bankruptcy petition is dismissed or discharged. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Susan B. Kirkland 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 30th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Ronald Lee Frazier Post Office Box 12735 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34979-2735 Ronald Lee Frazier 1006 Southwest Sultan Drive Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The issues are based upon an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Phillip E. Sheffield, Respondent. In particular, Respondent is said to have violated the building code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida by failing to obtain a building permit before commencing construction work related to a roofing project and building the roof to a slope that was contrary to that local building code. For violations of the City of Jacksonville building code, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willful or deliberate violation and disregard for the applicable building code of the municipality. Finally, Respondent is said to have violated Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes by failing to subcontract roofing work.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0034888. He owns and qualifies Allstate Building Contractors, Inc. Respondent submitted a bid to the City of Miami for renovation and roofing work on a 50-year-old home owned by Margaret Donlevy pursuant to the city's neighborhood rehabilitation program. The Rehabilitation Specifications upon which Respondent bid were written by Roger Rojas, a rehabilitation estimator for the city. The portion of the Specifications pertaining to the roofing work reads only as follows: Remove existing roof covering and replace damaged sheeting and rafters. Apply one 30 No. layer of felt, tin-tacked and then apply two layers of 15 No. felt moppedon. Flood coat and apply gravel (check roof decking (Allow $1.05 per foot) replacing dot decking. Respondent was awarded the Donlevy job. On October 17, 1980, Respondent and Donlevy entered into the one-page form contract being utilized by the city for its rehabilitation projects. The city's Agreement for Rehabilitation contains a date, the names of the contractor and the property owner, the price of the contract, and the deadline by which the work must be done. The Agreement contains no information regarding the work to be performed or the location of the job site. Rather, the Agreement recites the names of various documents, recites that those documents are the contract documents, and incorporates those documents by reference. Only the Agreement for Rehabilitation, the Specifications, and the Proceed Order were offered in evidence. On October 17, 1980, the City of Miami issued its Proceed Order authorizing Respondent to commence work on the Donlevy residence no later than October 20, 1980, which work was required to be completed within 24 calendar days after starting construction. On October 21, 1980, Rojas issued a Change Order on the Donlevy residence which contained the following Description of Work Change: Replace rotted and deteriorated [sic] roof decking and rafters. 2. Upgrade entire electrical system. Install 3 duplex outlets in kitchen area. Move meter to outside of residence. Rojas's authorization to approve the Change Order came from James W. Wager, the senior rehabilitation estimator for the Department of Community Development of the City of Miami. On October 22, 1980, Respondent signed a Contractor's Final Invoice, Release of Liens, and Warranty which recited, inter alia, ". . .that the roof work performed is guaranteed for a period of five (5) years for both workmanship and materials. The undersigned will replace faulty materials or faulty workmanship within the period of the guarantee free of charge." On October 24, 1980, Respondent issued a separate "Roof Guarantee" to Donlevy which provided as follows: The Company guarantees its material and workmanship for five (5) years. It will replace faulty material or faulty workmanship within the period of the guarantee free of charge. On October 28, 1980, the City of Miami issued its check to Allstate Builders in full payment of the Donlevy contract. In performing the roofing work on the Don levy residence, Respondent took off all the existing roof covering, down to the bare deck; repaired all the rotten rafters on the top part of the roof truss that were visible; installed a new roof covering, applying one layer of felt and putting on two layers of 15 No. felt; installed flashing with 90 No. slate, and then laid gravel. Both Rojas and Wager made frequent inspections during the time that Respondent was working on the Donlevy residence, Rojas because it was a job for which he had been assigned responsibility, and Wager because the Donlevy rehabilitation project was one of the first performed pursuant to the rehabilitation program of which Wager was in charge. Respondent successfully completed all interim inspections and the final inspection on the roofing work performed by him. Several months after completion of the roofing work on the Donlevy residence, Respondent was advised that there was a leak over the carport area. He immediately responded and repaired that leak. While at the Donlevy residence, he noticed an abundance of leaves on the roof, apparently attributable to a large tree next to the house. He personally removed the leaves. He advised Rojas and Wager that the tree should be removed, since it created a potential for clogging the drain on the roof. He was advised there was no grant money for tree removal. Wager described the roof on the Donlevy residence as being a strange roof. Although the roof was flat, it was not an average roof. Only one drain was located on the entire roof--a rectangular hole approximately four inches by three inches with a Philadelphia-type gutter. That drain system appeared to have been installed with the roof when the house was originally built, and Respondent's job specifications did not include any changes to the drain system. In September 1981, a portion of the roof caved in. Although Respondent suggested an immediate inspection, the City of Miami employees desired to wait a few days. On October 1, 1981, Respondent, Rojas and Wager met at the Donlevy residence and inspected the roof. Wager took the position that all repairs necessitated by the cave-in were covered by Respondent's warranty, and Respondent took the position that the cave-in was caused by a collapse of the roof system and was not related to any work performed by him. After heated discussion, Wager ordered Respondent off the property. On the following day, Wager caused to be hand-delivered to Respondent a letter advising Respondent that a replacement contractor had been engaged and that Respondent was to make no attempt to correct the damage to the Donlevy residence. Between the time Respondent commenced working on the Donlevy roof in October 1980 and the time the cave-in occurred in September 1981, no citation was issued to Respondent for any defects in workmanship or materials, and no written complaints concerning any such defects were ever made. The only verbal complaint concerned the leak in the carport area, which Respondent immediately repaired. No leak occurred again at that site. The cave-in was caused by the collapse of deteriorated wood, the weight of pooling water, and the size of the single drain (which probably became blocked by leaves). Respondent's contract with Donlevy as the Specifications were written by Rojas did not include putting in a new roof system, and Respondent did not replace the roof system in the Donlevy residence. Respondent's warranty would not cover work not contracted for and not done by him. Petitioner's witnesses admitted that Respondent did not replace the roof system in the Donlevy house and further admitted that even with the roof covering cleared off, all the rafters (the component which collapsed) could not be seen in order to ascertain their condition. The contractor who replaced Respondent received a Proceed Order from the City of Miami on October 2, 1981. Pursuant to instructions from the city, that contractor replaced the entire roof system and further installed a bigger drain.
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 a roofing contractor, having been issued license number CCC 57995 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for and did business as “Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. of the Fla. Keys” (Victor’s Roofing). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Johnson was an owner of property located at 3214 Harriet Avenue, Key West, Florida (the subject property). Mr. Johnson lives in Hollywood, Florida. The subject property is rental property. Respondent and his company are not licensed to do drywall work in Key West, Florida, and they are not licensed with Petitioner other than as a roofing contractor. ROOFING WORK On November 3, 2008, Respondent, on behalf of Victor’s Roofing, entered into a contract with Mr. Johnson to re-roof the subject property. The proposal submitted by Respondent to Mr. Johnson contained Victor’s Roofing’s full corporate name; its office address in Marathon, Florida; two telephone numbers; and a fax number. The proposal was signed by Respondent. The proposal described in some detail the scope of the work. The price of the work was $7,000.00. Mr. Johnson accepted the proposal. Victor’s Roofing completed the roofing job to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. A leak developed after the roof was completed and Victor’s Roofing promptly repaired the leak to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint alleged that Victor’s Roofing had failed to obtain a permit for the roofing job on the subject property and that it had failed to obtain required inspections. Those allegations were the result of an error by Petitioner’s investigator. Ms. Del Rio obtained records from the City of Key West Building Department for the wrong address. Instead of obtaining the permit history for the subject property (3214 Harriet Avenue) she requested and obtained the permit history for 3314 Harriet Avenue. Respondent applied for a permit for the roofing job on the subject property on November 11, 2006, and he obtained an inspection of the roof on November 27, 2007 [sic]. There was insufficient evidence to establish that any other permit or any other inspection was required for the roofing work. DRYWALL WORK After the roofing job had been completed (but before the inspection on November 27, 2007),2 Mr. Johnson informed Respondent by telephone that he needed someone to replace drywall that had been damaged during the period of time the subject property’s roof leaked. Mr. Johnson asked Respondent whether he knew anyone who could do the job. Respondent replied in the affirmative and told Mr. Johnson he would have someone contact him about doing the work.3 Thereafter, Respondent’s brother, Early Harris, contacted Mr. Johnson and the two of them verbally agreed on a price of $4,000. At the time Respondent put Early Harris in touch with Mr. Johnson, Respondent knew that Early Harris was not licensed to do drywall work in Key West. After giving Mr. Johnson’s telephone number to Early Harris, Respondent had no further involvement with the drywall work on the subject property. The price of the drywall work escalated to $9,000.00 after the work began. On November 25, 2006, Early Harris and Mr. Johnson signed a written proposal agreeing to the price of $9,000.00.4 This was a form proposal with the following: Victor’s Roofing Co., Inc. 2nd Generation Serving South Florida Licensed & Insured Marathon, Fla. The only telephone number on the proposal other than Mr. Johnson’s, was the number for Early Harris’ cell phone. The contract signed by Respondent on November 3, 2006, for the roofing work was on a different form and utilized a different font than the contract signed by Early Harris on November 25, 2006. The name of the corporation on the proposal for the drywall work, while similar to the name of Respondent’s company, was different. Early Harris has worked for Respondent’s business for several years, but there was no clear and convincing evidence that Early Harris had the authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business in November 2006. There was no evidence that Early Harris is a part owner of Respondent’s business or that he is an officer or director of Respondent’s business. Respondent testified, credibly, that Early Harris was not authorized to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business at the times relevant to this proceeding. There was no clear and convincing evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion that Earl Harris had no authority to contract on behalf of Respondent’s business. Early Harris did the drywall work on the subject property. Mr. Johnson paid Early Harris $9,000.00 for the drywall work. Mr. Johnson could not find the check(s) he wrote for the drywall work and, consequently the check(s) were unavailable as an exhibit. His recollection as to the name of the payee of the check(s) was not clear. Respondent testified, credibly, that neither he nor his business received any of the money for the drywall work. The drywall work Early Harris did was not to Mr. Johnson’s satisfaction. Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 to a drywall contractor for corrective work. In addition, Mr. Johnson had to pay $600.00 for a permit to have the repair work done.5 The total investigative costs of this case to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $191.16.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, 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 14th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and held license number CG- C016730. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Bilo Homes, Inc. (Bilo), a corporation engaged in Florida in the business of general contracting with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Huston resided at 29843 S.W. 149th court, Leisure City, Florida. On February 24, 1988, the Hustons contracted with Bilo to build an addition to their house for the sum of $20,000 pursuant to plans and specifications that had been prepared by an architect. The Hustons' existing house was valued between $30,000-$40,000. The contract called for a one-story room addition to be built on a concrete slab with stucco exterior and sheet rock interior. The addition was to have a sliding glass door and was to be connected to the existing structure by a tie beam. The roof of the existing house was to be reshingled to match the shingles on the addition. The project also involved electrical work and plumbing work. The contract was signed on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, and work began on Friday, February 26, 1988. The contract did not specify a time for the completion of the project. The following draw schedule was agreed to by the Hustons and Bilo: 20% of the contract price upon the acceptance of the contract by the Hustons; 10% of the contract price upon the pouring of the concrete slab; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the tie beam: 20% of the contract price upon the drying in of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the completion of the rough mechanical work; 10% of the contract price upon ice completion of the shingling of the roof; 10% of the contract price upon the installation of the plumbing fixtures;; 10% of the contract price (the balance) upon completion of the job. The Hustons made payments to Bilo in the total amount of $14,000.00. These payments were broken down as follows: $4,000.00 paid on February 24, 1988, upon acceptance of the contract; $2,000.00 paid on March 22, 1988, upon the pouring of the concrete slab; $2,000.00 paid on April 5, 1988, upon the completion of the tie beam; $4,000.00 paid on April 18, 1988, upon the drying in of the roof; and $2,000.00 paid on June 25, 1988, upon the completion of the shingling of the roof. Before June 25, 1988, Respondent had asked the Hustons for the draw due upon completion of the rough mechanical work in addition to the draw due upon completion of the shingling. The Hustons refused to pay both draws because they were dissatisfied with the quality of Bilo's work. The Hustons engaged the services of a lawyer and, on June 29, 1988, presented Respondent with a list of items they wanted corrected before paying the draw for the rough mechanical work. Respondent and the Hustons disagreed as to when the items on the list should be corrected. Respondent contended that the items could have been corrected as part of the punch list prior to the final payment. The Hustons contended that the items should be corrected before Respondent received any further draws. This dispute is resolved by finding that while several of the items on the list could have been corrected as part of the final punch list, there were items on the list that should have been corrected by Respondent before he proceeded. Considering the very poor quality of work that went into this job, the Hustons were justified in their demand that Respondent make these corrections before receiving an additional draw. Respondent contends that the Hustons did not pay the draw for the rough mechanical work because they ran out of money. This contention is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. After the Hustons presented Respondent with the list and refused to pay the draw for the rough mechanical work, Bilo stopped work on the project. Bilo performed no work on the project after June 29, 1988. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired K & H Plumbing as the subcontractors to the plumbing work on the Huston job. K & H Plumbing's work failed to pass a Metro Dade County tub and water pipe inspection because the work did not meet the South Florida Building Code. K & H never completed its work on the Huston addition and no final inspection of its work was approved. K & H Plumbing filed suit against the Hustons for the unpaid portion of their contract with Bilo. In addition, K & H Plumbing failed to properly replace wood decking which it had pulled up during the course of its work on the Huston job. Respondent had received funds which1 should have been used to pay K & H. Prior to the work stoppage, Respondent hired Tom Mentelos to perform the electrical subcontracting work on the Huston addition. The work performed, by Mentelos was substandard. His work failed to pass inspection by the Metro Dade County Building and Zoning Department on six different occasions. In addition to this substandard work, one of Mentelos' employees cracked the Huston's kitchen ceiling while working in the attic over the existing portion of the house. This crack was never corrected by Mentelos or by Bilo. Mentelos never completed his work on the Huston addition, although he was never fired by the Hustons. Mentelos filed a claim of lien against the Hustons in he amount of $2,000.00. The first claim of lien was released and Mentelos filed a second claim of lien against the Hustons in the amount of $2,623.00. Respondent had received funds which should have been used to pay Mentelos. Respondent obtained the roofing permit to build the new roof on the Huston addition and to reroof the existing roof. The roofing work involved a process commonly referred to as "hot mopping", a process which requires the services of a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent exceeded the scope of his licensure by engaging in hot mopping. Bilo's employees punched two unnecessary vent pipes through the roof and placed a flat piece of PVC material around the vent holes to keep the, roof from leaking. This is an improper and unacceptable construction practice. Bilo's employees damaged the existing screen porch while working on the roof. The metal flashing which connected the existing roof to the aluminum screen porch was taken off but was never replaced. As a result, the screen porch leaked, a problem that had not been corrected as of the time of the final hearing. While Bilo's employees were working on the roof of the existing structure, a rainstorm occurred which resulted in water stains to the ceiling of the Hustons' main structure. The workmen were not supervised by Respondent and were unprepared for the rain. Other than the water stains, no damage was done to the ceiling. To repair the ceiling stains would require a chemical coating, followed by repainting of the ceiling. The cost of the repair would be approximately $75.00. Bilo engaged in poor construction practice in constructing the exterior wall by facing the poorer grade side of the exterior plywood toward the outside as opposed to inside. The better construction practice is to place the poorer grade side toward the inside where it will not be exposed to view. There is a gap in the area where the metal flashing comes down the exterior side of the end gable and meets the top of the roof. In the work performed by Bilo, the piece of sheathing was above the bottom of the sill plate which caused a gap from one inch to five inches over a distance between eight and ten feet. This gap is a source of potential leaks. Bilo attempted to cover the v-notch in the area of the gag with tar pitch in an attempt to correct this deficiency. Both the gap and the attempted repair are unacceptable construction practices. Bilo had not cut vents in the soffits at the time it stopped work on the project. Without vent holes in the soffits, the job would have not passed inspection. Bilo could have, at little expense, cut the soffit vents at a later point in the job. The end member of the frame for the partition wall between the laundry room and the masonry wall is not pressure- treated wood. The South Florida Building Code requires that the wood used for the end member of such construction be pressure treated or that there be a barrier between the end member and the adjoining wall. Here, Bilo failed to exercise either acceptable option, and, consequently performed work that failed to comport with acceptable construction practices and did not meet code. The manner in which Bilo supported the timber girder that supports the roof trusses fails to meet code because the tie beam, into which this girder is pocketed for support, is improperly supported. A hole was knocked in the cement block wall that supported the tie beam when a plumbing vent was redirected. As a result of this hole, the tie beam rests on only approximately two inches of concrete, which is inadequate to support the tie beam and the timber girder. This work fails to comport with acceptable construction practices. Bilo failed to brace the roof trusses as required by the plans and specifications of the architect. This is an unacceptable construction practiced. Bilo cut into the roof truss without authority from the truss manufacturer or from a qualified engineer. Cutting into a truss can impair its structural integrity and is a violation of code. Respondent maintained at hearing that he would have been able to get approval from the truss manufacturer for the modification of the truss caused by the cut. Respondent did not have such approval as of the time of the final hearing, and there was no evidence, other than his unilateral expectation, to support this contention. The facia board on the eaves did not join properly because Bilo's workmen did not take the time to properly cut the boards with the aid of a square. Although this is a matter that could be corrected for approximately $25.00, this work, along with the other deficiencies detailed herein, demonstrates the substandard work that went into this project and establishes that Bilo failed to provide its workmen adequate supervision or adequate training. At hearing, there was a dispute as to how much time Respondent personally spent at the Huston job site. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent was personally on the job site for at least 30 minutes on days when work was progressing. When major items were being performed on the job, he spent more time on the job site. When minor work was being done, Respondent did not go to the job site on a daily basis. Regardless of the number of minutes or hours that Respondent spent on the job site, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent failed to properly supervise his workmen in light of the low level of skill the workmen exhibited throughout the job. Respondent had the responsibility as the general contractor to properly supervise his workmen and his subcontractors. He failed to perform that responsibility. As of the final hearing, the Huston addition remained uncompleted. At the time of the work stoppage, it would have cost the Hustons more than $6,600 to complete the job, the difference between the contract price and the amount that the Hustons had paid Respondent. The evidence was clear that the Hustons had incurred damages as a result of their dealings with Respondent. The amount of those damages were not established with any degree of certainty. On or about July 15, 1988, Respondent filed a claim of lien against the Hustons' property claiming that Bilo was owed $8,350 for the work that had been done. Respondent has been a certified general contractor for fifteen years and has been certified as a general contractor in the State of Florida since 1980. Respondent's licensure had not been disciplined prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(h), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes, which imposes administrative fines in the amount of total amount of $5,000 for such violations, and which suspends his licensure as a general contractor for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0765 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings in Section VI (A) are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made. (Section VI (A) pertains to facts established through Respondent's failure to respond to Request for Admissions.) The proposed findings in paragraphs 1 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings in paragraphs 5 - 10 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are subordinate to the findings made or are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraphs 11, 19, and 25 are adopted in material part except to the extent that the proposed findings are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of paragraph 12, 26, and 27 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 13 and 20 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 19, 27, and 30 are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 32, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 11 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12, 14, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 34 are rejected as being the recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: regory A. Victor, Esquire 3225 Aviation Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
