The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the contracting license of the Respondent Konrad v. Ising should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined by the Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. At the final hearing Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2(a)-(g) were offered and admitted into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Konrad V. Ising is licensed to practice contracting in Florida, and is a licensed certified general contractor holding license number CG C009669, a license current and active from 1982 through the present. The Respondent qualified Master Craft Constructors using license number CG C009669. During 1982, the Respondent entered into an association with Carlton Mosher whereby the Respondent would use his contractor's license to obtain building permits for construction projects which Mosher had contracted. The Respondent hoped his association with Mosher would lead to a partnership and assist him in obtaining practical experience in the construction field. During his association with the Respondent, Mosher was not a licensed contractor. In December 1982, Mosher, doing business as Re-Builders, contracted with Russell Hirstins to construct a room addition on his home at 4034 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. On December 3, 1982, an application for a building permit for the job was submitted to the City of St. Petersburg and permit number 88638 was issued. The permit was obtained using the Respondent's license number and Respondent is listed as the job contractor. However, the Respondent performed no work on the Hirstins job, maintained no control over Mosher's work, failed to adequately supervise the project, and failed to qualify Re-Builders with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since becoming licensed in 1975, the Respondent has not been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings. At the final hearing, the Respondent candidly acknowledged that his association with Mosher was a regrettable mistake. The project was completed by Mosher to the apparent satisfaction to the Hirstins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board finding the Respondent Konrad V. Ising guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and imposing a $250 administrative fine. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Konrad V. Ising Post Office Box 1023 Maitland, Florida 323751 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner was licensed as a general contractor in Florida, holding license number CG CO20660, under which license he had qualified Custom Retail Contractors, Inc., and the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. On February 12, 1986, the Board entered a Final Order in its case number 0058164 in which it suspended Respondent's license to practice contracting for five years. This action was based on a finding that Respondent had violated several sections of the Standard Building Code in a contract to build several commercial buildings in Largo, Florida, and also had exhibited gross negligence or incompetency in several aspects of the job. Respondent was first made aware of the action of the Board in late March or early April, 1986 when his attorney, Mr. Gordon, told him he had received a copy of the Final Order. At that point, Respondent did not know there had been a hearing on his case, though he knew an action had been filed. Correspondence extracted from the files of DPR relating to Respondent, indicates that between March 11, 1986 and June 25, 1986, several phone calls and letters were exchanged between DPR legal personnel and Respondent's counsel regarding whether Respondent had been given notice that the initial Administrative Complaint against him had been filed. The complaint had been served by an investigator with DPR on Mr. Gordon who declined to accept service since he was counsel for Respondent's corporation and not Respondent, individually. The evidence further indicates that subsequent pleadings in that case were misdirected and misaddressed due to faulty addresses used by the Department which included erroneous street addresses and erroneous ZIP codes. The upshot of all this was that Respondent failed to submit an Election of Rights regarding the initial Administrative Complaint, and, after numerous attempts at communication by DPR, which included the posting of a notice of the Board hearing in the Clearwater, Florida newspaper, the Board ultimately held Respondent in default and entered the Final Order suspending his license as described above. In the Spring of 1986, however, while the communication and correspondence between DPR and Mr. Gordon was going on, Respondent was led to believe, he contends, that the Final Order was not dispositive of his status, that the status of his license was still undecided, and that he could continue to practice his profession. His reliance on advice of counsel was misplaced and works to his detriment here as it does not excuse his improprieties. Consistent with that understanding, on May 1, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Clarence P. Foster, owner of Clarence's, a lounge, restaurant and package store located in Clearwater, Florida, to remodel a patio outside the facility. Work was to include pouring a concrete slab in the drive- thru, constructing a block wall around the patio, installing lattice panels on top of the block wall, and placing planter boxes on two of the walls. The total contract price was $4,730.00 and on May 15, 1986, the manager of Clarence's issued a check in the amount of $1,730.00 payable to Tom Morgan, Respondent's associate. At the time of Respondent's negotiations with Mr. Foster, Mr. Foster indicated he was utilizing a contractor for the complete remodeling of his facility who did not want to do the patio work, and Respondent agreed to do it. After their contract was signed, Respondent dealt with Mr. Foster's manager who showed him the plans for the entire remodeling which, according to Respondent, included the patio. They were stamped by the contractor and had a permit number on them. Respondent contends he asked if that indicated permit included the entire project and claims he was told it did. Respondent also claims he advised Foster's manager that there was some problem with his contractor's license but was assured that the master permit already issued would cover any work done by him under the terms of the individual contract. After receiving the down payment from the manager, Respondent purchased the required materials, paying cash therefore, and started work. Respondent relates that at the very beginning, a violation was written by building inspectors for the failure of the electrical contractor to procure a permit for his portion of the work. When this was done, the contractor immediately got the required permit after the fact and continued with his work. This concerned the Respondent, however, and he requested the manager to bring the existing permit for the remodeling around to the area where Respondent was working where he posted it and covered it with cellophane. When the inspector subsequently came by to check Respondent's work, he asked where the permit for that portion of the construction was and Respondent pointed to the master permit. The inspector then indicated that that permit was only for exterior siding and when Respondent protested that decision, called his office and verified that fact. Upon being advised of this development, Respondent then took the plans he had been furnished and a copy of the permit to the building office and asked the clerk on duty what he had to do. According to Respondent, he was advised that he needed to get more plans prepared with a certificate that the work already done had been done to code. Respondent relates that in response to these instructions, he procured an architect to come and look at the job as it then stood. The architect reportedly thereafter drew up plans and certified the quality of the work already accomplished by Respondent and Respondent allegedly took this information to the building department where, on June 25, 1986, he applied for a building permit to do the work. At that time, according to Respondent, he advised the clerk he had a problem with his license and that all he wanted was a supplemental permit to finish the job. Approximately two weeks later, when passing the County building, Respondent stopped in at the building department office to check on the status of his permit. It was at this point that he first discussed the matter with Mr. Palmer, the plans examiner, who told him that his license had been suspended and that he could not receive a permit to do the work requested. Respondent returned to Mr. Foster and explained the situation to him. Mr. Foster turned the matter over to his manager who arranged for someone else to get the permit and complete the job. Respondent contends he was not trying to trick anyone or to contract without a license. He claims that at the time he entered into the agreement with Mr. Foster, he was unsure of the status of his license and he thought he had made that clear to everyone, including Mr. Foster and the people at the building office. Respondent contends that in his dealings with Foster he was attempting to deal as a subcontractor and not as a general contractor. The fact is, however, that the contract he entered into was a separate contract with Mr. Foster and failed to indicate any reference to subcontractor status. The agreement called for Respondent to be paid directly by Foster and not by the general contractor and his claim is, therefore, not believed. Respondent's protestations in this regard are without merit. Further, his story regarding the permit status is equally as unbelievable. As a qualified contractor, Respondent knew, or should have checked on, the limits of the permit issued and whether it would cover the work he was to do. Reliance on the representations of the non-contractor manager of Mr. Foster's facility as to the status of the permit was unreasonable and constituted gross negligence. Consequently, he was thereafter operating in violation of the local law which required a permit for this work. As a result of the ongoing negotiations between Respondent's counsel and counsel for the Board, on July 10, 1986, after the contract between Mr. Foster and Respondent had been entered into, Respondent and the Board entered into a Settlement Stipulation which called for amendment of the Final Order entered in the prior case and which provided for the payment of a fine of $1,000.00 within 30 days with the further stipulation that when the fine was paid, the previously imposed five year suspension would be set aside. In the event the fine was not paid, however, then the Respondent's license was to be relinquished to the Board. The Amended Final Order was sent by certified mail to the Respondent but was unclaimed because the address used by the Department was, again, incorrect. It must also be noted, however, that at the time the Board agreed to the settlement stipulation, it had available to it the report of investigation relating to the current Administrative Complaint. The Board either failed to consider it or chose to ignore it when it agreed upon a settlement to the former Administrative Complaint. It is also noted that the Board was aware of the difficulties involving service of process as early as August, 1986. At that time, Respondent received a certified letter from the Board Attorney indicating that final action on his license would be taken by the Board at its September, 1986 meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Respondent attended that meeting where, after discussion, counsel for the Board convinced the Board to reopen the case due to the questions involving proper service of its former actions. A year later, in July, 1987, Respondent was advised that the reopened case would again be considered at the Board's meeting in Tampa, and at the 1987 meeting of the Board, it entered its Amended Final Order. Though regrettable, these factors are not controlling and do not affect this current action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a general contractor in Florida be suspended for two years. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1999 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 10 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Palmer refused to issue the permit because Respondent's license had been suspended. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected that Respondent willfully violated local building code. Evidence shows more of gross negligence than willfulness. Accepted. For the Respondent: No submittal. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0758 Fred H. Moore 12687 - 97th Street, North Largo, Florida 34643 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Arthur Signore committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Arthur Signore (Respondent) was licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner) as a certified general contractor. He received his license in 1969, qualifying Deluccia Construction. Respondent was issued license number CG CA01004. Subsequently, in 1976, Respondent qualified Construction By Scott (CBS). He was issued license number CG CB01004. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifier of CBS, and the sole owner and president of CBS. At all times material hereto, Respondent's belief was that Petitioner permitted a general contractor to use his/her license to obtain building permits for construction projects for which the general contractor had no contracts through the business that he/she qualified. Respondent practiced his belief frequently by applying for and obtaining building permits for construction projects for which companies or individuals other than CBS had contracts. Collins Job (Case No. 97-1436) Sometime after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Respondent made an oral agreement with Harold Bader to go into partnership with Bader and form a construction company, with Respondent qualifying the company. Respondent provided his name, his company's name (CBS), and his license number to Bader in order for the qualifying documents to be completed and submitted to the Petitioner. However, the company was not formed and the qualifying documents were never submitted. At no time material hereto was Bader licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Bader was not licensed by the Petitioner. In March 1994, Thomas Sherry of American Building Industries, Inc. (ABI), began negotiating with Maria and Wayne Collins, husband and wife, for the remodeling of their home, located at 7417 SW 140th Court, Miami, Florida. On March 24, 1994, the Collins entered into a contract with ABI for the remodeling of their home at a cost of $12,500. Bader was the owner of ABI. Sherry was a salesperson for Bader. Sherry provided the Collins with a business card which showed, among other things, ABI's name, address and telephone number, and license number. The license number on the business card was Respondent's license number. All business cards were provided to Sherry by Bader. At no time material hereto, did Sherry talk with or meet Respondent. The records of the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department reflect, among other things, Respondent's name, his company's name (CBS) and license number on the building permit application for the construction to the Collins' home. However, the address listed for Respondent and his company was the address for ABI. Further, the said records reflect, among other things, that aforementioned information provided, as to Respondent, was used to obtain the building permit. Respondent did not complete the permit application for the building permit to remodel the Collins' home. The Collins paid $6,875 to ABI. Any and all checks were made payable to ABI. No money for the construction on the Collins' home was paid to or received by Respondent. In May 1994, problems developed on the job site between the Collins and ABI. The work performed by ABI failed numerous inspections. Mr. Collins wanted to talk with Respondent who was listed as the contractor on the permit and requested Bader to contact Respondent. Bader refused, indicating to Mr. Collins that all communication should be with him (Bader). Finally, in August 1994 the Collins fired ABI after more problems had developed. At that time ABI had completed some of the work. On August 29, 1994, Mr. Collins met with Respondent at Respondent's place of business. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Collins had called Respondent numerous times regarding his problems with ABI and Bader and requesting assistance from Respondent. Each time Respondent denied having any knowledge of the work being performed. When Mr. Collins met with Respondent, Mr. Collins discussed the problems that he had experienced with ABI and Bader. Respondent continued to deny knowing anything about the construction project but agreed to send his employees to examine the job and determine what could be done, if anything. The following day two of Respondent's workers came to the Collins' home and examined the work completed and the work remaining. Subsequently, Respondent contacted Mr. Collins. Respondent indicated to Mr. Collins that he could complete the job for $5,000. Mr. Collins refused to pay the additional monies since it would extend the remodeling cost beyond the contracted cost and since he was now directly paying the subcontractors. At no time did Respondent or his business (CBS) have a contract with the Collins. Until being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had no knowledge that Bader used his name, business name and license number to contract with the Collins and to obtain the building permit for the remodeling of their home. However, prior to being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had been contacted by other persons who had contracts with ABI, who had been informed by Bader that Respondent was the contractor for their jobs, who had problems with ABI, and who wanted assistance from Respondent. Furthermore, the building permits for the construction jobs of those persons reflected Respondent and Respondent's company as the contractor. At no time material hereto was Bader or ABI licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Bader nor ABI was licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent was placed on notice of their unlicensed activity after the contacts by the homeowners prior to the contact by the Collins. Even with the knowledge of the homeowners' complaints prior to the Collins' complaints, at no time did Respondent notify Bader to stop using his (Respondent's) name, company's name and license number. Further, at no time did Respondent notify the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department of Bader's misuse of his (Respondent's) name, company's name, and license number or to no longer issue permits to ABI under his (Respondent's) name, company and license. Walsh Job (Case No. 97-1435) In the Fall of 1995, Patrick and Susan Walsh entered into an oral agreement with John Petracelli for an addition to and the remodeling of their home, located at 761 Glen Ridge Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. On October 16, 1995, the Walshes entered into a verbal agreement with Petracelli for an engineer to produce a set of plans at a cost of $2,250 for the construction to their home. The Walshes paid Petracelli the $2,250 on October 16, 1995. On December 7, 1995, the Walshes entered into a written agreement with Petracelli for the construction work on their home at a cost of $84,000. Pursuant to this written agreement, the Walshes paid Petracelli $16,800 on December 7, 1995. Petracelli contacted Respondent and requested Respondent to be the contractor for the construction work on the Walshes' home. Respondent and Petracelli had met one another previously when Petracelli was a salesperson for Bader. Petracelli informed Respondent that he (Petracelli) had already told the Walshes that Respondent was the contractor. To the contrary, Petracelli had not informed the Walshes that Respondent was involved in the construction to their home. Respondent agreed to be the contractor but informed Petracelli that, until a set of plans was approved by the Village of Key Biscayne Building Division (Building Division), he could not provide Petracelli with a cost figure for the construction work. Petracelli informed Respondent that the plans were being prepared, but did not inform Respondent that the Walshes had paid for the preparation of the plans. Respondent agreed further to submit the completed plans to the Building Division for a "dry run" only. After the dry run, Respondent would provide a cost figure for the construction work. A dry run is a process in which a contractor, who has a complicated job which requires an engineer, submits a set of plans, together with an application for a building permit, to the Building Division for approval. The plans may be subject to several modifications requested by the Building Division before they are approved. As a result, the contractor does not know the estimated cost of a job until the plans have gone through the requested modifications, if any, and approved by the Building Division. After the plans are approved by the Building Division, the contractor is notified to come to the Building Division and sign for and obtain the building permit. Pursuant to the agreement between Respondent and Petracelli, on or about December 11, 1995, Respondent completed an application for a building permit for the addition to and the remodeling of the Walshes' home and gave it to Petracelli. The application reflected, among other things, CBS (Respondent's company) as the contractor, and Respondent as the qualifier. Respondent provided the application to Petracelli for the dry run process only. Further, Respondent reiterated to Petracelli that, once the plans were approved by the Building Division, he (Respondent) would meet with the Walshes and agree on a cost for the construction work on their home and that, after agreeing on the cost he (Respondent) would sign for and obtain the building permit for the construction to begin. Respondent was not aware that Petracelli and the Walshes had a signed agreement for the construction work. Petracelli submitted the plans, along with the permit application, to the Building Division for approval. The plans were modified several times to meet the approval of the Building Division, but were never approved. The Building Division considered the plans submitted to be substandard. Since no plans were approved, no building permit was issued. On or about January 3, 1996, the Walshes met at the Building Division with some of the Building Division's officials, Petracelli, and the engineer who prepared the plans. As a result of the meeting, among other things, the Walshes were able to review the permit application and discovered that Respondent, not Petracelli, was licensed and the contractor for the construction work; concluded that the engineer's work was considered so substandard by the Building Division that any modification produced by the engineer would not be approved by the Building Division; and determined that they no longer wanted Petracelli to perform the construction work on their home. Within 24 hours of the meeting, the Walshes telephoned Petracelli and terminated his services. Also, the Walshes requested the return of all of the monies paid to Petracelli by them; however, Petracelli did not return any of their money. At no time material hereto was Petracelli licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Petracelli was not licensed by the Petitioner. At no time material hereto did Respondent or his company (CBS) have a contract with the Walshes. At no time material hereto did Respondent have any communication or contact with the Walshes. Biscayne Kennel Club Job (Case No. 97-2998) The Biscayne Kennel Club (BKC), located at 320 NW 115th Street, Miami Shores, Florida, was a track for greyhound racing. On October 30, 1995, the last race was run at BKC. In February 1996, the BKC sold its Pari-Mutuel license. On or about December 11, 1996, the BKC, by and through its representative, Carl Spitzer, entered into a written contract with Cuyahoga Wrecking Corporation (CWC), by and through its representative, Thomas Schwab, for, among other things, the removal of asbestos and the demolition and removal of BKC's grandstand structure and viewing area. The contract was prepared by Schwab, who had 25 years of experience in the demolition business, with 20 years of that experience in the State of Florida. All contract negotiations were between Schwab and Spitzer. At no time was the President and CEO of BKC, Kay Spitzer, involved in the contract negotiations. As to cost, the contract provided at Article 4 that the cost was $37,500 and that the $37,500 was "dedicated to the removal of the described ACM." Further, Article 4 provided that the "balance of the work to be paid for by the sale of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals by the contractor." In addition, the contract provided in Article 7 that, among other things, all permits were included in the contract price and that BKC and the "contractor" would share "equally all the proceeds of the non-ferrous metals minus whatever costs are incurred bringing it to market." The contract did not restrict or prohibit CWC from engaging the services of any individual or subcontractor to perform the work required in the contract. The grandstand structure and viewing area were one structure. Attached to the roof of the structure was a small building which was used by BKC personnel for viewing the races. The roof was the highest part of the structure, except for the small building. The distance from ground level to the top of the roof was 69 feet and 10 inches; and the top of the small building was approximately 15 feet higher than the top of the roof. CWC contracted with Sal's Abatement to perform the asbestos removal. Schwab was licensed by Dade County, Florida, as a specialty contractor. He was notified that the work for the BKC job was outside the scope of his license and that a contractor, licensed by the Petitioner, was required for the BKC job. Schwab contacted Respondent to be the general contractor. Schwab had worked with Respondent before on other, but smaller, jobs. Respondent agreed to be the general contractor in return for a percentage of the contract. Per the agreement, Respondent would obtain the necessary permits, provide the equipment necessary for the demolition, and supervise the workers on the job. On March 6, 1997, Respondent completed an application for a building permit with Miami Shores Village, Florida, for the demolition of the BKC grandstand. The application reflected Respondent's company (CBS) as the contracting company and Respondent as the qualifier. Carl Spitzer signed the permit application on behalf of BKC. On March 17, 1997, a building permit (permit number 41084) was issued by the Village of Miami Shores for the demolition of BKC's grandstand. On April 29, 1997, the cost of the permit, $566.50, was paid. At no time material hereto was Schwab or CWC licensed by Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Schwab nor CWC were licensed by Petitioner. At no time did a contract exist between Respondent or his company with BKC for the demolition job. Respondent supervised CWC's preparation of the grandstand for demolition. In preparing the grandstand for demolition, Respondent and Schwab met at the site at least 3 times to discuss the demolition and its progress. On May 16, 1997, the grandstand was scheduled to be demolished. On the morning of May 16th, as Schwab was leaving BKC, Respondent arrived. Shortly thereafter, the grandstand accidentally collapsed--the beams supporting the roof of the grandstand failed, and the roof collapsed. Two of CWC's workers were killed and three were seriously injured. After the collapse, BKC contracted with another company, Omega Contracting, to complete the demolition job. The Petitioner submitted documents reflecting that its costs of investigation and prosecution of the complaints against Respondent, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, to be $1,017.25. On May 22, 1997, pursuant to an Emergency Suspension Order, on May 22, 1997, the Petitioner suspended Respondent's license. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing all counts in Case Nos. 97-1435 and 97-1436. Finding that Arthur Signore violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (e), and (j), 489.1265(3), and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Revoking Arthur Signore's certified general contractor's license. Requiring Arthur Signore to pay all reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution associated with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Case No. 97-2998.3 DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's contractor's license based upon the alleged violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") as a certified general contractor having been issued License No. CG C024612. Respondent has been a licensed contractor since 1983. On May 3, 1991, the Board filed a Final Order in Board Case Nos. 89-009986 and 89-013330 imposing a reprimand against Respondent. The Final Order was issued as part of the settlement of an amended administrative complaint filed against Respondent by Petitioner regarding certain unrelated transactions. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Willie William Construction Company, Inc. until October 1985. At that time, as a result of a corporate name change, Respondent became the qualified agent for Ashar Construction Company. On February 21, 1985, the Unsafe Structures Board of the Building and Zoning Department for Dade County advised Ruby Delancy that a hearing would be conducted on March 12, 1985 to determine whether a one story framed residence that Mrs. Delancy owned at 1005 NW 58th Street in Miami (the "House" or the "Property") should be demolished. The Notice indicated that the structure was "open, vacant, vandalized, filled with combustible materials; posing a serious fire hazard. Structure is a danger to human life and public welfare." The Notice estimated the present value of the building at $16,080 and the estimated cost of repairs at $51,120. The County's records indicate that a Notice of Violation regarding the Property had been issued to the owner on October 31, 1984. Facing imminent demolition of the House, Mrs. Delancy began to investigate possible ways to get the House repaired. She filed an application with the City of Miami for a low income, low interest loan that was funded through Federal HUD Community Development Funds. Her efforts to obtain funding to repair the House, delayed the proceedings that had been initiated to demolish the structure. In September of 1985, the City approved Mrs. Delancy for a grant of $10,000 and loan of $20,000 to repair the House. Mrs. Delancy has no other funds to pay for repairs to the Property other than the $30,000 she was obtaining through the City Program. Under the City's program, Mrs. Delancy was responsible for selecting a contractor. Mrs. Delancy contacted Respondent, who inspected the Property and prepared a construction estimate which was submitted to the City. Respondent entered into a contract (the "Contract") dated September 20, 1985 with Mrs. Delancy for home improvement work on the House. The total contract price was $29,870, which was to be paid in two installments: $10,835 on or before December 31, 1985 and a final payment of $19,035 on or before March 3, 1986. The evidence established that Respondent was initially reluctant to enter into the Contract and at least two other contractors refused to undertake the work given the limited funds available. However, Respondent agreed to take the job because of Mrs. Delancy's insistence and because of Respondent's sympathy for Mrs. Delancy's desperate situation in view of the imminent demolition of the House. The evidence also established that Mrs. Delancy requested Respondent to undertake additional work and/or services that were beyond the scope of the Contract. Among the extra items undertaken by Respondent was replacement of the floor in the family room. Additional expenses were also incurred because of unanticipated problems encountered during the renovation. For example one side of the house gave way during the renovation work. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there was no footing. Respondent was required to shore up that side of the House. In addition, the electrician was unable to get a meter because there was an outstanding electric bill for the Property. Respondent paid the old bill in order to get the meter connected. Similarly, she paid the gas company to get the stove hooked up. It does not appear Respondent received any additional compensation for the extra work. Except for $345 that Respondent paid for utilities on behalf of Mrs. Delancy, the evidence at the hearing was insufficient to place a dollar value on these extra services and expenses. The first installment under the Contract of $10,835 was paid to Respondent on or about December 31, 1985. In approximately January of 1986, Mrs. Delancy's son, Gerald Delancy, who had been living out of the state, returned to Miami and became involved in overseeing the construction on behalf of his mother. Gerald Delancy was not pleased with the quality of the construction and a great deal of tension developed between Gerald Delancy and Respondent. The final payment request form was submitted on February 20, 1986. Mrs. Delancy signed a document (the "Certificate of Completeness") indicating that the work was completed and the final payment was made to Respondent by the City on March 3, 1986. Gerald Delancy was present when his mother signed the Certificate of Completeness. She signed this Certificate against the advice of her son. At the time the document was signed, Respondent agreed in principal to complete any remaining work. The City Inspection Form which was posted on the project fails to indicate that a final inspection approval was obtained from the City. In addition, the evidence established that required roof inspections were not obtained prior to the final structural inspection. Gerald Delancy prepared a punch list of items which he felt were incomplete and submitted it to Respondent. It does not appear that this list was prepared until July of 1986. Because of the dispute between Respondent and Gerald Delancy as to what was required under the Contract, a copy of the punch list was also sent to the City. The punch list prepared by Gerald Delancy included a number of items which were beyond the scope of the Contract. For example, with respect to the plumbing, the complaints included the following: the water pressure was to low on the water line, the kitchen sink was too small, and the bathroom vanity was substandard. The Contract did not provide for a bathroom vanity. There were also complaints about ants and roaches and "missing shower rods and towel racks" even though these items were not specifically included within the Contract between Respondent and Mrs. Delancy. The City sent its estimator to the House to review the punch list items. The City's estimator felt that Respondent should provide another coat of paint and should complete some other minor repair work, but the estimator did not concur in many of Gerald Delancy's complaints. The City's rehabilitation estimator met with Respondent and Gerald Delancy at the House on July 15, 1986. At that meeting, Respondent agreed to correct certain matters and asked for one month to complete the work. On August 1, 1986, the work was not completed and Respondent requested an additional 30 days. On August 13, 1986, Respondent stated that she did not have the money to complete the work. According to the City's estimator, the cost to repair the construction deficiencies he noted would be approximately $2,500 to $3,000 as of the date of the hearing. During this period in August, Respondent did send some workers back to the house to complete some additional work. A dispute arose between those workers and Gerald Delancy. The exact nature and reasons for this dispute are not clear. Ultimately, Gerald Delancy refused to allow the workers to perform any work because he did not feel he received adequate answers to his inquiries as to the nature of the work they intended to perform. After the City refused to concur in all of his complaints, Gerald Delancy hired a building inspection company. He paid that company $534 and it rendered a report dated August 4, 1986 which detailed many other deficiencies in the construction. It is not clear whether this report was ever presented to Respondent. On or about November 3, 1986, Mrs. Delancy, at the urging of her son, filed a lawsuit against Respondent. On or about August 8, 1989, Mrs. Delancy obtained a final default judgement against Respondent in the amount of $65,000 plus costs of $102.50. Respondent claims that she was unaware of the lawsuit and the default final judgement until Petitioner's investigator questioned her about it on September 25, 1990. As of the date of the hearing in this case, Respondent has not appealed the judgement nor has she attempted to have it set aside or vacated. In addition to alleged construction defects, the default judgement included claims against Respondent for allegedly mishandling certain household goods and other property owned by Mrs. Delancy. The evidence presented in this case was confusing and inconclusive as to the nature and justification for these claims by the Delancys for property which Respondent was allegedly storing for Mrs. Delancy. Apparently, Respondent agreed to assist Mrs. Delancy by moving some of the furniture out of the house and placing it in storage during construction. The contract did not require Respondent to provide any moving or storage services and there is no evidence that Respondent was paid for this work. Some or all of the property that was moved out of the house was lost, stolen or destroyed. There is a dispute between the parties as to circumstances surrounding the loss of this property. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to establish what happened to the property, who was responsible for it and/or how much it was worth. It does appear that the default judgement against Respondent includes a very high assessment for the property involved. However, as noted above, that judgement has not been vacated or appealed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following disciplinary action against the Respondent: Imposition of an administrative fine of $1,000. Suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year, followed by two years probation under such terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 22nd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-6438 Only Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order. The following rulings are made with respect to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4, 11, and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 through 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 401 NW 2nd Ave., Ste N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Agnes Sangster 9925 NW 25th Ave. Miami, FL 33147 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Exec. Dir. Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Ste 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact In July 1977 Earl V. Shuptrine, Jr. entered into an agreement with Ronald Vickers for the latter to construct a building to be used as a used car sales office and residence in Plant City. Vickers was not a general contractor and since the building would be classed as a commercial building he contacted William A. Lanzetta, Respondent, who held a general contractor's license, for assistance in bidding the job and getting a permit for construction. Vickers contracted with Shuptrine to erect the building for $9,861 with the latter making payments as the work progressed. For Lanzetta's assistance, Vickers paid Lanzetta $200. Since he could not get a permit from the city because he was unlicensed, Vickers obtained authorization from Lanzetta to pull the permit in Lanzetta's name. When he presented this authorization from Lanzetta, the building inspector issued a permit to Vickers showing Lanzetta as the contractor. Since the construction was of a value less than $25,000 the city could have issued the permit to Shuptrine had this point been raised. At this time the building inspector was away and an assistant was in charge. Some discrepancies in the testimony occurred at this stage of the proceedings with the inspector who issued the permit to Vickers stating he issued it solely on the basis of Lanzetta's license while he acknowledged that for such a building as was here involved a permit could have been issued to Shuptrine. When Vickers subsequently stopped work on the building and withdrew the permit, a new permit was issued to Shuptrine upon orders of the "boss" who had apparently returned to or taken over the job of city building inspector between the time of the issuance of the original permit to Vickers and the issuance of the subsequent permit to Shuptrine. In accordance with the contract with Vickers, Shuptrine paid $9,000 in draws to Vickers and when the project was 75-80 percent complete Vickers advised Shuptrine that he could not finish the building without additional money from Shuptrine. At this point, Shuptrine fired Vickers, discovered two subcontractors had not been paid and engaged another carpenter to finish the building. Vickers had the permit withdrawn and Shuptrine obtained a new permit. Lanzetta acknowledges that he authorized Vickers to pull the permit on his license but contends that when he was advised that Shuptrine could get the permit in his own name that he directed Vickers not to use his registration to pull the permit. No notice of withdrawal of such authority was presented to the building inspector. All parties testified that Lanzetta did not supervise any work or even visit the site while construction was in progress and none of the subcontractors had contracted with Lanzetta or even knew him. They all recognized and accepted Vickers as the contractor in charge of the construction. As a result of Vickers' being unable to complete the building at the price contracted for, some of the subcontractors were not paid and Shuptrine had to expend additional sums over the contract price to complete the building. Vickers was subsequently charged with engaging in the practice of contracting without a license, pleaded guilty, and was fined $250 and placed on probation. At the time of the hearing he was still serving his probationary period.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Pedro P. Landera, was a certified general contractor having been issued license number CG C005371 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), in March 1973. In January 1986 the license was suspended by the Board for three years and, except for the charges pending in this proceeding, Landera would be eligible to have it reactivated in early 1989. Thus, Landera has been without authority to use his license for the last three years. Landera did not contest the Board's suspension action and, in a settlement stipulation, admitted he violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (m), Florida Statutes (1981), by certain conduct taken in December 1983. On August 11, 1986, an individual using the name of James Burke entered into a construction contract with Charlie E. Mincey, the owner of Charlie Tires Service, 1700 N. W. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. The contract, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4, called for Burke, "in a timely manner," to make the following additions to Mincey's tire shop: construct a 34' X 40' room onto the existing building, erect an aluminum shed across the front of the building, including a four foot concrete slab floor, and add a five foot wall across the back side of the building. Burke represented on the contract that he held license number 254514-4. However, a search of the Board's records revealed Burke held no state license. The total price for the work was $15,650. On August 13, Mincey paid Burke $3,000 as a down payment on the job. According to Mincey, Burke began work on the additions several weeks after the contract was executed and continued to do so on and off for a few months. Eventually, a concrete block wall for the 34' x 40' room was built, but it had no roof, windows, doors, electric wiring, plumbing or paint. The aluminum shed was never built nor did Burke construct a five foot wall at the rear of the building as required by the contract. During October and early November 1986 Mincey made additional payments to Burke in the amount of $3,175, 1,000, $500, $400, $300, $300, and $40. This made a total of $8,715 paid by Mincey to Burke. Despite these payments, several subcontractors came to the job site during the same time period to unload materials but requested payment from Mincey before they would release them. Mincey paid the subcontractors $2,593.64, as evidenced by receipts received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. When Burke did not return to the job site, and the project was still far from completed, Mincey attempted to contact Burke but could not find him. When he left the job site for the final time, Burke gave Mincey no notice of his intention to leave the job unfinished or any reason for doing so. Burke's whereabouts are still unknown, and there is now pending an outstanding warrant for his arrest. On September 30, 1986, a building permit application was filed with the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department seeking a permit for work to be done on Mincey's business. The application was filled out with three different colors of ink and in more than one person's handwriting. A carbon copy of the application has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9. The document was authenticated by a permit clerk of the Metropolitan Dade building and zoning department who identified the cashier's validation stamp, issuance date and permit number affixed to the document, all being indicia that the application was received and processed by that department. Further, the clerk attested to the fact that the carbon copy was a document normally kept in the regular course of business by her department. The application carries the signature, license number and social security number of respondent. The authenticity of respondent's signature was confirmed by a questioned document examiner whose testimony has been accepted as being credible and persuasive and was corroborated by respondent's own admission that the signature was his own. The author of the remaining writings on the document is unknown. Pursuant to the above application, a building permit was issued on October 1, 1986, for the work performed by Burke. The inspection record, which has been received as petitioner's exhibit 8, reflected that the job site was inspected by a Dade County inspector on October 1 and November 12, 1986. Also, the inspection record reflected that Gila Construction Company (GCC) was the contractor on the job. GCC is a Miami firm that Landera qualified in March 1984. Its owner is Gilbert Castillo. Mincey's building remains unfinished as of this date, and he contends the value of the work is less than the $11,308 that he paid to Burke and the subcontractors. In attempting to resolve the matter, Mincey learned that Landera's license number was on the permit application, and a complaint was eventually filed with the Board. However, prior to hearing, Mincey had never seen or talked to Landera, knew nothing of GCC, and considered the business transaction to be between he and Burke. Landera denied knowing Burke or authorizing him to use his license. Also, he maintained that he has not used his suspended license since the Board's action in early 1986. He denied signing the application in question and had no explanation as to how his signature got on the application except to suggest that someone may have obtained one with his signature and then fraudulently used the same to obtain a permit. Even so, there was no reason for Landera to sign an application during this period of time since his license was under suspension. Castillo, who owns GCC, denied knowing Burke or Mincey or having any knowledge of or participation in the Mincey job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law, that he pay a $3,500 fine, and that his license be suspended until January, 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 3. and 5. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 1. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 5. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 5. 4-5. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 2, 5 and 6. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 9. Covered in finding of fact 6. 9 Covered in findings of fact 9 and 10 COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis F. DeLaCruz, Jr., Esquire 300 Sevilla Avenue Suite 313 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, set forth in an Administrative Complaint signed May 19, 1987. At the hearing the Respondent stipulated to several of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Thereafter, the Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered five exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. The Respondent did not testify on her own behalf, but did present the testimony of one witness. The Respondent did not offer any exhibits in evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given 20 days from the date of the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed on October 15, 1987, and the Petitioner thereafter filed a timely proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As of the date of this recommended order, the Respondent has not filed a proposed recommended order nor any other document containing proposed findings of fact. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing I make the following findings of fact. Stipulated findings At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent held license number RC 0060128 issued by said Board. The Respondent's address of record is in Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent did, through the contracting business Respondent was then associated with and responsible for in her capacity as a licensed contractor, contract with Darryl Debow, hereinafter referred to as the "Customer," to perform certain contracting work for the Customer. The details of the contracted work were generally as follows. The contract was entered into on or about April of 1986. The contract price was $5,900.00. The job was located in St. Augustine, Florida. The job generally consisted of repairing the roof of the Customer's commercial buildings. After entering into the contract, the Respondent's contracting business began work on the job. The rest of the facts The Respondent's business began work on the job described above without obtaining a permit for said work from the local building department and without assuring that someone else had obtained a permit for the work. There was no permit posted on the job site when Respondent's business began the job. The Respondent did not ask the local building department to inspect the work done on the subject contract. The Respondent was not licensed as a roofing contractor in St. Johns County, Florida, at any time from the beginning of 1985 until the day of the hearing. At all times material to this case, the applicable building code required permits for roofing work.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the violations charged in subparagraphs (b) and (c), of paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 13 of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 1st day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2672 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: This paragraph is a proposed conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding. Paragraphs 2 through 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted in part and rejected in part. Accepted that no inspection by the local building department was requested. Portion which states such inspections were required is rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 9: Rejected as addressing matters which are not clearly placed in issue by the Administrative Complaint and which, in any event, are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 10: Rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Dorothy Homesley 35 Norde Drive, West Number 18 Jacksonville, Florida 32224 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
