The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent has been disciplined by a local government, the City of Tampa, in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: During times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CG C006397. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. On May 5, 1987, Respondent was disciplined by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa, and thereafter, on August 13, 1987, Respondent's license was revoked based on the determination that Respondent was guilty of violating City of Tampa codes. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.). Respondent's disciplinary action by the City of Tampa was reviewed by Petitioner and based on the May 5, 1987 suspension of Respondent's license, Petitioner found probable cause against Respondent on June 11, 1987. As stated, Respondent failed to appear to contest or otherwise refute the fact that the Unified Construction Trades Board of Tampa took disciplinary action against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's certified general contractor's license number CG C006397 be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the entry of the Board's final order. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, as more specifically alleged in Administrative Complaint dated February 10, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified building contractor having been issued license C-608, and was qualifying agent for Bay City Builders, Inc. Bay City Builders, Inc., entered into a contract to add four bedrooms and two baths to a residence in Dunedin, Florida, being used as an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) (Exhibits 1 and 2), at a price of $32,000. The contract provided, inter alia, that the contractor would provide all permits and fees directly associated with the project. Upon signing the original contract on September 26, 1991, the owner paid Bay City Builders $3200 (Exhibit 3). On October 8, 1991, the owner paid Bay City Builders an additional $7200 (Exhibit 3) when the plans were presented to the owner. Prior to the issuance of the permit for this project, Bay City Builders poured the footing for the building addition. The permit application was signed by Respondent. After entering into the contract, Bay City Builders found there was an impact fee involved, the project was never completed and was subsequently abandoned. Bay City Builders prepared a second contract for this project which increased the price to $41,789 (Exhibit 5) and presented this to the owner who did not accept the new contract. Respondent admits that he was the qualifying contractor for Bay City Builders, and the permit was pulled under his license, but contends he had nothing to do with the financial arrangements between Bay City Builders and the owner. Respondent was paid a flat fee by Bay City Builders for obtaining permits under his license for work Bay City Builders contracted to perform. He occasionally visited the sites where work was being performed by Bay City Builders. Bay City Builders is not licensed. The permit for the ACLF addition was applied for on November 1, 1991, but was not issued by the City of Dunedin until February 13, 1992 (Exhibit 6). It could have been picked up any time after November 30, 1991. On September 5, 1991, Bay City Builders entered into a contract with an owner living in Seminole, Florida, to replace the roof over a rear porch of this residence for a total price of $900. (Exhibit 8) This was a flat roof, and the initial intent was to replace the tar and gravel roof with tar and gravel. At the time construction started on September 11, 1991, the person doing the installation used a rubberized roof, which was satisfactory to the owner and gave the owner a 5 year unconditional warranty. Respondent's license does not authorize him to reroof an existing building, and no permit was applied for to perform this job. No certified roofer was engaged to do this reroofing, the rubberized compound applied to the roof was improperly applied and the roof started leaking when the first rain came. Workers from Bay City Builders came to the residence several times to attempt to patch the leaks, but the leaks persisted. Ultimately, the owner had to employ a qualified roofing contractor to redo the roof. While Bay City Builders was attempting to stop the leaks, the ceiling over the porch was also ruined and had to be replaced. In his testimony, Respondent admitted that he was the sole qualifying contractor for Bay City Builders, that his function was to give Bay City Builders a price estimate for the work intended, including the ACLF addition, but the owner of Bay City Builders entered into a contract for $5000 less than Respondent's estimate for the ACLF. Respondent also acknowledged that Bay City Builders, acting under Respondent's license, entered into contracts for some 150 jobs, but that Respondent was told or learned of only 60 of these projects. Respondent was paid a fixed fee by Bay City Builders for each permit obtained, and he prepared estimates of cost.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0034898. He operates a business known as B & P Roofing at 244 Tollgate Trail, Longwood, Florida. The Respondent has appropriately qualified the business name of "B & P Roofing" with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with regard to licensure of building contractors, the regulation of their licensure status and methods of operation and practice. During June of 1981, the Respondent, doing business as B & P Roofing, contracted to perform a re-roofing job with Mr. Jack Mewhirter, whereby he was to put a new roof on a residence at 137 Variety Tree Circle, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The construction of the roof was contracted for and completed during June, 1981. The Respondent failed to obtain a building permit before or during construction of the roof and also failed to obtain a final inspection of the roof when it was finished in June, 1981. The Respondent's testimony establishes that the Respondent was familiar with the building code adopted in Seminole County and familiar with the requirement that he was responsible as the contractor, to obtain a permit before commencing construction of the roof and that he was also responsible for obtaining a final inspection by the Seminole County Building Official. In response to a complaint from Mr. Mewhirter, the owner of the residence, the Seminole County Building Officials, Mr. Flippent and Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer became aware that no building permit had been obtained for the re-roofing job and that no final inspection had been obtained pursuant thereto. Accordingly, Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer inspected the roof in November, 1981, and Mr. Flippent informed the Respondent of the necessity to obtain a building permit and a final inspection. Thus, on November 10, 1981, the Respondent obtained the building permit and called for the final inspection. Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer was unable to sign the final inspection document as "satisfactory" because he was unable to adequately inspect the roof once it was finished. He had been unable to inspect the method by which it was installed during its construction due to the Respondent failing to inform him or his superiors that the roof was under construction and that inspections were needed at that time. hen the Respondent entered into the contract with Mr. Mewhirter, he informed Mr. Mewhirter that he would not obtain a building permit because that would "drive the cost up." The Respondent, in his testimony, denied that he made such a statement, but Mr. Mewhirter's testimony is here found more credible because of the facts established by Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer's testimony that a random check of the roof after he finally was able to inspect it in November, 1981, revealed that all the shingles he examined were nailed with only three nails and were nailed too high up near the upper edge of the shingle, which is a substandard method of installing the roof and which permits storm winds or rain to raise the shingles, causing possible damage to the roof. The fact that the roof was installed in this fashion and that fact that the Respondent admittedly knew of the requirements of the building code and the requirement that a permit be obtained and inspections be made during the course of and at the conclusion of the job, indicated that the Respondent was knowingly trying to avoid the necessity of obtaining a permit and a final inspection and thus lends sufficient credibility to Mr. Mewhirter's testimony regarding the reason the Respondent obtained no permit. In any event, the roof was shown to not be constructed in accordance with the building code. In summary, it was established that the Respondent knew of the appropriate building code, was thoroughly familiar with it and and indeed had installed an excess of seven hundred roofs since he entered the business. He was aware, in connection with the need for obtaining a building permit, that he should also obtain inspections during the construction and a final inspection when the roof was finished, which he failed to do until reminded of his violation by the building department five months after the roof was completed, at which time it was too late to perform the appropriate inspections. Thus, the roof could not be approved by the building department of Seminole County. The Respondent admitted to only being present on the subject job site for approximately an hour and a half during the entire construction of the roof and he admittedly did not bother to look to see if a permit was on the job site at that time, or any other time. Finally, although the Respondent remonstrated that his failure to get a building permit at the appropriate time was inadvertent and due to his assumption that other office personnel had taken care of the obtaining of the permit, that testimony is not found to be credible since it was established, through the testimony of Mr.. Mewhirter, that the Respondent consciously decided not to obtain a permit prior to starting construction of the roof.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George G. Vincent, be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 23rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Siegel, Esquire 292 U.S. Highway 17-92 P.O. Drawer 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. DPR Case No. 0017669 DOAH Case No. 82-1341 GEORGE C. VINCENT B & P Roofing RC 0034898 244 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750, Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Ramiro Palma, be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 31, 1981. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registered building contractor's license be suspended for one year after the date of the final order entered in this proceeding and that Respondent pay a $1000 administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of February, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated July 15, 1998, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints made to the Department for violations of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in that section. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Peters was licensed by the Board as a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC C029551. This license authorized him to engage in business as a roofing contractor as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any business entity. Victor Sher owned and resided in a home located at East Tropical Way in Plantation, Broward County, Florida. On or about June 9, 1993, and July 1, 1993, Mr. Sher accepted two written proposals to replace the roof on his home, which proposals were submitted to him by R. J. Bonneau on behalf of RJB International. The proposals were signed by Mr. Sher and by "R. J. Bonneau, P.E., for the firm." Pursuant to these contracts, Mr. Sher paid a deposit in the amount of $5,500 to RJB International by check dated June 7, 1993; and, by check dated July 1, 1993, Mr. Sher paid RJB International an additional $800. Also, by check dated July 1, 1993, Mr. Sher paid Monier, a roof tile supplier, $5,738.35 for materials. At some point after the first contract between Mr. Sher and RJB International was executed, Mr. Bonneau asked Mr. Peters to submit an estimate of the cost of re-roofing Mr. Sher's house. Mr. Peters submitted an estimate of $16,520 based on specifications provided by Mr. Bonneau,1 and Mr. Bonneau accepted the estimate. It was Mr. Peters' understanding that RJB International was the general contractor for the project, operating under a contract with Mr. Sher, and that he was the roofing subcontractor for the project, operating under a "contract" with RJB International based on Mr. Bonneau's acceptance of his estimate for the re-roofing work. He expected to be paid by RJB International. On or about June 22, 1993, Mr. Peters obtained a building permit from the City of Plantation for the roof replacement project on Mr. Sher's residence. Mr. Peters began working on the Sher re-roofing project on or about June 23, 1993. By checks dated July 23, August 16, August 19, and August 23, 1993, Mr. Sher paid Mr. Peters $800, $2,432, $2,000, and $1,000, respectively, totaling $6,232. Mr. Peters was surprised to receive payment directly from Mr. Sher, but he assumed that that was the arrangement between Mr. Sher and RJB International. He never received any of the $6,200 Mr. Sher paid to RJB International. Mr. Peters worked on the project until late August or early September 1993, when he stopped working on the project because he had not received payment for the work completed to date. Mr. Peters requested payment from Mr. Sher, only to be referred to RJB International, which in turn, referred him to Mr. Sher. When Mr. Peters stopped working on the Sher residence, he advised Mr. Sher that he would complete the work as soon as he received the payments he considered due. Mr. Peters estimated that, when he left the job, $1,000 to $1,500 worth of work remained to complete the re-roofing project. He did not hear anything more from Mr. Sher or RJB International, and, in 1995, he moved to Ohio. After Mr. Peters stopped work on Mr. Sher's roof, Mr. Sher obtained an owner's building permit and completed the project. In September 1994, Mr. Sher filed a five-count complaint against Mr. Peters and Rosaire J. Bonneau d/b/a RJB International in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, in which he sought to recover damages he allegedly suffered as a result of re-roofing project; three counts of the complaint, breach of contract, negligence, and conversion, named only Mr. Peters as defendant. A default was entered against Mr. Peters, and, in a final judgment entered on the default on May 19, 1995, Mr. Peters was ordered to pay to Mr. Sher $28,142.70 in damages, plus $1,740.00 in attorney's fees and costs, for a total of $29,882.70, with interest accruing on this sum at the rate of eight percent per year. In addition, Mr. Peters was assessed $4,447.45 in prejudgment interest. Mr. Peters was listed on the judgment as a person to whom a copy was furnished, but he did not receive the copy. Mr. Peters first learned of the existence of the judgment in October 1997, when he received a copy of the Department's Administrative Complaint dated May 31, 1996. In late 1997 or early 1998, Mr. Peters received notification of the judgment from another source, and he also received a letter from Mr. Sher's insurance company advising him that they had paid Mr. Sher approximately $30,000 in damages and were looking to Mr. Peters for reimbursement. Mr. Peters subsequently retained an attorney to try to negotiate with Mr. Sher. Mr. Peters was willing to pay $1,000 to satisfy the judgment because he believed that the roof could have been finished for that amount. Mr. Sher did not accept the offer. In a letter to Mr. Peter's attorney dated August 26, 1998, Mr. Sher's attorney enclosed a copy of the judgment against Mr. Peters and indicated that his client would be willing to negotiate a payment arrangement with Mr. Peters. At the time of the final hearing, Mr. Peters had not satisfied the judgment in whole or in part or made any arrangements with Mr. Sher for payment of the award; Mr. Peters had not moved to set aside, vacate, or discharge the judgment in bankruptcy; and he had not appealed the judgment.2 Mr. Peters has been subject to two previous disciplinary actions relating to his state certification as a roofing contractor. The first disciplinary action against Mr. Peters resulted in entry of a final order in January 1988, in which he was found guilty of contracting in a name not on his license and of failing to qualify a business organization; an administrative fine of $1,000 was imposed. The second disciplinary action resulted in entry of a final order in January 1994, in which he was found guilty of failing to have his license number on a contract and imposing an administrative fine of $100. The Department provided an affidavit at the hearing in which it claimed that it had incurred costs of investigating and prosecuting this case totaling $879.35, excluding legal costs.
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 Counts I through VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint against Steve G. Peters; Finding Mr. Peters guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Peters in the amount of $2,000; Requiring that Mr. Peters 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 Amended Administrative Complaint; and Requiring that Mr. Peters either pay restitution to Victor Sher in the amount of $28,142.70 or, in the alternative, provide proof of satisfaction of the May 9, 1995, civil judgment. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 16th day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 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. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent’s registered general and residential contractor’s licenses for violations of Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(d), 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(n) and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent, Edwin A. Henry, had been licensed by the Department as a registered general contractor and as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license nos. RG 0045112 and RR 0047927, respectively. Moreover, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Henry Company Homes, Inc. Henry Company Homes, Inc., is a production builder. A production builder builds homes from various standard or generic plans in the hopes of selling those homes at a later time. The homes are not customized in the sense that the plans for a home are drafted with specific home owners' input or for a specific home owner. The pace of production building is generally substantially faster and less expensive than custom home building. Economies in standard materials and use of labor are the reason for the lesser expense. To gain such economies, Henry Company Homes uses the critical path method of construction. The critical path method is a scheduling outline of the time and sequence of work to be done to build a house. The critical path method is an accepted and appropriate construction management technique and the Respondent’s critical path method and times are within the norms of construction techniques accepted in the industry. Respondent was the manager for Henry Company Homes. He did not personally build any of Henry Company’s houses and he did not personally build the houses at issue in this case. Moreover, Respondent was not on-site when these houses were built. Respondent’s role in the company was at least two levels removed from the actual on-site construction of any home. However, the Respondent’s organizational structure and span of management are within the norms accepted in the construction industry. On all homes built by Henry Company, the construction was supervised by a qualified construction supervisor. An assistant supervisor was available to a construction supervisor, should the assigned supervisor need help in overseeing the houses assigned to him. At least one supervisor, Charles Smith, who supervised the construction of the Hornsby house, voiced the standard complaint that he was being overloaded with houses located in different subdivisions and that it was difficult to maintain the production goals established by Henry Homes of completing a house in 10 to 12 weeks. Expert testimony indicated that such a goal was appropriate. Moreover, this complaint seems to be a standard complaint of construction supervisors everywhere and not particularly probative of any of the issues in this case relating to the Respondent. In fact, the Respondent’s supervisory responsibility for his on-site superintendents is within the norms accepted in the construction industry. The pace of construction of Henry Company Homes is the only fact submitted by the Department to demonstrate any knowledge or negligence on the part of the Respondent. No facts specific to the time period or pace of building of the houses involved in this complaint were submitted by the Department. Moreover, Mr. Smith also testified that the Hornsby home met the requirements of the Building Code and he was not aware of any defects in the home. Any other evidence on the issue of knowledge was unconvincing. Okaloosa County adopted the 1994 Southern Standard Building Code on November 15, 1994. Prior to that time the County, on September 21, 1993, had adopted by Ordinance the "current edition of the Southern Standard Building Code, including the appendix." In 1993, the current edition of the Southern Standard Building Code was the 1991 Standard Building Code. In all material respects, the provisions of each edition of the Standard Building Code relevant to this proceeding are the same. In essence, the Standard Building Code establishes minimum standards for the construction of residential homes. However, the Code provides for a high degree of flexibility in its interpretation and application by local building officials. One reason for the flexibility is that it is virtually impossible to construct a building which is totally compliant with the Building Code. Indeed there is a difference between non- compliance with the Building Code and a violation of the Building Code. Before a violation of the code occurs, notice of a deficiency and an opportunity to correct the deficiency must occur. Local building officials may adopt alternative methods of construction as long as those methods are not prohibited by the Building Code and meet the performance standards of the Building Code. No particular procedure is required for the determination of such alternate methods of construction and the building official is free to apply his expertise and knowledge of the local area to establish such alternate methods. The 1994 Standard Building Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: PREFACE. The purpose of the Standard Building Code is to serve as a comprehensive regulatory document to guide decisions aimed at protecting the public’s life, health and welfare in the built environment. This protection is provided through the adoption and enforcement, by state and local governments, of the performance-based provisions contained herein. The use of performance-based requirements encourages the use of innovative building designs, materials and construction systems while at the same time recognizing the merits of the more traditional materials and systems. This concept promotes maximum flexibility in building design and construction as well as assuring a high degree of life safety. The Standard Building Code incorporates by reference, nationally recognized consensus standards for use in judging the performance of materials and systems. This provides for equal treatment of both innovative and traditional materials and systems, provides for the efficient introduction of new materials into the construction process and assures a high level of consumer protection. * * * 101.3 Code Remedial General. This code is hereby declared to be remedial and shall be construed to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof, which are public safety, health and general welfare through structural strength, stability, . . . and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributable to the built environment . . . . Quality control of materials and workmanship is not within the purview of this code except as it relates to the purposes stated herein. * * * 101.4 Applicability 101.4.9 Referenced Standards. Standards referenced in the technical codes shall be considered an integral part of the codes . . . . Permissive and advisory provisions in a standard shall not be construed as mandatory. * * * POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL General. The Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official is further authorized to render interpretations of this code, which are consistent with its spirit and purpose. (Emphasis supplied) * * * Requirements Not Covered By Code Any requirements necessary for the strength, stability . . . or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this or other technical codes, shall be determined by the building official. Alternate Materials and Methods The provisions of the technical codes are not intended to prevent the use of material or method of construction not specifically prescribed by them, provided any such alternate has been reviewed by the building official. . . . . Examinations of Documents Plan Review. The building Official shall examine or cause to be examined each application for permit and the accompanying documents, consisting of drawings, specifications, computations and additional data and shall ascertain . . . whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the technical codes . . . . Affidavits. The building official may accept sworn affidavits from a registered architect or engineer stating the plans submitted conform to the technical codes. . . . 105. INSPECTIONS * * * * * * 105.4 Inspections Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or Completion The Building official shall inspect . . . at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building . . . prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Completion. * * * 105.6 Required Inspections The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections . . . and shall either release that portion of the construction or shall notify the permit holder or his agent of any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes: Building Foundation Inspection: To be made after trenches are excavated and forms erected. Frame Inspection: To be made after the roof, all framing, fireblocking and bracing is in place . . . Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. * * * 202. DEFINITIONS GRADE-a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. . . . . * * * 1804. FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS 1804.1 General 1804.1.1 Foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil or properly compacted fill material. . . . * * * 1804.1.3 The bottom of foundations shall extend . . . no less than 12 inches (305 mm) below finish grade. (Emphasis supplied) * * * 1804.18 The area under footings, foundations, and concrete slabs on grade shall have all vegetation, stumps, roots, and foreign materials removed prior to their construction. . . . * * * 1804.4 Footing Design * * * 1804.4.2 Footings shall be proportioned to sustain the applied loads and induced reactions without exceeding the allowable stresses specified in this code. * * * 1906.4 Depositing 1906.4.5 After concreting has started, it shall be carried on as a continuous operation until placing a panel or section, . . . is completed except as permitted or prohibited by 1907.4. * * * 1907.4 Construction Joints * * * 1907.4.3 Construction joints shall be so made and located as not to impair the strength of the structure. Provision shall be made for transfer of shear and other forces through construction joints. * * * 2111. MASONRY CONSTRUCTION * * * 2111.1.3 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in masonry veneer . . . at a maximum spacing of 4 ft (1219 mm) on center by omitting mortar in the head joints. Weepholes shall be located in the first course above the foundation wall or slab . . . . 2111.1.4 Installation of Wall Ties. The ends of wall ties shall be embedded in mortar joints. Wall tie ends shall engage outer face shells of hollow units by at least 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). . . . * * * 203.1.2 The detailed structural requirements contained in this chapter are based on sound engineering principles. . . . * * * 2301.2 Design 2301.2.1 The quality and design of wood members and their fastenings used for load supporting purposes shall conform to good engineering practices. 2301.2.1 All members shall be framed, anchored, tied and braced so as to develop the strength and rigidity necessary for the purposes for which they are used. 2301.2.1 Preparation, fabrication and installation of wood members and the glues, connectors, and mechanical devices for the fastening thereof shall conform to good engineering practices. * * * 2306. FASTENINGS 2306.1 Nailing and Stapling Requirements. The number and size of nails or staples connecting wood members shall not be less than those specified in Table 2306.1. . . . 2306.2 Other Fastenings. Where framing anchors, clips, staples, glues or other methods of fastening are used, they shall be labeled, listed and installed in accordance with their listing. * * * 2308. VERTICAL FRAMING 2308.1 Exterior Wall Framing 2308.1.1. Studs in one and two story buildings shall not be less than 2x4 with the wide face perpendicular to wall. . . . * * * 2308.1.1 Heights listed in 2308.1.1 are distances between points of horizontal lateral support placed perpendicular to the plane of the wall. Heights may be increased where justified by analysis. * * * 2308.1.5 Studs shall be capped with double top plates installed to provide overlapping at corners and at intersections with bearing partitions. End joints in double top plates shall be offset at least 24 inches (610 mm). In lieu of double top plates, a continuous header may be used. . . . 2308.1.5 Studs shall have full bearing on a plate or sill of not less than 2 inch nominal thickness and having a width at least equal to the width of the studs. * * * 2308.5 Interior bearing Partitions 2308.5.1 The provisions of 2308.1.1, 2308.1.2, 2308.1.3 and 2308.1.4 shall apply to interior bearing partitions supporting more than a ceiling under an attic with no storage. * * * 2308.5 Interior Nonbearing Partitions 2308.5.1 Framing for nonbearing partitions shall be of adequate size and spacing to support the finish applied. . . . * * * 2309. ROOF AND CEILING FRAMING 2309.1 Ceiling Joists and Rafter Framing * * * 2309.1.3 Ceiling joists and rafters shall be nailed to each other where possible . . . . * * * 2309.1 Trussed Rafters * * * 2309.1.3 The bracing of metal plate connected wood trusses shall comply to their appropriate engineered design. In the absence of specific bracing requirements, trusses shall be braced in accordance with the Truss Plate Institute’s "Handling, Installing and Bracing Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses, HIB-91." * * * 2309.1 Roof Sheathing 2309.1 All rafters and roof joists shall be covered with one of the following Materials: * * * 4. Particleboard applied in accordance with the provisions of Table 2309.3B and nailed in accordance with Table 2306.1. * * * Table 2306.1 provides that roof sheathing of the type used in the houses involved in this case be nailed 6 inches on center at the edges and 12 inches on center intermediate. The Administrative Complaint alleges the following Building Code violations as the sole basis for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent in relation to both the Hornsby and Anthony houses: Foundation does not extend at least 12 inches below finished grade; Foundation is deficient as to form; Stub trusses are not anchored to the interior weight bearing wall; Stub trusses are not adequately cross braced; Brick veneer is not adequately anchored to the interior sheathing or studs to safely resist wind loads; and As to the Hornsby house, the roof sheathing is not attached to resist wind load requirements in the code. The construction of the Hornsby residence was permitted by Okaloosa County, Florida, on June 2, 1994. At the time the Hornsby permit was issued, Okaloosa County was not reviewing building plans for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code or inspecting properties for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code. The construction of the Anthony residence was duly permitted by Okaloosa County, Florida, on June 6, 1996. At the time the permit was issued, Okaloosa County was reviewing building plans for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code. The plans for the Anthony residence passed that review by the Okaloosa County Building Department. The Hornsby and Anthony homes are wood-frame houses built on monolithic concrete slabs. They have a hip roof. The exterior walls are covered by brick veneer anchored with standard brick ties. Both houses have brick veneer which moves with the application of strong hand pressure to the top part of the veneer. The deflection on one wall of the Hornsby house is at least 1 inch. The deflection on the remainder of the Hornsby house and all of the Anthony house is slight and within general engineering perimeters. Both houses have been through at least two major hurricanes since they were built. Both hurricanes had winds in excess of any wind load requirements. Neither house sustained significant damage from either hurricane. There was no evidence submitted, through appropriate calculations, that the houses involved in this case did not meet the performance criteria of the Building Code. To the contrary, there is evidence that these houses do meet the performance requirements of the Building Code since they have survived at least two major hurricanes without sustaining the type damage these performance tests were designed to prevent. The Respondent requested and the Okaloosa County Building Department (Okaloosa County) conducted all required inspections of the Hornsby and Anthony residences. One deficiency, not at issue here, was noted by Okaloosa County during construction of the Hornsby house and was promptly repaired by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the local building official. No deficiencies were noted by Okaloosa County during any of the inspections of the Anthony house. A Certificate of Occupancy (Certificate) was issued by Okaloosa County for the Hornsby house on March 14, 1995. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that the Hornsby residence was constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Hayward Hornsby purchased the house within several weeks after the Certificate was issued and after one walk-through of the house. However, shortly after moving in, Mr. Hornsby noticed that large portions of the ceiling drywall were sagging or wavy. The view of the property corroborated the condition of portions of the Hornsby ceiling, but, the ceiling is not unsightly; the waviness in the Hornsby ceiling can be traced to an unlevel foundation. However, the waviness does not appear to be the result of any code violation on the Respondent’s part, but is one of workmanship. After seeing the wavy ceiling, Mr. Hornsby has never been happy with his house. A Certificate on the Anthony house was issued by Okaloosa County on December 9, 1995. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that the Anthony residence was constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Mr. Anthony, to this day, is happy with his home and has never complained to the Department about his home. It was Mr. Hornsby who directed the Department to Mr. Anthony’s home. As indicated, the applicable Building Code requires that the foundation extend at least 12 inches below finished grade. Section 1804.1.3, Standard Building Code, 1994. The foundation in the Hornsby and Anthony residences clearly met this Building Code requirement. Additionally, the view of each property demonstrated that the foundation met the Building Code requirement for depth. The Department’s expert testified that the correct measurement for determining the depth of the foundation below finished grade was from the bottom of the foundation to the bottom of the brick shelf. That is not the correct measurement for determining compliance with the Building Code. The correct measurement is from the bottom of the foundation to the top of the finished grade. The closest estimate of the original finished grade for both houses was the soil stain on the brick wall. Even after the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Okaloosa County Building Inspector inspected the Anthony residence. He found no Building Code issues with the depth of the foundation on the Anthony residence. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires that the foundation be sufficient to carry the load of the structure. Section 1804.4.2, Standard Building Code, 1994. The Department’s experts have testified that they had not performed any tests or calculations to determine whether the Hornsby or Anthony foundations are sufficient to carry the load of the structure. Importantly, nowhere in the Building Code is it required that walls be plumb or that foundations be level or shaped a certain way. One reason for this omission is that the materials and environmental conditions involved in construction are flexible and unpredictable, making mathematical and geometric precision impossible. Therefore, the soundness of a wall or a foundation under the Building Code is determined by using the various formulas for loads, wind, etc. Misshaped or unlevel foundations, or unplumb walls are not, by themselves, violations of the Building Code. Such construction is involved more in the quality of workmanship than in any code violations. The view of the Hornsby and Anthony residences conducted by the Administrative Law Judge failed to disclose any facts which support the allegation in the Administrative Complaint as to the form of the foundation. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that Mr. Anthony had cracked bricks as the result of the insufficient foundation. No cracked bricks were observed during the view of the Anthony residence. The Okaloosa County Building Inspector inspected the Anthony residence. He found no Building Code issues with the form of the foundation on the Anthony residence. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. On both the Hornsby and Anthony houses, the stub trusses were not anchored to the interior weight-bearing wall. Stub trusses are the blunt nosed trusses on a hip roof which intersect the main roof of a house and run under the main roof of a house forming a "T"-like structure. In this case, the blunt end of the stub trusses rested on an interior load-bearing wall. The other end of the stub trusses rested on an exterior load- bearing wall. The part of the trusses on the exterior load- bearing wall were properly anchored. When the Hornsby residence was permitted, Okaloosa County was not reviewing plans for compliance with the wind load requirements of the Building Code. Plans review did not begin in Okaloosa County until July 1, 1994. Such review did occur with the Anthony house. Indeed, at the time both houses were built, there was a great deal of confusion within the building community as well as Okaloosa County regarding how to comply with wind load requirements of the Building Code. When the Hornsby and Anthony houses were constructed, neither the builder nor Okaloosa County knew that the prescriptive method for wind load requirements (SSTD 10-93) required the stub trusses to be anchored to an interior weight-bearing wall because the intersecting main roof covers that part of the stub trusses. It was clear the end of the trusses resting on an exterior weight-bearing wall had to be anchored. The Respondent built both houses consistent with the interpretation and enforcement of the Building Code by the local building official and consistent with local building practices in the area. After the filing of the Administrative Complaint and prior to the hearing on the Administrative Complaint, Okaloosa County conducted an inspection of the Anthony residence and confirmed that the stub trusses were not anchored properly as required by the wind load requirements of the local Building Code. In response to this finding (and consistent with established industry standards), the Respondent employed an engineer to design an appropriate anchoring mechanism for this condition. The engineer’s design was approved by Okaloosa County and properly installed by the Respondent as an alternate method of construction. Okaloosa County inspected the work and cleared the code deficiency. Based on the confusion by both contractors and local building officials regarding the wind load requirement of the Building Code at the time the Hornsby and Anthony residences were constructed, this technical Building Code deficiency was not a knowing violation by the Respondent. No evidence was presented by the Department that the Respondent had any personal knowledge of the existence of this condition prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires that the stub trusses be braced in accordance with the engineered truss drawings. At the time the Department made this allegation, its experts had not reviewed the engineered truss drawings. Based on observations at the viewing of the Hornsby residence, the bracing for the stub trusses in the Hornsby residence substantially met this Building Code requirement. After the filing of the Administrative Complaint and prior to the hearing on the Administrative Complaint, Okaloosa County conducted an inspection of the Anthony residence. The Okaloosa County Building Official did not find any Building Code violations with respect to the cross-bracing of the trusses. He did note the bracing was light. Based on the view conducted by the Administrative Law Judge, the stub trusses did not have the required amount of bracing. The bracing which was in place was spaced too far apart by about 1 foot on the middle set of stub trusses. This spacing does not appear to be material and no calculations were completed to demonstrate that the bracing in place was inadequate or negligent construction. Moreover, no knowledge or negligence is attributable to the Respondent since he was unaware of the deficiency and the local building inspector passed the bracing. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. When the brick veneer was removed on the end of the Hornsby residence, it was shown that all of the brick ties were installed into the interior sheathing or wall studs. Okaloosa County requires that the framers, not the brick masons, install the brick ties. The brick ties that were imbedded in the brick were properly installed, consistent with local construction practices in Okaloosa County. The failure of the brick masons to use the top row of brick ties is not a condition that the contractor knew about or reasonably could have known about, even with adequate supervision. The Hornsby and Anthony residences passed a brick tie inspection, the inspection which tells the contractor that the brick ties are properly installed and spaced. The failure to use the brick ties on the top row did not cause the excessive movement in the brick veneer of the Hornsby house. Due to the method of installation of Okaloosa County, it was impossible to use those ties on the soldier or top course of the brick wall. Indeed, the Department has failed to prove that the excess movement in the brick veneer of the Hornsby house even existed at the time the Certificate was issued on the Hornsby residence. The movement in the brick was caused by a break in the bond between the brick and the mortar in the tenth course from the top of the wall. It is impossible to know when or why that break occurred. However, Mr. Hornsby’s first report of brick movement to Okaloosa County was after the second hurricane hit Okaloosa County in 1995. The break in the bond could have been caused by the hurricanes or some other external force unrelated to the installation of the brick at the time the house was built. Although the Department’s expert testified that the brick veneer at the Anthony residence had the same movement as the brick in the Hornsby residence that conclusion had no factual foundation. The inspection by the Okaloosa County Building Inspector failed to disclose any excess movement in the brick veneer. A licensed engineer and contractor observed only the slightest movement in the veneer, all of which was within normal tolerances. Most importantly, no excess movement of the veneer was observed during the view. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires roof sheathing to be nailed 6 inches on center at the edges and 12 inches on center intermediate. Table 1206.1, Standard Building Code, 1994. The Department’s experts did not agree as to the number and severity of locations where nails in the roof sheathing missed the roof trusses. Based on the view of the Hornsby residence, there were some missed nails in the roof sheathing which allowed one section of sheathing to be lifted with hand pressure. The extent of the missed nails was very small compared to the number of nails contained in a roof on an average size house. All of the testimony supports the conclusion that the frequency and severity of this condition was not material. The number of "missed" nails was not a material deficiency and has not affected the performance or safety of the roof system. The deficiency is easily correctable. The concept that a few missed nails are a code violation that would support discipline of a contractor is not consistent with industry practice. Moreover, the record is void of any evidence that the Respondent had knowledge of this condition or that this condition was the product of a lack of supervision by the Respondent or even negligence attributable to the Respondent. To the contrary, the Hornsby residence passed a framing inspection, which included an inspection of the nailing in the roof sheathing. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, after Mr. Hornsby complained about defects or problems in his home, he consistently denied access to the Respondent for the purpose of effecting repairs. In general Okaloosa County requires that a contractor be allowed an opportunity to fix a code deficiency before it considers a deficiency to be a violation of the Building Code. This interpretation of the Building Code by the agency responsible for its interpretation and enforcement is reasonable. The Respondent was at all times ready, willing, and able to correct any deficiencies in the Hornsby residence, if any. Since the Respondent was not allowed such opportunity in relation to the Hornsby house, there is no code violation which the Respondent was aware of. The Respondent was at all times ready, willing, and able to correct any deficiencies in the Anthony residence, if any, and was allowed to do so in at least one instance. Finally, on both the Anthony an Hornsby houses, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s supervisors were unqualified or failed to supervise the subcontractors underneath them or that the Respondent had specific personal knowledge of a supervisor’s failure to supervise. Likewise, the evidence did not demonstrate that the subcontractors were unqualified or that the Respondent had specific personal knowledge that a subcontractor was unqualified or performed in a negligent manner. Without such specific and personal knowledge on the part of the Respondent, none of the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint can be attributed to the Respondent. Therefore the Department has failed to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The construction of the residences at 102, 106, and 107 Louise Drive and 420 Jillian Drive were duly permitted by the City of Crestview, Florida. All of these houses were incomplete at the time of the inspection by the Department’s experts. The Department offered very little evidence in support of the allegations relating to these unfinished houses. On most of the houses the Respondent had not called for an inspection of the work the Department alleged was a violation. If the contractor has not called for an inspection of a particular phase of the work on unfinished houses, then the condition of that work by itself cannot support an alleged Building Code violation. In like regard, if the contractor calls for an inspection, and a deficiency is noted and the contractor corrects the deficiency to the satisfaction of the building official, then no code violation exists. All of the allegations regarding the incomplete houses fail for one of these two reasons. On all the unfinished houses the Department alleged that the foundation did not extend at least 12 inches below grade. Again proper measurement to determine the depth of a foundation is based on the finished grade. See Section 1804.1.3, Standard Building Code, 1994. At the time each of these homes was inspected by the Department and its experts, finished grade had not been established. Therefore, there is no factual basis for this allegation in the Administrative Complaint and the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102 and 107 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the brick ties were not properly spaced. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the Respondent had not called for a framing inspection. Nor was there any evidence that the construction supervisor of the home had accepted the brick tie placement. Accordingly, the spacing of the brick ties could not be the basis of an alleged violation. Indeed, The Department’s expert agreed that this was not a code violation. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 106 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the drywall was improperly nailed. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the drywall was being installed. No observations were made after the drywall installation was completed to determine the final nailing pattern. The Department’s expert agreed that the condition he observed (which was the basis for the allegation in the Administrative Complaint) was not a code violation. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. Also at 106 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the joint offset spacing in the top plate is less than 24 inches apart. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the Respondent had not called for the framing inspection on this house. The evidence further shows that the issue of the joint offset that was observed during the framing inspection, was noted by the building inspector as an exception, was corrected by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the local building official and was passed by the local building official. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102, 106, and 107 Louise and 420 Jillian the Department alleged that the girder trusses were not anchored. The Department offered no evidence on this issue. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102 and 107 Louise the Department alleged that the exterior sheathing was not properly nailed. The Department offered no evidence regarding this condition at 102 Louise Drive. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts of 107 Louise Drive, the Respondent had not called for a framing inspection. The local building official conducted a framing inspection on both houses. Both houses passed the framing inspection. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, on all the unfinished houses, the Respondent requested and the City of Crestview conducted all required inspections of these houses. No deficiencies were noted by the City of Crestview Building Department during any of those inspections other than the joint offset at 106 Louise Drive. A Certificate was issued by the City of Crestview on each of these houses. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that these houses were constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. As with the Hornsby and Anthony house, even if code violations had been established, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Respondent knowingly committed any code violations with respect to the properties remaining in these two Administrative Complaints. Likewise, the evidence is insufficient to independently establish that the Respondent committed negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care. The evidence did not show that the Respondent relied on unqualified supervisors or subcontractors or that he specifically and personally knew of such. The Respondent is entitled to rely on such qualified personnel. Without such evidence the misconduct charged in the Administrative Complaint cannot be attributed to the Respondent. Moreover, the evidence independently establishes that the Respondent had adequate systems and safeguards in place for supervision of his personnel, and adequately supervised the work on the job sites in question through such qualified construction supervisors. Finally, prior to the commencement of the formal hearing in this matter, the local competency boards for the appropriate jurisdictions disposed of those matters involving the following properties in favor of the Respondent: the Campbell residence, the McLean residence, all of the properties located on Dunbar Circle, the property located at 7222 Antoinette Circle, the Tiger Lake Townhome development, the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Preble, and the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Janecki. The undisputed evidence, in the form of an Affidavit from the Respondent, establishes that the residence allegedly located at 1894 Alfred Boulevard in Navarre, Florida, did not exist; this fact was unopposed by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of any of the counts in either of the Administrative Complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David L. McGee, Esquire Beggs & Lane Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Charles T. Wiggins, Esquire Beggs & Lane Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler & Dudley 310 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory D. Smith, Esquire Gregory D. Smith, P.A. 201 South Baylen Street Suite A Pensacola, Florida 32501 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32311-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, 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 16th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, David H. Tinius, unlawfully abandoned a construction project; diverted funds received for completion of a construction project and thereby failed to fulfill his contractual obligations.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its administrative complaint filed herein signed October 6, 1982, the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's registered building contractor's license. During times material herein, Respondent was a registered building contractor and has been issued license No. RB0024083. On approximately April 20, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Jess Marks to build a residence in Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $46,551. Respondent commenced construction of the Mark's residence but left the site when it was approximately forty percent complete. At that time, Respondent had received approximately $44,000 of the contract sum. Jess Marks completed the construction of his residence by hiring another contractor to complete the project and expended approximately $50,000 over and above the contract price as agreed upon by the Respondent to complete his residence. Respondent never returned any of the monies received from the Marks for completion of the residence. On approximately April 24, 1978, Respondent entered into a contract with Abe Abrahams to construct a residence in Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $30,473. Respondent left the Abrahams' project after he had received $6,000 and had completed approximately ten percent of the work on the Abrahams' residence. Respondent did not return to the site nor did he return any of the monies received from the Abrahams for the construction of their residence (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 5). The Abrahams had to pay for supplies and material bought for the project by the Respondent and which reportedly had been paid, according to Respondent. THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION As noted hereinabove, the Respondent did not appear to contest or otherwise refute the allegations contained in the administrative complaint filed herein. However, Respondent, through counsel, filed an answer which admitted the complaint allegations filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's registered building contractor's license No. RB0024083 be REVOKED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 David H. Tinius 4420 Northwest 36th Court Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33309 David H. Tinius Post Office Box 6338 Charlotte Amalil St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00801 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
