Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Marlene E. Lutman, is a vice president of American Custom Builders, Inc. and was a vice president in 1977. Respondent holds licenses Number CR C012570 end Number CR CA12570 issued by the Petitioner Board. On September 11, 1978, Respondent submitted a certification change of status application to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. This application, completed by Respondent under oath on September 7, 1978, was filed for the purpose of changing the contractor's licenses held by Respondent to add the name of American Custom Builders, Inc. to said licenses. On July 6, 1979, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Respondent, doing business as American Custom Builders, Inc., seeking to permanently revoke her licenses and her right to practice under said licenses and to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. Respondent Lutman requested an administrative hearing, which was scheduled for September 6, 1979, continued on Motion of Respondent, and held November 29, 1979. On the application completed by Respondent, Question 12(b) asked: Are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials, or services, as a result of the construction operations of any person named in (i) below or any organization in which such person was a member of the personnel? Question 12(c) of the application asked: Are there now any liens, suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of the construction operations of any person named in "(i) below" or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? Respondent, as a vice president of American Custom Builders, Inc., was designated in "(i) below." She answered "no" on the application to both of the above stated questions. Respondent completed the application while she was in Florida. Prior to completing the application, Respondent spoke by telephone with John D. Cannell, an attorney in Ohio, in reference to Questions 12(b) and 12(c), supra. Cannell told Respondent that there were no unpaid bills outstanding. He said that there had been liens filed involving American Custom Builders, Inc., but that these liens had been cancelled. Cannell based his statements to Respondent upon oral assurances from personnel at the bank involved in financing the construction project associated with the liens that all liens had been paid. It was later learned that on September 7, 1978, the date Cannell told Respondent the liens had been cancelled, the liens had not been cancelled and were of record in the Recorder's Office of Geauga County, Ohio. Liens had been filed on January 6, 1978, January 23, 1978, and January 3l, 1978, by various subcontractors involved in the construction of a house owned by Winford and Sally Ferrentina. The liens were based on claims against American Custom Builders, Inc. as general contractor and the Ferrentinas as owners for unpaid labor and materials and were not satisfied of record until September 20, 1978, on which date the January 6, 1978 lien was satisfied, and March 22, 1979, on which date the other two (2) liens were satisfied. The Hearing Officer finds that Respondent Lutman did not intend to make a material false statement but negligently relied on oral representations that there were no past-due bills and no liens of record pending as a result of her construction operations. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders, and the Petitioner Board submitted a reply memorandum. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Marlene Lutman, be reprimanded. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery B. Morris, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jeffrey R. Garvin, Esquire 2532 East First Street Post Office Box 2040 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 79-1546 Marlene Lutman, CR C012570, CR CA 12570 Respondent, /
Findings Of Fact Notice in this case was given as required on May 2, 1977. Paul Slivyak holds registered residential contractor's license RR 0000896 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Slivyak is the qualifying licensee for Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., a Florida corporation solely owned by Paul Slivyak. Gussie Hailey identified a contract between Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., to her husband, Willie Hailey, for repairs to the interior of their residence caused by fire. See Exhibit 1. She also identified a cancelled check payable to Allcraft Construction Company signed by her in the amount of $1,700 as the initial payment to Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., under the terms of the contract. The only work performed by Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., on the Hailey residence pursuant to the contract was the removal of a portion of the burned interior of the Hailey hone. Gussie Hailey identified a photograph of the material removed from the hone as it was left in her back yard by the workmen. The total work performed by Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., on the contract was performed by two young men who worked one half day. The photograph and check identified by Mrs. Hailey were received as composite Exhibit 2. After the failure of Allcraft Construction Company, Inc. to complete the work called for under the contract, the Haileys had to additionally pay approximately $4,000 to complete the job in addition to the $1,700 paid to Allcraft Construction Company, Inc. Marjorie Kneski, the wife of Mr. Joseph Kneski, identified a contract between Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., and she and her husband for the construction of an addition to their home. See Exhibit 3. She also identified a cancelled check payable to Allcraft Construction Company in the amount of $700, initial payment to Allcraft Construction Company pursuant to the contract for the construction work to be performed. After waiting two or three weeks for Allcraft Construction Company to begin work, the Kneskis became concerned and contacted the Better Business Bureau. The Better Business Bureau contacted the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board investigator in the area. The Better Business Bureau also informed Mr. Kneski that the business reputation of Allcraft Construction Company, Inc. , was of such a nature that care should be exercised in dealing with the company. Mr. Kneski contacted Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., and advised them that he wanted his money back in that they had not started work under the contract. The Kneskis never received any of their money back from Allcraft Construction Company. The investigator for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board contacted Slivyak regarding the Kneski's complaint. Slivyak told the investigator that he had used the money received from the Kneskis to pay a portion of his income taxes and no longer had the money. Kneski also identified a letter received by him from Jack A. Nants, Attorney at Law, representing Allcraft Construction Company, Inc. This letter (Exhibit 5) recognizes and ratifies the contract entered into in behalf of Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., by Doug Fioto, but indicates the intention of Allcraft Construction Company, Inc. , to retain the initial $700 received from the Kneskis as liquidated damage if Allcraft Construction Company, Inc., was not allowed to perform under the contract. The contract does not contain a liquidated damage provision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke the registered residential contractor's license of Paul Slivyak, No. RR 0000896. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Paul Slivyak 502 South Lake Formosa Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Mr. J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 11, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified residential contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CR CO13253 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as an individual. On or about November 20, 1993, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement (contract) with Kevin Watkins (Watkins) to construct a single family residence at 126 Meadow Lark Boulevard, Lot 65, Indian Lake Estates, Florida. The contract price was $333,944.00. Between December 7, 1993, and February 1, 1996, Watkins and Respondent executed 102 addenda to the contract which increased the contract price by approximately $241,874.43, for a total amount of approximately $575.818.43. On or about December 9, 1993, Respondent obtained permit number 93-120l850 from the Polk County Building Department and commenced work on the project. The contract provided that the "project shall be substantially completed on or about 195 days from the date all building permits are issued." However, due to the 100-plus addenda to the contract, it was estimated that an additional 190 days would be needed to complete the project. Additionally, construction ceased on the home for approximately 60 days so that Watkins could explore the possibility of a construction loan. However, due to the extent of completion, the lending institutions decided not to make any construction loans. On or about May 27, 1996, Watkins moved to Florida with the expectations that his home would be completed within a short period of time. (Watkins' recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of weeks. Respondent's recollection was that the home was to be completed in a couple of months.) In any event, Respondent did not complete the Watkins home within a couple of weeks or a couple of months. After Watkins moved to Florida, Respondent paid for Watkins to live in a Best Western motel for a few weeks. Subsequently, Respondent moved Watkins into a rental home for which Respondent paid the rent through September 1996. Beginning October 1996 through July 1999, Watkins paid $600.00 per month for a total of $20,400.00 as rent on the rental home. In early 1998, Respondent and Watkins went through the home, identified those items which had not been completed and Respondent made a handwritten list of those items. Respondent failed to complete the items identified on the list. In fact, shortly thereafter, Respondent ceased working on the project and was unresponsive to attempts to contact him. At the time Respondent ceased working on Watkins' home, the home was approximately 75 percent complete. While this estimation of completion may not be totally accurate, it is the best that could be derived based on the evidence presented, including Respondent's testimony to which I gave some credence. Watkins paid Respondent $561,617.91, which represents approximately 97.534 percent of the total contract price plus addenda to the contract. Seventy-five percent of the contract price plus addenda to the contract equals $431,863.82 for an overpayment of $129,754.09. To date, Respondent has not returned any of the money he received from Watkins above the amount completed under the contract. From early 1998, until August 1998, when Watkins had Respondent removed as general contractor on the building permit, Respondent failed to perform any work on the home for a period in excess of 90 days. Respondent contracted with Jack Eggleston to install cabinets in Watkins home. Eggleston performed under the contract but Respondent failed to pay Eggleston in full, requiring Watkins to pay Eggleston $1,200.00. After Watkins' home was partially complete, Respondent advised Watkins that he had the home insured when in fact he did not have the home covered with insurance. While Respondent was building Watkins' home, Respondent and Watkins entered into a joint venture called Contractors of Central Florida to build modular homes sometime after January 1, 1995. Respondent contends that some of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home, were in fact reimbursement to Respondent for funds he had advanced for the joint venture. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that any of the checks Watkins claims as payment under the contract for his home were in fact reimbursement for funds advanced by Respondent for the joint venture. Up until the time of the final hearing, the Department had incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and after careful review of the guidelines set forth in Rule 61G4-17.001(8) and (11), Florida Administrative Code, and the circumstances for purpose of mitigation or aggravation of penalty set forth in Rule 61G4-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Department: Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00; Enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty therefor an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00; Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $1,451.28, plus any such further costs which have or may accrue through the taking of final agency action and; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Kevin Watkins in the amount of $129,754.09 which represents the amounts accepted by Respondent for work not performed. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Ronald J. Powell Post Office Box 7043 Indian Lake Estates, Florida 33855 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the several violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h)2.,(h)3.,(j),(k), and (n), Florida Statutes (1997), for the reasons stated in the respective Administrative Complaints and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a certified general contractor pursuant to license number CG C059414. At all relevant times, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc. ("FTG"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of FTG's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc., as required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. The St. Cyr Case On or about August 21, 1998, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis L. St. Cyr to construct an addition to the residence located at 201 South Bel Air Drive, Plantation, Florida. The contract price was $50,000. Although Mr. St. Cyr paid $2,500 to Respondent, Respondent failed to commence work and canceled the project, thereby abandoning it without just cause and without proper notification to Mr. St. Cyr. The contract did not permit Respondent to keep the $2,500 paid by Mr. St. Cyr, and Respondent failed to refund the payment within 30 days after abandonment. Out of the $2,500 he received from Mr. St. Cyr, however, Respondent paid $1,600.00 to the architect before abandoning the project. Thus, the net amount that Respondent owes to Mr. St. Cyr is $900. Petitioner incurred a total of $1,092.28 in investigative costs relating to the St. Cyr case. The Forney Case On May 22, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Mr. Warren Forney for the construction of a two-bedroom, one-bath addition to the residence located at 1698 Northeast 33rd Street, Oakland Park, Florida. The contract price was $32,500. The contract with Mr. Forney did not contain a written statement explaining the customer’s rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. On July 7, 1998, Respondent obtained permit number 98-050297 from the Oakland Park Building Department. Construction commenced on or about July 7, 1998, and continued sporadically until October 29, 1998, when Mr. Forney dismissed Respondent for failure to timely complete the project. The Oakland Park Building Department issued notices of violation against the project on August 3, September 11, and October 14, 1998, for various building code violations. Mr. Forney was forced to obtain a homeowner’s permit and subsequently hired a subcontractor to complete the work. Mr. Forney paid Respondent approximately $29,250 before relieving Respondent of his duties. To complete the project, Mr. Forney paid a total of $48,746.52, which was $15,396.52 over and above the original contract price. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,190.78 in investigative costs relating to the Forney case. The Kong Case In or around January 1998, a contractor named Lakeview Concepts hired Respondent to perform demolition work for the Kong dry cleaning store project on the property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. On or about June 17, 1998, permit 98-00002349 was issued to Respondent to perform alterations on commercial property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. Respondent, however, did not yet have a contract with the owner for this work. The next month, on or about July 30, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Shek Kong to complete the dry cleaning store project at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida, for the contract price of $22,300. Shek Kong made payments to Respondent totaling $16,000. Respondent’s work was of poor quality, however, and on or about November 6, 1998, he ceased work, though the project had not been completed. On or about November 14, 1998, Douglas Frankow, license number CB C052960, gave Mr. Kong an estimate of $20,562 to complete the project. Thereafter, on or about June 30, 1999, Mr. Kong contracted with George Settergren, another licensed contractor, to complete the project for a contract price of $27,956. On December 9, 1999, in Case No. 98-020065 08, the Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, rendered a Final Judgment against Respondent and in favor of Mr. Kong. This judgment awarded Mr. Kong the total amount of $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest per annum. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,502.78 in investigative costs relating to the Kong case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(h)2., (h)3., (j), (k), and (n), Florida Statutes, imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,700, assessing investigative costs in the aggregate amount of $5,785.84, placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of four years from the date the Final Order is entered by the Board, and awarding payment of restitution to each customer as follows: (1) to Warren Forney, the amount of $15,396.52; (2) to Shek Kong, satisfaction of the unpaid civil judgment in the amount $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest accrued thereon; and (3) to Louis L. St. Cyr, the amount of $900. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of February, 2002.
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation accusing the Respondent of various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Should the Respondent be found guilty, this action contemplates the imposition of a penalty against Respondent's license as a commercial pool contractor in Florida.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent, at all times relevant to this inquiry, was a registered commercial pool contractor having been issued license number RP0041725. This is a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 2..On November 18, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract under the name Kennedy Pool and Construction Co., an entity for whom Respondent serves as a qualifying agent in the commercial pool contracting business. This contract was with one Marie Robertson; however, the contract was not for the purpose of construction of a pool. It was for construction of a 20' by 24' block garage. This structure was to be free-standing and would be located adjacent to Ms. Robertson's residence, which is also used in her business. Petitioner's exhibit number 2 is a copy of the contract and reflects the $4,800.00 contract price. Robertson has paid the full amount of the contract and the garage construction was completed in January, 1984. Respondent personally built the garage. Respondent built the garage without obtaining a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent also failed to submit plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville, which set forth the design and placement of this garage structure. Having failed to request a permit or to submit plans and specifications, Respondent made no request of the City of Jacksonville Building Department to inspect the construction related to the garage. Finally, Respondent in his licensure with the State of Florida, and license recognition with the City of Jacksonville, was not authorized to serve as a building contractor engaging in the construction of structures such as the garage in question. The project at issue entailed the pouring of a foundation; the erection of block walls the erection of a roof truss system and the installation of a roof covering of shingles. All of these items were beyond the license recognition which respondent held with the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville. When the City of Jacksonville discovered the existence of the garage, it made the owner aware that the structure was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code related to the need for obtaining a building permit, and the fact that the garage structure violated the city's set-back requirement. This later item pertained to the fact that given the commercial utilization of the property, on the part of Ms. Robertson, the garage was too close to the city street. As a consequence, Robertson was put to the inconvenience of obtaining and paying for a building permit and gaining a variance from the set-back requirements mentioned. Had the City of Jacksonville been presented with building plans and specifications, this would have alerted the city to the fact that the placement of the garage was too close to the street. When confronted with her difficulty, Ms. Robertson contacted the Respondent to gain his assistance in obtaining a building permit. The Respondent indicated that it was her problem and said that he could not get a permit because the property was business property and not private property. The Respondent was charged by the City of Jacksonville through a notice of violation of local zoning requirements related to the failure to obtain a building permit and the fact that the Respondent was not licensed by the City of Jacksonville to construct a garage at the Robertson residence. Attempts at serving the violations were not successful in that calls to the Respondent and issuance of notice of violations through certified mail, return receipt requested, were not acknowledged by the Respondent.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Mr. Borek was licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C 58817. He was licensed on November 18, 1996. At all times material hereto, Mr. Borek was the qualifying agent of Atlantic Coast General Contractors, Inc. (ACGC), a Florida corporation, and has been its president. ACGC was issued a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business on June 2, 1977, having been issued license number QB 07357. ACGC's license expired on September 1, 2001 and became null and void on September 1, 2003. The State of Florida, Department of State, administratively dissolved ACGC, as a corporation, on October 1, 2004, for its failure to file its annual report, as required by law; and, as a result, ACGC's authority to transact business, as a corporation, in the State of Florida was revoked on the same date. At all times material hereto, Tracey Meredith (Ms. T. Meredith) resided in and owned a home located at 7690 Northwest 16th Court, Pembroke Pines, Florida. Ms. T. Meredith wanted her mother, Jane Meredith1 (Ms. J. Meredith), to live with her so Ms. T. Meredith decided to have an addition built to her home, consisting of a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Ms. T. Meredith obtained a proposal from ACGC and five other contractors for the addition. Each contractor was aware of the purpose of the addition. Ms. T. Meredith decided to contract with ACGC, which was not the lowest or the highest bidder, but was somewhat in the middle. On June 28, 2002, a Proposal/Contract (Contract) was executed with ACGC for the addition at a cost of $32,925.00. Even though the Contract showed Ms. T. Meredith as the contracting party, it was signed by Ms. J. Meredith because she (Ms. J. Meredith) was actually paying for the addition and signing the checks. Both Mses. T. Meredith and J. Meredith were in agreement with the Contract. The Contract provided, among other things, that the addition was 15 x 21; and that the payments would be as follows: 20% at acceptance of the Contract, 20% at permit issuance, 10% at slab, 20% at wall and roof framing, 10% at roof completion, 10% at finished walls and flooring, and 10% at final completion. No dispute exists that the cost of the Contract was reasonable. No dispute exists that the Contract failed to contain a provision explaining the consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund, formerly known as the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. No dispute exists that the Contract did not provide a date for completion of the addition. Regarding a completion date for the addition, Ms. T. Meredith testified that all the other proposals provided that the addition would be completed within six to eight weeks and that, at the beginning, Mr. Borek orally communicated to her that the addition would be completed by ACGC within six to eight weeks. To the contrary, Mr. Borek testified that, at the beginning, no completion date was given to her, either orally or in writing. None of the other proposals were submitted into evidence, only the Contract with Mr. Borek, which did not provide a completion date. It would not be reasonable for Ms. T. Meredith to accept Mr. Borek's proposal without it’s being within the time period of completion of the other proposals. The undersigned finds Ms. T. Meredith's testimony more credible and makes a finding of fact that, at the time of the signing of the Contract, Mr. Borek made an oral representation that the addition would be completed by ACGC within six to eight weeks. An expert in the field of general contracting, John Yanoviak (Mr. Yanoviak), testified on behalf of the Department. The undersigned finds his testimony credible, except as specifically indicated. A reasonable amount of time to complete the addition was a maximum of three months. Mr. Borek, as the contractor, was responsible for keeping the project timely and for quality control. On June 30, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,585.00. This amount was 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. Paying this amount was in accordance with the Contract. Mr. Borek filed an application for a building permit with the City of Pembroke Pines (CPP) on or about July 3, 2002. The building permit was issued by CPP on or about October 25, 2002. Work on the addition was commenced before the issuance of the building permit. Ms. T. Meredith was aware of the date that the building permit was issued. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Ms. T. Meredith complained to Mr. Borek regarding the addition’s not being completed. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. T. Meredith indicated to Mr. Borek that, by his failure to complete the addition within a six-to- eight-week period, he was not abiding by the Contract. No evidence was presented to show that she indicated her dissatisfaction to the degree of possibly terminating the Contract with ACGC. On November 12, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,585.00. This amount was paid after Mr. Borek obtained the building permit and was 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. Paying this amount was in accordance with the Contract. On December 11, 2002, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $6,885.00. This amount was $300.00 more than 20 percent of the contracted cost for the addition. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that this check was written in advancing of the addition. According to the records of the CPP's building department2 (Records), a CPP form for a revision to the addition was submitted on January 6, 2003, providing for an electrical change to the addition. Further, the Records indicate that, on March 20, 2003, an application for an electrical permit was submitted and that, on March 24, 2003, the permit was approved. Also, a revision to the plans of the addition was submitted to the CPP by the architect to the addition, Hernando Acosta, according to the Records. The Records indicate that the revision to the plans was dated January 30, 2003 by Mr. Acosta, that the revision was submitted on February 7, 2003, and that the revision was approved on February 11, 2003 by the CPP. In addition, in February 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. Ms. T. Meredith received a copy of a letter from the CPP to Mr. Borek, dated February 18, 2003. The letter indicated, among other things, that the CPP had issued a "stop work status" on the addition due to Mr. Borek’s having issued a check, payable to the CPP, in the amount of $135.80, which was dishonored. Another revision, according to the Records, was submitted on March 27, 2003, regarding the trusses. The Records indicate that the revision was approved on April 17, 2003. Ms. T. Meredith became more dissatisfied with the progress toward completion on the addition by Mr. Borek to the point that she filed a complaint with the Department on May 21, 2003. In May 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. By letter dated May 22, 2003, she received notification from the CPP, as information only, that a code violation had not been corrected within the allowable ten-day period, together with a copy of CPP's letter to Mr. Borek, dated May 22, 2003, of his failure to correct the code violation. The letter to Mr. Borek indicated, among other things, that Mr. Borek had until June 11, 2003 to correct the violation, identifying the inspection date and the violation. By a letter dated May 28, 2003, Ms. T. Meredith advised Mr. Borek, among other things, that he had seven days to continue with the work on the addition in accordance with the Contract or else the Contract would be considered by her to be "null and void"; that, if he did not do so, she would be "forced" to hire another contractor, with Mr. Borek being held financially responsible for completion of the addition; and that the Contract was to be completed within six to eight weeks. On June 12, 2003, Mr. Borek contacted the investigator for the Department regarding the complaint filed by Ms. T. Meredith. Among other things, Mr. Borek informed the investigator that he (Mr. Borek) was willing to complete the addition in 30 days. By his representation, Mr. Borek indicated that he would complete the addition on or about July 12, 2003. By a letter dated June 18, 2003, Mr. Borek notified the investigator, among other things, that he was working "diligently" to complete the addition. Mr. Borek failed to complete the addition within the 30-day period, as he had represented to the Department's investigator. The Records indicate that an application for a building permit, involving the roof to the addition, was submitted on June 25, 2003. The permit was issued, according to the Records, on July 30, 2003. Further, the Records indicate that a revision, regarding the size of a window and the elimination of a door, was submitted on July 8, 2003, and approved on July 9, 2003. In July 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received another written communication from the CPP regarding a problem with the addition. By letter dated July 9, 2003, she received notification from the CPP, as information only, that a code violation had not been corrected within the allowable ten-day period, together with a copy of CPP's letter to Mr. Borek, dated July 9, 2003, of his failure to correct the code violation. The letter to Mr. Borek indicated, among other things, that Mr. Borek had until July 28, 2003, to correct the violation, identifying the inspection date and the violation. In addition, in July 2003, Ms. T. Meredith received written communication from the CPP regarding another problem with the addition. She received a copy of a letter from the CPP to Mr. Borek, dated July 18, 2003, which indicated, among other things, that the CPP had issued a "stop work status" on the addition due to Mr. Borek having issued a check, payable to the CPP, in amount of $76.23, which was dishonored. Even though Mr. Borek failed to complete the addition within the 30-day period that he had represented to the Department's investigator and even though Ms. T. Meredith had received notification of the problems at the jobsite from the CPP, on September 10, 2003, Ms. J. Meredith wrote a check, payable to ACGC, in the amount of $4,000.00. No dispute exists that this check was written and presented to Mr. Borek. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that this check was written in furtherance of the addition. ACGC had been paid a total of $24,055.00 of the Contract cost of $32,925.00, which was approximately 73 percent of the Contract cost. The balance of the Contract cost was $8,870.00. Mr. Borek testified that, at the time of the writing of the check for $4,000.00, he and Ms. T. Meredith agreed that he would have until on or about November 15, 2003 to complete the project. Ms. T. Meredith testified that no such agreement was made. At the time of the check for $4,000, ACGC was almost 60 days beyond the completion date represented to the Department's investigator. No testimony was presented as to why the $4,000.00 was paid to ACGC in light of such a considerable delay in completing the job by ACGC and in light of the complaint being filed with the Department. Due to the lack of an explanation for the payment of the $4,000.00 to ACGC in furtherance of the project, Mr. Borek's testimony presents a reasonable explanation. Therefore, Mr. Borek's testimony is found to be credible. Hence, a finding is made that, on or about September 10, 2003, Mr. Borek and Ms. T. Meredith orally agreed that ACGC would have until on or about November 15, 2003, to complete the addition. Ms. T. Meredith continued to be dissatisfied with the progress on the addition by ACGC. Sometime after September 10, 2003, an incident occurred which caused her to reach the conclusion that she could not allow ACGC to continue working on the project. One day when she left for work, one of ACGC's workers was painting the exterior walls. When she returned from work later that same day, the same worker for ACGC was painting the exterior walls. Ms. T. Meredith immediately directed the worker to leave and to take all of his equipment with him; the worker did so. Ms. T. Meredith contacted Mr. Borek and informed him that she would not allow him to continue with the project. Mr. Borek repeatedly requested Ms. T. Meredith to allow him to continue with the project, but she refused. By letter dated October 9, 2003, Ms. T. Meredith terminated the Contract with ACGC. She mailed the letter on the same date and faxed it on October 14, 2003. Her mother was in agreement with terminating the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith indicated, among other things, in her letter to ACGC that its failure to complete the addition as of the date of the letter, when the oral agreement was completion within six to eight weeks, left her no choice but to terminate the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith included in the letter, among other things, what remained to be completed on the project and a cost of $539.55 for damaged items at her home caused by ACGC, with an itemized list. At the time of the termination, the following work remained to be completed: purchase and installation of plumbing fixtures; sewer hookup; molding; tile work in the bathroom; installation of storm panels and flooring; some painting; installation of an air conditioner; some electrical connections; and installation of an electrical panel, electric wall plates, and an electric light fixture. Ms. T. Meredith obtained a homeowner's permit and hired someone, Adam Friedman, to assist her in completing the addition. On December 15, 2003, the CPP issued a certificate of occupancy to her. As to expenditures by Mses. T. and J. Meredith in order to complete the addition, the undersigned finds the testimony of Mr. Yanoviak credible. Mses. T. and J. Meredith expended $19,170.52 to complete the addition. The expenditures for completion were reasonable and necessary. Not included in the expenditures for completion are the following: $3,941.31 for items not included in the Contract--a fence, pavers, wood floor, upgraded bathroom fixtures or accessories, closet woodwork and various Home Depot items (totaling $238.21); $250.00 for mill work associated with chair rails; and $2,400.00 for an exterior concrete slab. Included in the expenditures for completion is the following: $1,360.00 for a split-system air conditioning unit which was not installed by ACGC. Further, included in the cost of expenditures is an adjustment in favor of Ms. T. Meredith in the amount of $1,000.00 for the elimination of a window on the west elevation of the addition, which was orally agreed to by Ms. T. Meredith and Mr. Borek after the signing of the Contract and which would have been subtracted from the cost of the Contract. After Ms. T. Meredith terminated the Contract, she filed a claim under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The claim was dated October 10, 2003, one day after she terminated the Contract. Ms. T. Meredith set forth in the claim that she was requesting $12,000.00, which she indicated was the amount to pay another contractor to complete the project. The undersigned places very little weight upon the amount requested because the claim is prior to completing the project and fails to reflect the actual costs involved in completing the project, which were realized only after completion. Damage to items at Ms. T. Meredith's home occurred, during the work being performed by ACGC, for which ACGC was responsible. The following items were affected: damaged a window magnet that was part of the home's security system at $80.00; destroyed, broken, or thrown away one large planter pot, one archway, and two large stepping stones--all at an estimate of $440.34; and broken tiles in the front of the house at $13.57. The damages totaled $533.91. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Borek had not made any payments to Ms. T. Meredith or Ms. J. Meredith for their expenditures to complete the addition or for the damages. At the time of the termination, in accordance with the oral agreement of completion by on or about November 15, 2003, ACGC had a little over 30 days to complete the addition. In light of the finding that an oral agreement had been reached to allow ACGC until on or about November 15, 2003, to complete the addition and in light of the only incident since that agreement, presented by the evidence, was the situation involving ACGC's painter, the undersigned finds that the painting situation was not substantial and that, therefore, the termination on October 9, 2003, prior to the new agreed- upon termination date, was unreasonable. Ms. T. Meredith testified that, sometime during the middle of the year 2003, for a period of "exactly" 60 days, ACGC failed to perform any work at the project. Mr. Borek denies her assertion. Ms. T. Meredith testified that she kept records on everything. When she testified as to an exact 60- day period in the middle of 2003 during which no work was being done at the project, Ms. T. Meredith did not point to any of her records to verify the assertion or provide certain beginning and ending dates. Taking into consideration the standard of proof and the burden of proof, the evidence failed to show clearly and convincingly that no work was done at the jobsite by ACGC for a period of 60 days in the middle of the year 2003. Nothing was done by Ms. T. Meredith, the architect, or CPP to delay the completion of the project. Mr. Borek admits that he had other jobs in progress when he was working on the addition. He further admits that when changes had to be made to the project, whether by the CPP or the architect or Ms. T. Meredith or himself, he had to re- arrange his schedule to accommodate the other jobs, which included re-deploying his workers and subcontractors, which in turn caused delays. Further, Mr. Borek admits that the turnaround time for any changes given to the architect for the plans to the addition was reasonable and that the turnaround time for the CPP to review the changes to the plans submitted by the architect was reasonable. Consequently, no unreasonable or inordinate delays were caused by the architect or the CPP when changes were made to the plans of the addition. Mr. Borek performed some work for Ms. T. Meredith at no cost that was not required by the Contract. The extra work at no cost included the following: the removal of trees; pouring of an exterior concrete slab; and plastering of drywall. The slow progress in completing the Contract was significant and material and resulted in the Contract’s not being performed in a reasonable time. The delays in completion of the addition were significant and were the fault of Mr. Borek. In addition to re-deploying workers for other jobs on which ACGC was working, ACGC failed to properly perform work, which resulted in failed inspections by the CPP, which resulted in numerous delays, and failed to timely obtain an electrical permit. As to the failure to timely obtain an electrical permit, the electrical permit was obtained almost five months subsequent to the issuance of the building permit by the CPP. The electrical permit was applied for on March 20, 2003 and approved on March 24, 2003. CPP's turnaround time in approving the permit was short and inconsequential. As to the failure to properly perform work, the Records indicate construction defects, which were under Mr. Borek's, the contractor's, control and which resulted in failed inspections. Furthermore, the Records indicate prior construction faults, identified in inspections, not being timely corrected, which was under Mr. Borek's control and which resulted in delays until the faults were corrected. Mr. Yanoviak testified that failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted misconduct. The undersigned finds his testimony credible. A finding of fact is made that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted misconduct. Additionally, Mr. Yanoviak testified that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted a material breach of the Contract. The undersigned finds his testimony credible, and a finding of fact is made that the failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted a material breach of the Contract. Further, Mr. Yanoviak testified that, such material breach, justified terminating the Contract. The undersigned finds his testimony credible only as to a general application and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that, generally, the failure to perform a construction contract within a reasonable time would justify terminating the construction contract but does not justify terminating the Contract under the circumstances presented in the instant case. Both Mr. Borek and Ms. T. Meredith orally agreed to a new date for completion of the addition, i.e., on or about November 15, 2003. To disregard the new date of completion would be manifestly unjust. Furthermore, at the time of the termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith, i.e., on October 9, 2003, the termination was unreasonable and not for just cause. Hence, a finding of fact is made that termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith, prior to the new completion date, was not justified. Mr. Yanoviak also testified that failure to perform the Contract within a reasonable time constituted abandonment of the project. The undersigned finds his testimony credible only as to general application and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that, generally, the failure to perform a construction contract within a reasonable time would constitute abandonment of a project. However, as found above, a new date for completion of the project was orally agreed upon and the new date had not expired at the time of the termination of the Contract by Ms. T. Meredith. Hence, a finding of fact is made that, under the circumstances of the instant case, abandonment did not exist. The Department presented evidence of costs for the investigation and prosecution of this matter, excluding costs associated with attorney time. As of July 5, 2005, the costs for the investigation and prosecution totaled $880.18. As to prior disciplinary action, on September 9, 2004, the Department filed a Final Order in Department of Business and Professional Regulation vs. Bret Jayson Borek, Case No. 2003-069533, License No. CG Co58817 before the Construction Industry Licensing Board. In that case, an administrative complaint was filed against Mr. Borek for violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2001), by failing to comply in a material respect with a provision of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, through the failure to obtain a certificate of authority for ACGC; and for violating Section 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2001), by failing to satisfy a civil judgment, related to the practice of construction, within a reasonable time. Mr. Borek waived his rights to an informal hearing, and no material fact was disputed. Among other things, the Final Order imposed an administrative fine of $1,000.00, required restitution of $15,218.94 to a roofing and sheet metal company and required payment of $506.92 for investigative costs.
Recommendation Based on 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 that Bret Jayson Borek committed the violations set forth in Counts I, II, and III; Dismissing Count IV; and Imposing the following penalties: As to Count I, an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 and revocation of the license of Bret Jayson Borek. As to Count II, an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As to Count III, an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and revocation of the license of Bret Jayson Borek. S DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2006, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent abandoned a construction job, and whether Respondent failed to include a statement of consumer's rights in a contract; if so, whether (and what) discipline should be imposed against Respondent's general contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a Florida-licensed general contractor, holding license number CGC 1509917. At all times material to the instant case, IGK held a certificate of authority authorizing it to engage in contracting in Florida through a qualifying agent. Respondent was the licensed primary qualifying agent for IGK. On or about December 20, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to renovate Kevin Barrington's residence, located at 1315 Lenox Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The written contract did not contain a statement explaining a consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners Construction Recovery Fund, as then required by section 489.1425. At hearing, Respondent produced a copy of a statement that explained a consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowners Construction Recovery Fund, and testified that he had attached this statement to the written contract. The statement produced by Respondent at hearing was dated December 24, 2011, four days after the contract was executed, and signed only by Respondent. Barrington testified that he never received the statement. The undersigned finds Barrington's testimony credible, and finds that the statement was not contained in the written contract as required by statute. Respondent has never been disciplined for a violation of section 489.1425. The initial contract price for the residential renovation totaled approximately $114,320.00. Several change orders increased the final contract price to approximately $148,603.25. On December 20, 2007, Barrington paid Respondent an initial payment of $46,968.00. Respondent began work on the renovation project in January, 2008. Barrington rented an apartment while the home was under construction. Between December, 2007, and June, 2008, Barrington made several payments to Respondent. By June, 2008, Respondent had received approximately $155,505.81, which was more than the original contract price, and more than the amount agreed to with the additional change orders. By August, 2008, Respondent was struggling financially. IGK experienced a significant decline in business and was forced to lay off employees. On August 23, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent an e-mail, stating, in part: I wanted to summarize our meeting yesterday. I appreciated your honesty, and I believe we came to a resolution that satisfies both our objectives; remodel 1315 Lenox Avenue with high quality standards in a timely manner. Due to unforeseen market conditions, we are not able to continue work within the confines of the existing contract dated 12/20/2007 between IGK and Kenneth Barrington. Therefore, we agreed to the following course of action. . . . If the stated objectives are completed on August 29th to Kenneth Barrington's satisfaction, we decided to terminate the existing contract and have my legal team draft a new contract between IGK and Ken Barrington that outlines the remaining scope of services and payment plan. The payment plan will be arranged as a loan between IGK and Ken Barrington where Ken Barrington will act as Lender and IGK as Borrower, IGK will be responsible to perform the duties outlined in the scope of services and payback monies at a specified date. Loan payments distributed to IGK are intended solely for the purpose of paying for the labor and materials used at 1315 Lenox Ave. On September 17, 2008, Respondent emailed Barrington, stating, in pertinent part: As discussed many times, I am trying to do the right thing and complete your project. However as stated before we are not in complete projects (sic) that were underbid last year. You are well aware that we came in below everyone else. At the time business was good and we could afford to work on a very low mark up. I tried...however and unfortunately the business environment has change (sic) and we can not (sic) do it any longer!!! . . . As it stands, for us to complete the project as mentioned above, we will have to receive a payment in the amount of $20,000.00. You may of course decide to hire to have some one (sic) else finish the project, by (sic) I believe your cost will be in excess of $40-$50k. By September, 2008, approximately 60 percent of the renovation project had been completed. On September 23, 2008, Respondent emailed Barrington stating, in part: Good morning Ken, We are still awaiting your decision in regards to which way your [sic] ant [sic] to go with your project. I do understand and per your advise [sic], that you are trying to hire other contractors to finish your project. However, if you decide to take/hire another contractor, you must apply for a change of contractors [sic]to, either [sic] another contractor or to yourself as a owner/contractor. No one, including yourself can do work, under our permits and/or call for inspections!!! Please refrain from trying to hire my employees to do unlicensed side jobs, they will not, and if they do they lose their jobs and/or be liable for prosecution by the state/county for working without a license and permit. Respondent, having indicated to Barrington that he needed more money to complete the project, and expressing a willingness to complete the renovation project, was clearly awaiting Barrington's decision as to the renegotiation of the contract. Barrington began to interview other contractors in October, 2008. On October 10, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent Change of Contractor forms to sign and have notarized. On October 14, 2008, Respondent signed the forms and had them notarized. Also on October 14, 2008, Barrington sent Respondent a letter, stating, in pertinent part: I, Ken Barrington, property owner of 1315 Lenox Ave [sic], Miami Beach, FL 33139, am notifying you that your services are hereby terminated from our project/permit #s: B08014536, B0801910, B0804552, BE080944, BE082572, BMS0801808. You are being terminated because: You have acknowledged that you are no longer capable of completing the project according to our agreed upon contract. You are no longer authorized to enter my property. On or about November 11, 2008, Barrington entered into a contract with a new contractor, Strategic Engineering, to complete the renovation project. The renovation project was complete by July, 2009, when Barrington was able to move into his home. Respondent and Barrington began to communicate again around this same time. Respondent informed Barrington that Respondent could return to work on the home, but that IGK was filing for bankruptcy. Respondent suggested that a Mutual Release be executed. On September 23, 2009, Barrington and IGK entered into a Mutual Release, intended to effect the elimination of any obligations by either party. Respondent never expressed any intention to abandon the project; rather, Barrington terminated Respondent shortly after Respondent expressed a willingness to complete the project despite his financial difficulties. During the time when Respondent was awaiting Barrington's decision as to the offer to renegotiate the contract price, Barrington elected to terminate Respondent, and did so. Barrington also forbade Respondent from entering the property. Thus, Respondent's separation from the project was caused by Barrington's actions, not by his own volition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order: (1) dismissing Counts Two and Three of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of violating section 489.129(1)(i), by failing to comply with section 489.1425, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; (3) fining him $250.00 for having committed this violation; and (4) ordering him to reimburse the Department for investigative and prosecutorial costs related to this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA ENCISO VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Harry L. Wilson is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license, Number RC 0041328, was first issued in March of 1982. The license was issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing, 1943 Hardy Street, Jacksonville, Florida, with the Respondent as qualifier. The Respondent has been the qualifier of Harry L. Wilson Roofing at all times relevant to this proceeding. On December 6, 1984, the Respondent and Robbie L. Hicks, entered into a written contract (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2). Pursuant to this written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), the Respondent agreed to perform the repair work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" and Ms. Hicks agreed to pay the Respondent $2,395.00. The property to be repaired is rental property owned by Ms. Hicks. The property is located at 1508 Eaverson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent commenced work sometime during the early part of 1983. Shortly after commencing work, however, the Respondent and Ms. Hicks began having disagreements as to the work to be performed and the quality of the Respondent's work. These disagreements continued after the Respondent completed the work in November of 1983. Ms. Hicks testified that the work that the Respondent completed was done in an unprofessional manner and that the Respondent had not completed all of the work that he had agreed to perform. In particular, Ms. Hicks testified that the Respondent had failed to paint the interior of the house beige as required by the Contract, had failed to remove saw dust and other debris from the house following completion of the work, had failed to finish cabinets installed in the house, had failed to repair screens and generally had not performed in the manner he had agreed to perform. Ms. Hicks paid the Respondent all but $410.00 of the contract price. The Respondent testified that all off the work called for pursuant to the Contract had been performed. According to the Respondent, he had performed some work not required by the Contract and had not performed other work requested by Ms. Hicks because the work was beyond the scope of the Contract. The Respondent also stated that the work which Ms. Hicks expected would have cost considerably more than the price agreed upon in the Contract. The Respondent did not perform all of the work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" as required by the Contract. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Claude Bagwell, Deputy Chief, Building and Zoning, Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville, it is clear that no permit was issued by the City of Jacksonville to perform the work required by the Contract. The only permits issued with regard to Ms. Hicks' rental property was a permit issued in 1961 and the original building permit issued in 1949. Additionally, due to the fact that no Florida registered roofing contractor's license in the name of "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" had been filed with the City of Jacksonville, no permit could be issued to Harry L. Wilson Roofing with regard to the Contract. The Respondent admitted that he had not obtained a permit to perform the work required by the Contract. The Respondent indicated that he had not obtained a permit because he was not aware that one was required in order to perform the work. He did indicate that he had obtained permits to perform other jobs. The Respondent could not, however, have obtained permits for other jobs because no license issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing had been filed with the City of Jacksonville. The Respondent did take the examination required in order to obtain a registered roofing contractor's license. The Petitioner suggested in its Proposed Findings that the "permit requirement was explained" when the Respondent took the exam. No evidence to support such a finding was presented at the hearing. The Respondent in entering into the Contract clearly used the name "Wilson Recycling". Nowhere on the Contract is the name "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" used. The Respondent ultimately admitted that no Florida license authorizing the use of the name "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained by him. The Respondent, however, when initially asked whether a Florida license in the name of "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained indicated that such a license had been issued. On further examination, however, the Respondent testified that an occupational license in the name of "Wilson Recycling' had been obtained by him and not a Florida license. The work to be performed pursuant to the Contract was beyond the scope off the Respondent's license. As pointed out by Mr. Bagwell the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract would require licensure as a registered residential contractor or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting in a name other than the name as set forth on the Respondent's license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.119(2) and(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the Respondent failed to qualify the business name "Wilson Recycling" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), when he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting to perform and actually performing work beyond the scope of his Florida contracting license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this17th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry L. Wilson 1943 Hardee Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed as a contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. His license for the 1979-1981 license period had not been renewed at the time that the hearing was conducted, and he was therefore delinquent. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibit 1.] During June, 1977, the Respondent entered Into a contract with Emily D. Wohanka and Ruby Sue Dennard. Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard, who are sisters, agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot. The parties agreed to an addendum to the contract during July or August, 1977. The addendum included some specifics with respect to construction and provided: Home will be complete and ready for occupancy within a reasonable period of time--normally three to five months. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 9, and the testimony of Wohanka and Jordan.) The lot which Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard purchased was not cleared until December, 1977. No progress on construction was made during January or February, 1980. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, on February 20, 1978. Construction work commenced in either March or April, 1978. By June, 1978, Ms. Wohanka became concerned that work was commencing too slowly. She told the Respondent that she needed to move in by the end of July. Respondent told her that it was probable that construction would not be completed until mid-August. By September, the project was still not completed. Ms. Wohanka tried to reach Respondent by telephone, but he would not return her calls. She tried to locate him at home, but no one would answer the door. She complained to the building official in the City of Satellite Beach, but the building official had similar problems reaching the Respondent. Ms. Wohanka also complained to N. M. Jordan, the real estate agent who had negotiated the contract. Ms. Jordan was able to locate the Respondent, and the Respondent told Ms. Jordan that he could not complete the project because he was losing money. In late September or early October, Ms. Wohanka and her sister located the Respondent at his home. The Respondent was just walking out of the front door when they arrived. The Respondent told them that he could not discuss the matter, that he had turned it over to Ms. Jordan, and that he was not a part of it anymore. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3; and from the testimony of Wobanka, Hijort, and Jordan.] When Ms. Wohanka contacted the Respondent in late September or early October, no work had been done on the project for at least a month, and the house was not completed. Light fixtures, appliances, and air conditioning had not been installed. Cabinets and other fixtures were stored in a bathroom. Inside doors had not been installed. Flooring was not completed. No sidewalks or concrete driveway had been constructed. There had been no landscaping or sodding, and the sprinkler system had not been installed. The plumbing was not operational. Ms. Wohanka contracted with a new builder to complete the project. She was able to move into the residence on December 28, 1978, but work was not finally completed until late January, 1979. Additional expenses beyond those agreed to by the Respondent were incurred by Ms. Wohanka. The Respondent had drawn on a construction loan; but, there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent used these funds for any purposes other than the construction of the dwelling. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Wohanka.] During July, 1977, the Respondent entered into a contract with James and Eleanor A. Lawrence. The Lawrences agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach on February 22, 1978. Unknown problems developed, and the project was not being completed. The Satellite Beach building official had difficulty locating the Respondent, but he was ultimately assured by the Respondent that the project would be completed. The Respondent told the realtor who negotiated the contract, Ms. Jordan, that he could not complete the 3 reject because he was losing money. The Lawrences did not testify at the hearing, and specifics regarding their relationship with the Respondent are not known. It is not known whether the Respondent abandoned the project uncompleted without notifying the Lawrences, or whether some agreement was made between them regarding completion of the project. There is no evidenced that the Respondent diverted any funds from the project. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Hjort and Jordan.] No building codes from the City of Satellite Beach were received into evidence. There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that the Respondent violated any provisions of the building codes in either the Wohanka or Lawrence transactions.
