The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, who was never licensed as a contractor, engaged in the unlawful practice of contracting when he entered into (and attempted to perform under) an agreement to build a dental office; and whether, if Respondent is found guilty of unlicensed contracting, Petitioner should penalize him by imposing an administrative fine and assessing investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") has jurisdiction to take punitive action against unlicensed persons who unlawfully engage in the business of contracting. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Respondent James Bresnahan ("Bresnahan") licensed, certified, or registered to do business as a contractor of any sort. In June 2007, Bresnahan entered into a contract with University Dental Health Care Center, Inc. ("University"), whereby, in exchange for University's agreement to pay Bresnahan a total of $42,350 in compensation for his work, Bresnahan promised to remodel a bay at the Shoppes of Rolling Hills ("Rolling Hills"), a shopping center located in Davie, Florida, where University planned to operate a dental office. The contract described the scope of the work that Bresnahan would perform as follows: Remove all walls per plans. Redesign interior space to reflect new office plans. New electrical per plans. New plumbing per plans. New droped [sic] ceiling and lighting per plans per Ken. Finish all walls with new paint colors per Angela. New flooring [illegible] tile to be picked by owner. Install new compressor bracket on back of building. Bring all utilities to dental chairs (vac[uum], water, electric, air and drain; five chairs per plans per Ken. Proposal is for drawings and permits and construction of office. Cabinets and installation by others. Equipment and plumbing fixtures by others per Ken. Handycap [sic] bathroom by Shops [sic] of Rolling Hills. (Quoted text reformatted from "all uppercase" to "sentence case.") Bresnahan had not previously undertaken a construction project such as this. He had, however, overseen the build-out of his wife's bakery, which was located in Rolling Hills. For that project, Bresnahan had engaged a general contractor, Johnson Beckett, Inc. ("Johnson Beckett"). Bresnahan, in other words, had been the client, Johnson Beckett the builder. Bresnahan had been introduced to University's principals by their mutual landlord, who——perhaps being unaware of Bresnahan's actual role in the construction of the bakery—— touted Bresnahan as a "builder." Bresnahan had not advertised or promoted himself as a builder, but neither did he disclaim such expertise upon meeting the principals of University; to the contrary, he ultimately offered to build a dental office for University, leading to the contract described above. On June 21, 2007, upon entering into the construction agreement with Bresnahan, University made a down payment of $10,000 to Bresnahan. Because he was not in fact a builder, Bresnahan's plan was to use this money, and other payments he would receive from University, to hire Johnson Beckett to act as the "general contractor" for all aspects of the project except the plumbing and electrical work, for which Bresnahan intended to engage separate subcontractors. Johnson Beckett would not bid a fixed price for the project, however, without a proper construction plan. Consequently, Bresnahan entered into a contract (in his personal capacity, not as an agent for University) with Johnson Beckett, pursuant to which the general contactor was to obtain a blueprint for the dental office project, appropriately sealed by a licensed engineer. For this drafting work, Bresnahan agreed to pay Johnson Beckett $5,000. As Johnson Beckett proceeded, it encountered some difficulty in obtaining information, which the engineer needed, concerning the equipment that would be installed in the dental office. Meantime, little or no work was being accomplished at the jobsite, which began to create tensions between Bresnahan and University. Nevertheless, University gave Bresnahan another check, for $5,000, on July 19, 2007. As the weeks passed, however, University became increasingly frustrated at the lack of tangible progress; it began to lose patience with Bresnahan. When Linda Commons, an owner of the company, started pressing Bresnahan for an accounting, the relationship deteriorated further. On or around August 21, 2007, Bresnahan sent University a letter that announced he was unilaterally canceling their contract. Thereupon, Bresnahan abandoned the job. As of the final hearing, Bresnahan had not refunded to University any of the compensation he received. In connection with the instant matter, the Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $209.55. Ultimate Factual Determinations Bresnahan's negotiation of, entry into, and attempt to perform under the construction agreement with University constituted the practice of contracting under Florida law. Thus, Bresnahan, who was not a licensed contractor, is guilty of unlicensed contracting, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Bresnahan's negotiation of, entry into, and attempt to perform under the construction agreement with University also constituted the practice of electrical contracting under Florida law. Thus, Bresnahan, who was not a licensed electrical contractor, is guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which: (1) finds Bresnahan guilty of (a) engaging in the business of contracting without a license and (b) practicing electrical contracting without a license; (2) imposes an administrative fine of $10,000 for these incidents of unlicensed contracting; and (3) assesses investigative costs in the amount of $209.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2008, 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James Bresnahan 4950 Southwest 70th Avenue Davie, Florida 33314 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 G.W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 6, 1982, the Petitioner, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, J. Hugh Smith, a registered electrical contractor, who holds license number ER 0004272. The Respondent is the President of Electric Hugh Company, Inc. Electric Hugh Company is the entity through which the Respondent engaged in the business of electrical contracting in the City of Jacksonville. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville met and considered charges filed against the Respondent for failure to use certified craftsmen. A Mr. Etheridge, an employee of Respondent, was permitted to engage in electrical contracting work unsupervised by a certified craftsman without being licensed as a certified craftsman. By so doing, Respondent violated Section 950.110(a), Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville, Florida. 1/ For that code violation, Respondent's certificate was suspended for a period of six (6) months. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and testimony of John R. Bond, Executive Director -- Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville) On June 2, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board convened another meeting to consider other charges filed against Respondent based on an alleged failure (by Respondent) to pull electrical permits on four instances wherein a permit was required. At that time, Respondent's certification was revoked effective June 2, 1982, and that revocation remains in effect. The action by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, City of Jacksonville, has been reviewed by Petitioner. By way of mitigation, Respondent opined that he considered the two years in which his license has been revoked by the City of Jacksonville as sufficient penalty for the violation. Respondent did not substantively contest the charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's registered electrical contractor's license number ER 0004272 be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April 1984 in Tallahassee, 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 17th day of April 1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Lamar "Marty" Campbell was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Mr. Campbell readily acknowledges that he has not had training or education in construction or contracting and has never held any licenses related to any type of construction or contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Johnston Handyman Services did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Lamar Campbell, resides in Gulf Breeze, Florida. After Hurricane Ivan, he and his roommate took in Jeff Johnston, who then resided in Mr. Campbell's home at all times material to this case. Mr. Johnston performed some handywork in Respondent's home. Mr. Johnston did not have a car, a bank account, or an ID. Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston wherever he needed to go. At some point in time, Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston to obtain a handyman's license in Santa Rosa County. Mr. Campbell did not apply for the license with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Campbell's name does not appear on this license. The license is in the name of Johnston's Handyman Services. Mr. Campbell is a neighbor of Kenneth and Tracy Cauley. In the summer of 2005, which was during the period of time when Mr. Johnston resided in Mr. Campbell's home, the Cauleys desired to have repairs done on their home to their hall bathroom, master bathroom, kitchen and laundry room. With the help of Mr. Campbell and others, Mr. Johnston prepared various lists of repairs that the Cauleys wanted performed on their home. In August 2005, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Campbell went to the Cauley's home and the proposed repairs were discussed with the Cauleys. There are documents in evidence dated August and October, 2005, which the Cauleys perceive to be contracts for the repairs to be done in their home. However, these documents are not contracts but are estimates, itemizing both materials and labor. The documents have the word "Estimate" in large bold type at the top and "Johnston Handyman Services" also at the top of the pages. The list of itemized materials includes electrical items, e.g., light fixtures and wiring. Also in evidence are documents dated August and October, 2005, with the word "Invoice" in large bold letters and "Johnston Handyman Services" at the top of the pages. Both Mr. and Mrs. Cauley acknowledge that Mr. Johnston performed the vast majority of the work on their home. However, at Mr. Johnston's request, Mr. Campbell did assist Mr. Johnston in working on the Cauley residence. Between August 5, 2005, and October 11, 2005, Mrs. Cauley wrote several checks totaling $24,861.53. Each check was written out to Marty Campbell or Lamar Campbell.1/ Mr. Campbell acknowledges endorsing these checks but asserts that he cashed them on behalf of Mr. Johnston, who did not have a bank account or identification, and turned the cash proceeds over to Mr. Johnston. Further, Mr. Campbell insists that he did not keep any of these proceeds. The undersigned finds Mr. Campbell's testimony in this regard to be credible. Work on the project ceased before it was finished and Mr. Johnston left the area. Apparently, he cannot be located. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $419.55 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-2764, and $151.25 regarding the allegations relating to case No. 06-3171, for a total of $570.80.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $500 for a violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and requiring Respondent, Lamar Campbell, to pay $570.80 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a certified electrical contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. EC0000971. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the sole qualifying agent for AAA Quality Electric, Inc. (hereinafter "AAA"), a California corporation with its principal office located in Riverside, California. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a permanent resident of the State of California. By Order of Emergency Suspension of Licensure entered on September 12, 1990, by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation, Respondent's license as a certified electrical contractor in Florida was summarily suspended. At the time, Respondent held either master's licenses or contractor's licenses in 21 states and held hundreds of city licenses. Between January, 1989 and June, 1990, AAA operated in 11 states. During that time period, AAA had as many as 65 people working in the office in California, with as many as 85 electricians in the field. During that time period, AAA had as many as 14 electricians working in the State of Florida. AAA only hired electricians who possessed either a journeyman's or a master's license in the jurisdiction where they worked since that level of licensure enables that electrician to work without direct, on-the-job supervision. AAA advertised when a position was open and administered to job applicants an examination which AAA considers equivalent to a journeyman's examination. To be hired, one needed to pass the examination. AAA would also require that a new employee provide AAA with his or her license number or a copy of his or her current licensure. AAA also employed area supervisors and regional supervisors. Respondent was available to any of the journeymen or masters working for him either by telephone or by sky pager at all times. If anyone doing an installation had a problem, that person could contact Respondent to discuss the problem with him. Respondent's permit-pulling policy was to pull a permit whenever one was required. He had on file, in the various jurisdictions, letters allowing one of his employees to pull permits under his State of Florida license number. For example, in Pompano Beach, which is located in Broward County, Respondent had on file a letter allowing Bill Mopis to pull permits under Respondent's license even though Mopis held a master's license in Broward County and could pull permits under his own license number. By the time that Petitioner suspended Respondent's license to practice electrical contracting in the State of Florida, Respondent had changed his permitting policies so that a permit was pulled for any type of work performed in the State of Florida. AAA advertised in newspapers and in telephone directory yellow pages. When a request for service was made, one of the journeymen or master electricians employed by AAA would be dispatched to the work location. AAA in California was aware of which employee had been dispatched to perform which job. On the day following the job, AAA would call the customer to make sure that the customer was satisfied by the work that had been performed. In March, 1989, Anna and Rudolf Reider contacted AAA pursuant to an ad in the telephone directory yellow pages and requested that an electrician come to their residence to install a ceiling fan. The residence was located in Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. Terry Stewart, who holds a master's license from Broward County, responded to their call. When he arrived, Mrs. Reider explained to him that she also wanted a wall outlet which was located behind her bed in a different room to be moved a few feet to the side in order to make it accessible. Stewart took down a light fixture from the ceiling and replaced it with a ceiling fan. He also moved the wall outlet located in the master bedroom by running conduit along the wall and mounting a metal outlet box on the wall in the outlet's new location. Stewart charged the Reiders $391.30, which represented the rate of $46.50 per 1/2 hour plus materials. He also applied a senior citizen discount of 10% to the labor portion of the bill. The hourly rate charged by Stewart was that rate which was quoted over the telephone by AAA to Mrs. Reider when she placed the service call and is in accordance with the labor rate reflected on the work order. The Reiders were satisfied with the ceiling fan installation and with the price charged by Stewart. Although Mrs. Reider had shown Stewart an electrical installation located on her porch, which installation is a pipe with wires inside, and told him that was what she expected, and although she admits that she knew that the new wall outlet would not look the same as the other outlets in the room because there had to be an exposed pipe on the wall, she and her husband were dissatisfied with the appearance of the wall outlet extension in their bedroom. Mrs. Reider subsequently contacted AAA, and Stewart returned her phone call. He advised her that he was willing to come back to her residence and change the appearance of the installation by using a smaller pipe, but he would need to charge her $46.50 for the return service call. Mrs. Reider was unwilling to pad any additional monies for Stewart to return and has never had that work accomplished. Both the ceiling fan and the extended wall outlet work properly. Stewart did not obtain a permit before performing the electrical work. There was no licensure barrier to Stewart obtaining a permit and the inspections that attend the obtaining of a permit since at the time Respondent was licensed by Petitioner, AAA had an occupational license to perform work in Broward County, and no occupational license was required for the City of Pompano Beach since AAA did not maintain an office within that municipality. When Stewart completed the job, he gave the Reiders a 5-year extended warranty, and both Mr. and Mrs. Reider signed the work order authorizing the work and payment therefor, and acknowledging satisfactory completion of the work. The Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Pompano Beach believes that an electrician, to work without supervision, must be either a journeyman or a master electrician, which Terry Stewart was. The City of Pompano Beach has taken no action against AAA for failure to pull a permit for the Reider job. Although the Chief Electrical Inspector believes that a permit is required for any electrical work performed within the City of Pompano Beach, as provided in the City's permitting ordinances at Section 301.1(e), Section 301(b) (2) sets forth exceptions to the permitting requirements and provides that: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following Sections, for general maintenance or repairs which do not change the Occupancy and the value of which does not exceed Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) in labor and material. ... At the time that AAA performed the work at the Reider residence, the ad which appeared in the yellow pages portion of the telephone directory did not contain Respondent's license number. The City of Pompano Beach has adopted the South Florida Building Code which adopts the National Electrical Code. The National Electrical Code provides that the bonding jumper is to be a green wire or the wire is to be left bare. In the receptacle installed by Stewart, a white wire was used for the bonding jumper. That violation of the National Electrical Code is easily remedied by stripping the white wire bare or by substituting a green wire. Such work is covered under the warranty given by AAA to the Reiders. Although the 1990 National Electrical Code prohibits the use of outlet boxes as the sole support for a ceiling fan and provides an exception from that requirement, the evidence is unclear as to the requirements of the National Electrical Code in force at the time the work was performed. Within the electrical trade, taking down an existing light fixture and replacing it with a ceiling fan and moving a wall outlet are considered to come within the definition of repair and maintenance work. Accordingly, the work performed by AAA at the Reider residence was excluded from permitting requirements both by definition and by cost. Mary Scalza is the owner of Rub-A-Dub Laundromat in West Palm Beach. Early Saturday morning, on June 2, 1989, she experienced a breaker box "blowout", which incapacitated 14 of her washing machines. She located AAA's ad in the yellow pages of the telephone directory and called. AAA quoted her the price for emergency, weekend repairs, and she agreed. Terry Stewart responded to the call. When he arrived at Rub-A-Dub, he saw that the breaker box was located between two rows of washing machines on the floor and next to the overflow drain. He advised Scalza that the location of the box was a code violation, and the box had to be relocated. He told her the approximate cost of doing so but told her that she would have to call AAA to verify with the Company what the cost would be. She told him that the cost of relocating the box was too expensive and implored him to effectuate some repair so that her machines would be operable as soon as possible. Stewart explained to her the dangerous nature of the location of the box but agreed to effectuate a temporary repair. Stewart was unable to replace the entire breaker box; rather, he replaced all inside parts, using the old box. Although Scalza denies that Stewart told her he was simply effectuating a temporary repair until Monday morning when he could obtain the proper parts from a parts supply company, the work order signed by Scalza conforms with AAA's policies regarding temporary repairs. Specifically, the work order provides that no guarantee was given for the work. It is clear that Stewart did return to Rub-A-Dub Monday morning, and Scalza refused to let him touch the breaker box. When Stewart finished his temporary repair on Saturday afternoon, he submitted to Scalza a statement in the amount of $892.10. She gave him a check for $600.00 and paid him the balance in cash. When Scalza's husband came to the laundromat, he became very angry about the amount of the bill. On Monday morning, Scalza contacted the electrical inspector for the City of West Palm Beach, who came to the laundromat, looked at the work that had been accomplished, and "red tagged" the job due to the location of the breaker box. Scalza did not advise him that it was simply an emergency temporary repair. Scalza stopped payment on her check and contacted AAA, advising them not to return to complete the job. When an emergency repair is effectuated in West Palm Beach, it is Permissible for the permit to be pulled on the next business day. Since AAA was fired from the job on the next business day, AAA did not apply for a permit. Instead, AAA sent Stewart back to Rub-A-Dub to refund to Scalza the cash portion of her payment to AAA and to remove the parts Stewart had used for which Scalza would not pay. Scalza gave Stewart the parts which AAA had supplied which had already been removed by the other electrical company hired by her to do the work. That subsequent company did pull a permit for the work at Rub-A-Dub and did relocate the breaker box, which apparently Scalza authorized that company to do. The electrical inspector for the City of West Palm Beach agrees that the responsibility for pulling the permit on the Rub-A-Dub job was that of the subsequent company that effectuated the repairs and not the responsibility of AAA which had been fired from the job before it could pull a permit on Monday, the next business day following the emergency repairs effectuated over the weekend. Petitioner's witnesses agree that if the work done by AAA was a temporary repair for a few days, then the work that was accomplished by Stewart was, in fact, a safe, temporary repair. Further, it is a "judgment call" as to whether an electrician is required to bring electrical service up to code requirements, regardless of the nature of the work an electrician has been called upon to do. Further, anything involving water is always a "judgment call." Even Petitioner's expert would consider effectuating repairs to the breaker box in the location it was in when Stewart came to Rub-A-Dub if the box was completely enclosed and weatherproofed. No evidence was offered as to whether the box was completely enclosed and weatherproofed. Alton F. LaBrecque is an employee of AAA. He holds a journeyman's license from Pinellas County. Pinellas County and Hillsborough County have a reciprocal agreement regarding licensing, i.e., as long as a person holds a journeyman's license from one of those counties, he is not required to obtain a journeyman's license to work in the other county which is on the other side of the bridge. It is the practice in both Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties that if a journeyman who is licensed in one of those counties shows his card to an inspector from the other county, that is all that is required by the inspector of the other county to insure himself that the journeyman is properly licensed. The City of Tampa, which is in Hillsborough County, allows Hillsborough County to regulate licensing. If a person is licensed to work in Hillsborough County, then he is also licensed to work within the City of Tampa. At all times material hereto, AAA had an occupational license to work within the limits of the City of Tampa. On September 26, 1989, Heidi Bekiempis contacted AAA to request that someone come to her residence in Tampa to replace a dimmer switch. Alton LaBrecque responded to that call. When he arrived at the Bekiempis residence, Mrs. Bekiempis also advised him that certain lights within the house were flickering. LaBrecque replaced the dimmer switch which had been completely burned. It is LaBrecque's practice to involve the customer in the work that he is doing as much as possible so that they understand what is being done and why. When he checked the breaker box, he noticed that there were loose connections within the breaker box. He had Mrs. Bekiempis "running around the house" turning lights on and off while he tightened wires and checked the breakers. LaBrecque tested each breaker in the box with a digital meter and then with an infrared tester. Using the two different pieces of equipment, he tested both the line side and the load side of the breakers while they were carrying a full load. He discovered that three single-pole 20-amp breakers and one double- pole 60-amp breaker were consuming electricity as it passed across the breakers. Manufacturer specifications allow a breaker to consume up to .029 volts. The four breakers in question were each consuming one volt which is equal to 120 watts. He understood that the implication of the fact that those breakers were "hot" and consuming electricity meant that they would not trip properly and there was a danger of wires burning or even a fire starting. He also understood that a bad breaker had been the cause of the dimmer switch burning. Although his work order completed at the time indicated that a breaker was only giving off 87-93 volts and he testified at the final hearing that each of the breakers was consuming one volt, even the one volt consumption testified to at the final hearing was sufficient to show that a dangerous condition existed and the breakers needed replacing. Even though Mrs. Bekiempis denies authorizing the replacement of the circuit breakers, she does admit that LaBrecque told her about the danger of a fire, and she signed the work order after completion of the job acknowledging the satisfactory completion of the work. That work order clearly reflects the replacement of the breakers, the results of LaBrecque's testing, the reason why the breakers were replaced, and an itemized listing of the costs for the replacement breakers. It is found that Mrs. Bekiempis authorized replacing the breakers. Mrs. Bekiempis paid AAA $384.00 for the work performed. The replacement dimmer switch works properly, and the Bekiempis' lights stopped flickering after LaBrecque replaced the bad breakers. Mrs. Bekiempis unsuccessfully tried to stop payment on her charge card for all of the work performed by AAA. Between September 26, 1989, and February 15, 1990, the replaced breakers and the replacement breakers were primarily in the possession of Mr. and Mrs. Bekiempis. During that time, Mr. Bekiempis gave breakers to two different electricians for testing. On February 15, 1990, he gave breakers to an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. On February 20, 1990, the investigator gave breakers to Joe Bolesina, the Chief Electrical Inspector for Pinellas County. At some subsequent time, Bolesina marked four breakers and gave them to a clerk in his office to send to General Electric for testing. When Bolesina subsequently received breakers from General Electric, he returned them to Petitioner's investigator who retained custody of them until his deposition was taken in this case on October No explanation was offered as to how the breakers which were marked as an exhibit to the deposition of Petitioner's investigator on October 10 got to the deposition of Joe Bolesina taken on October 11 at which time the breakers were marked as an exhibit to his deposition. No explanation was offered as to who had custody of the breakers between October 11 and the time they were produced at the final hearing commencing on October 17, 1990. It is probable that the breakers that were marked at some unidentified time by Joe Bolesina are the same breakers which were admitted in evidence at the final hearing in this cause since the tags placed on the breakers by Bolesina remain on the breakers. However, there is no basis for assuming that the breakers which were replaced by LaBrecque five months before Bolesina received them and marked them were the same breakers that were replaced by LaBrecque. During the afternoon of Saturday, March 17, 1990, a tornado blew down a huge oak tree located in the front yard of the residence of Clarence Cruey in the City of Tampa. As it fell, the tree tore the entire electrical service off the front of the Cruey residence, including the meter, the riser, and the wires. The customer had no power at all. Cruey looked in the yellow pages to find an electrical contractor who would come to his residence immediately to effectuate the repair work even though it was still storming. AAA responded to his call, quoted to him its rates for 1-hour emergency service, and dispatched Alton LaBrecque and another AAA employee to perform the services. The two men worked there in the dark and in the rain for four hours, replacing Cruey's electrical service. Few of the parts were capable of being reused since they had been damaged by the tree or because they did not meet code requirements. For example, a Delta surge arrester had been used previously, and that type of equipment was, at the time, illegal in Tampa. AAA completely replaced the riser, hub, meter can, meter socket, wiring, and many other parts. At the conclusion of their work, AAA presented an itemized bill to Cruey in the amount of $2,556.17, and Cruey signed the acknowledgment that all work had been performed satisfactorily. He paid for the work by credit card but subsequently stopped payment, and AAA has been paid no monies for their labor or material regarding the Cruey job. Since the work at the Cruey residence was performed on an emergency basis on a Saturday, on the following Monday LaBrecque went to pull the permit for the work. Employees at the City of Tampa would not accept his permit application saying that he was not authorized to pull a permit for AAA and that a copy of AAA's workmen's compensation insurance was not on record with the City. Although authorization letters had been previously submitted, and although a copy of the insurance certificate had been filed with the City in January when AAA's City of Tampa occupational license was renewed, LaBrecque had AAA send additional copies of those documents to the City. When he again attempted to apply for the permit, the City advised him that they still did not have copies of those documents. LaBrecque contacted AAA and another set of documents was provided to the City. When LaBrecque returned, he was told that the documents still had not been received. When LaBrecque hand- carried another set of those documents to the City and "stuffed it in their faces," they accepted his permit application, ten days after he first applied. The permit itself was not issued for several months, and by the time of the final hearing in this cause the City had still refused to make the required inspection although Respondent had called for the inspection a number of times, including once on the record during a hearing conducted by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. Although refusing to make an official inspection, the Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tampa inspected the work at the Cruey residence on an "unofficial" basis. Based upon that unofficial inspection, he concluded that AAA had replaced parts that did not need replacement and that AAA had not done all of the work for which it had charged Cruey. On July 3, 1990, the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa revoked Respondent's permitting privileges for 1 year for the work done at the Cruey residence. On August 7, 1990, the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa suspended Respondent's permitting privileges to run concurrently with the revocation entered on July 3, 1990. On September 11, 1990, based on the fact that the City of Tampa had taken disciplinary action against Respondent, the Electrical Board of Adjustment, Appeals and Examiners of Hillsborough County suspended Respondent for a period of 5 years. These two disciplinary actions are not involved in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause, and proof of them was offered by Petitioner for the sole purpose of aggravation of any penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Photographs admitted in evidence at the final hearing in this cause clearly refute the testimony given by the Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tampa which resulted in the July 3, 1990, revocation of Respondent's permitting privileges. The photographs reveal the work done by AAA and also depict the damaged parts which were replaced by AAA since those damaged parts were still lying in Cruey's yard at the time the photographs were taken. Respondent was prohibited by the Unified Construction Trades Board from offering the photographs and other evidence in defense of the charges then pending against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of November, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-6172 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 25-27 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, and 28 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 21, 24, and 29 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 4.1, 5-7.5, 7.9, 7.10, 7.13-7.16, 8, 8.1, 8.3-8.6, 8.8, 8.9, 9.0, 9.2-9.7, 9.10, 9.12-9.14, 9.16- 9.20, 10, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6-10.19, 10.21-10.23, 12-12.8, 13.9, and 13.10 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of laws, recitation of the testimony, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 7.6-7.8, 7.11, 7.12, 8.2, 8.10-8.12, 9.1, 9.8, 9.11, 9.15, 10.20, 11-11.2, 13.2, 13.4-13.8, and 13.11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8.7 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10.2, 10.5, 13, 13.1, and 13.3 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert G. Harris, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel Suite 1600, NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire World Executive Building, Suite 333 3500 North State Road Seven Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Scott Anderson, Esquire 2033 Main Street, Suite 402 Sarasota, Florida 33427 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by the Board of Professional Engineers.
Findings Of Fact In October 1996, Henry A. Vidal (Petitioner) took the Principles and Practice part of the Electrical Engineer Examination (Examination). A minimum score of 70 is required to pass the Examination. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had not successfully completed the Examination, having received a score of 67. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners. Petitioner challenges questions numbered 131 and 133 on the Examination. A scoring plan is used for grading each question. For question numbered 131, the highest score achievable is 10. According to the scoring plan, correctly solving any one part of the problem in the challenged question earns a score of 2; correctly solving any two parts, earns a score of 4; correctly solving any three parts, earns a score of 6; correctly solving any four parts, earns a score of 8; and correctly determining five specific items, even though the solution need not be perfect, earns a score of 10. Petitioner received a score of 4 on question numbered 131. Regarding question numbered 131, under the scoring plan, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points. Even though Petitioner may have indicated his knowledge of the problem in the challenged question, he failed to solve the problem correctly, e.g., omitting a component and miscalculating. Petitioner solved two parts correctly, earning a score of 4. For question numbered 133, the highest score achievable is 10. According to the scoring plan, there are ten parts to the problem in the challenged question and correctly solving one or two parts, earns a score of 2; correctly solving three or four parts, earns a score of 4; correctly solving five or six parts, earns a score of 6; correctly solving seven or eight parts, earns a score of 8; and correctly solving nine or ten parts, earns a score of 10. Petitioner received a score of 8 on question numbered 133. Regarding question numbered 133, under the scoring plan, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points. Even though Petitioner may have indicated his knowledge of the problem in the challenged question, he failed to solve the problem correctly, e.g., using the incorrect quantity. Petitioner solved eight parts correctly, earning a score of 8. The examiners for the Examination re-graded Petitioner's answers to questions numbered 131 and 133. Petitioner was denied additional credit for the challenged questions by the examiners. Petitioner's answers were not arbitrarily or capriciously graded. The grading process was not devoid of logic and reason. The scoring plan was properly used. Questions numbered 131 and 133 are not beyond the scope of knowledge that is required of a candidate for licensure as an electrical engineer and are capable of being answered by such a candidate for licensure. Considering the proof, the opinions of Respondent's expert were more persuasive. The evidence presented was insufficient to warrant additional credit to Petitioner on questions numbered 131 and 133.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order dismissing the examination challenge of Henry A. Vidal and denying him licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry A. Vidal, pro se 5832 Alton Road Miami Beach, Florida 33140 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Bobby Serota is licensed as an electrical contractor in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties and is fully qualified by experience and training to take the FECLB examination. Petitioner is presented of Serota and Maggi Electrical Company, Inc. In 1979, the company failed to remit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) payroll taxes when due, and the IRS placed a lien against the company for some $24,000 for taxes, penalties and interest. Serota entered into an agreement with the IRS to repay this indebtedness at the rate of $1500 per month and is current on those payments. If this scheduled is maintained the lien will be satisfied in January, 1982. The examination for which Serota has applied is given twice per year. The next examination will be given in December, 1981, or January, 1982.
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner is fully qualified to sit for the next examination but for the IRS lien filed against his company. This IRS lien will be liquidated by the time the next examination is given provided Petitioner keeps his payments to the IRS current. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Bobby Serota be qualified to sit for the next electrical contractors examination provided that he submits to the Board by 1 December 1981, a statement showing his payments to the IRS are current. ENTERED this 14th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bobby Serota 2040C Tigertail Boulevard Dania, Florida 33004 Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner held a Registered Electrical Contractors license, No. 13012890, and a Registered Alarm System Contractors I license, No. 12000229, that authorized him to engage in the same in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner's licenses are active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. Petitioner operates a business named "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., in Pompano Beach, Florida. In the case styled State v. Terrance Davis, Case No. 082026CCFICA, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Petitioner was charged with burglary of a structure with assault or battery and felony battery. Petitioner's unrefuted testimony was that after his arrest in October 2008, he was detained without bond pending his trial.1/ On November 17, 2009, the Florida Department of Revenue ("DOR") issued to Petitioner a Notice of Non-Compliance with Support Order and Intent to Suspend License for the nonpayment of a previously existing child support order. The notice was sent to 7906 Southwest Seventh Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At the time the notice was sent, Petitioner claims to have been detained in the Broward County jail. The criminal charge of felony battery was nol prossed on December 14, 2009. On December 15, 2009, Petitioner proceeded to trial on the remaining charge and was acquitted by a jury. On December 27, 2009, DOR issued a Notice to Suspend License for Nonpayment of Support to the Division of Professions. Said notice provided that, "[w]e gave [Petitioner] notice of nonpayment and intent to suspend license(s) more than 30 days ago. [He has] not complied with the support order, a written agreement if there is one, or timely contested the action." The notice further directed that, "[u]nder section 409.2598(5)(b), Florida Statutes, you must suspend the license, permit or certificate that allows the person to engage in an occupation, business or recreation." In January 2010, during the course of a traffic stop, Petitioner was advised by a law enforcement officer that his Florida driver's license was suspended. On February 8, 2010, Petitioner entered into a Written Agreement for Past Due Support with DOR wherein he agreed to make a lump-sum payment and additional monthly payments. DOR agreed that it would not suspend or deny his driver's license as long as Petitioner complied with the terms of the agreement. Petitioner credibly testified that thereafter, when he "resumed his Articles of Incorporation," he realized his professional licenses had also been suspended. On February 25, 2010, DOR issued a Request to Reinstate License to the Division of Professions. Said request provided as follows: The license(s) of the parent named below, was suspended for nonpayment of support. Please reinstate the license(s). The parent is paying as agreed or ordered, the circuit court has ordered reinstatement, or the parent is otherwise entitled to have the license(s) reinstated under section 409.2598(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Court Case Number: 060015893CA-06 Parent's Name: TERRENCE A DAVIS Mailing Address: 7905 SW 7th Pl, North Lauderdale, FL 33068-2123 License Number(s) and Type(s): 12000229 Reg. Alarm System Contractors I (EY), 13012890 Reg. Electrical Contractors (ER) On or about July 23, 2013, Petitioner applied for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 484.514, Florida Statutes.2/ Included with Petitioner's application, was a personal financial statement wherein Petitioner itemized his assets and liabilities. Petitioner's personal financial statement concluded that his personal net worth was $56,400.00. Also included in Petitioner's application was a business financial statement for "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., that similarly itemized Petitioner's business assets and liabilities. Petitioner's business financial statement concluded that the business's net worth was $35,945. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated October 18, 2013, the Board denied Petitioner's application for two reasons: within the previous five years, Petitioner's contracting license was suspended for failure to pay child support; and Petitioner's application failed to demonstrate that he had the requisite financial stability as required by rule 61G6- 5.005(3) and requisite net worth as required by rule 61G6-5.004. Petitioner credibly testified as to the figures supporting the itemization of both his personal and business assets and liabilities and respective net worth contained in the application. Petitioner conceded that a credit report, dated July 8, 2013, documents that he had a late mortgage payment in April 2010; that in 1997, his child support arrearage was placed in collection; and that an account, with a current balance of $3110.00, was placed for collection. Petitioner contends said account concerned a one-year lease that he was unable to satisfy at the time due to his detainment for the above-noted criminal charges. Respondent presented the testimony of Clarence Kelly Tibbs. Mr. Tibbs is a state-certified electrical contractor who served on the Board for approximately 13 years. Mr. Tibbs was not on the Board at the time the Board considered and rejected Petitioner's application. The undersigned deemed Mr. Tibbs as an expert in electrical contracting. Mr. Tibbs did not testify concerning the areas of his expertise (electrical contracting), but rather, offered opinions on the propriety of the Board's denial of Petitioner's application. Mr. Tibbs testified that, "as an ex-Board member," looking at Petitioner's personal and business financials, there were several problems. After itemizing his concerns, Mr. Tibbs concluded that, "[h]owever, looking at the financials that you've got in front of me, although I have some problems with them, I could probably go ahead and approve them."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 7th day of May, 2014.
