Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate for the General Contractor Examination given in February, 1990, (the "examination"). Petitioner passed part three but failed parts one and two. Petitioner subsequently passed part one in June, 1990. Petitioner received a score of 69 percent on part two of the examination and needs only one point to pass part two and the entire examination. 1/ Question 37 is worth one point. Respondent gave credit for answer "(D) 10" in response to question 37. Petitioner selected answer "(A) 0" in response to question 37. Question 37 requires a candidate to apply Section 713.12, Florida Statutes, to the facts provided in the stem to question 37. Section 713.12, in relevant part, gives a spouse 10 days after learning of a contract to object to the signing of a contract by his or her spouse. Question 37 requires a candidate to determine how many days a wife has to object to a contract entered into by a contractor and both spouses but signed only by her husband with her knowledge. Question 37 is not ambiguous. There is only one correct response to the question challenged by Petitioner. The correct response to the question is answer "(D) 10." Petitioner did not choose the correct answer for question 37. The wife is not deemed to waive any objection she has if she does not make it at the time of the signing. The time that the wife learned of the contract and its signing is clear and unambiguous from the facts in the stem of the question. The contract was entered into by both the husband and wife and was signed by the husband with the wife's knowledge. The ordinary and plain meaning of the term "with" connotes "at the same time as." The only type of property that is reasonably contemplated in question 37 is real property. Of the 649 candidates who took the examination, 81 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Of the candidates who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination, 92 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Only two percent of the candidates selected answer "(A) 0."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to question 37. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administration 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 8th day of April 1991.
The Issue Did respondent fail to properly supervise, direct and manage the contracting activities of the business of which he is the qualifier, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against respondent's contracting license?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the respondent was a certified building contractor licensed by the State of Florida and the qualifying agent for Custom Concrete of Naples, Inc. (Custom Concrete). Rodney Velez was the president of Custom Concrete and licensed only in concrete--concrete forming, placing and finishing. Susan Velez, Rodney Velez's wife, was an officer of Custom Concrete. On April 23, 1983, Custom Concrete, by and through Rodney Velez, entered into a contract with Mark and Penny Paterson to construct a home for $38,550.00. Mrs. Paterson had previously met Rodney Velez in the course of her work, and Velez had told her that he was a builder. Mrs. Paterson had suggested that Velez look at a floor plan that she and her husband had, and after certain negotiations, including a change of floor plan, the contract was entered into. During the course of the negotiations Mrs. Paterson never talked to the respondent and was unaware that the respondent was involved or would be involved in the construction of the home. Mrs. Paterson believed that Rodney Velez was the "builder"; however, the construction of the Paterson home was beyond the scope of Velez's concrete license. The respondent signed the application to secure the building permit for the Paterson residence, although he did not personally appear to procure the building permit. The clerk of the contractor's licensing section of the building code compliance department relied on the signature on the application because it was notarized. The notary was Susan Velez. Respondent did not supervise or direct the construction of the Paterson home. Neal Jackson, president of the company who did the electric work on the home, was unaware that respondent was involved in the project until well after the house was finished. Although it is usual for a supervisor or superintendent to be at the job site some of the time, Jackson never saw the respondent or Velez at the job site. Jeff Allain, the carpenter who did the framing and certain other work, was on the job site five or six days and saw the respondent once during the framing of the structure "just generally looking around." The respondent didn't say anything to Allain. David Isom did drywall work on the house. He had no contact with the respondent and did not see him at the construction site. Mrs. Paterson went by the construction site quite often and realized that the job was not being properly supervised. Velez was rarely there, and Mrs. Paterson never saw the respondent. The workmen on the site would ask the Patersons when Velez would be there because they had questions concerning the work. Neither of the building inspectors saw anyone supervising at the job site, although usually no one is at the job site when an inspection is made. Two days after the Patersons moved into their house, they compiled a "punch list" of the items that needed to be completed or corrected. The list was given to Velez, but the work was not corrected to the Paterson's satisfaction. Although Velez did not give the "punch list" to respondent, Velez discussed the problems with the respondent. Respondent did not take any steps to remedy the problems and said he thought "a lot of it was nonsense." Velez told respondent that he, Velez, would take care of it. Because of the unresolved problems with the house, Mrs. Paterson finally called the licensing board to file a complaint against Rodney Velez. At that time, she was informed that Rodney Velez was not the contractor; the contractor was the respondent. This was the first time that Mrs. Paterson was aware that the respondent was involved with the construction of the house. All of the Patersons dealings had been with Velez, and all checks for construction payments were made out to Velez personally. 2/ Even though the Patersons had not received satisfaction from Custom Concrete for the problems with the house, they signed the closing papers because Velez threatened to evict them. At closing the Patersons received a lien release from Custom Concrete which released all work prior to March 9, 1984. Subsequently, Velez filed a claim of lien against the Paterson property for work completed on February 9, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000.00, and that his license be suspended for 60 days from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1985.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the construction industry in Florida. Respondent, David P. Miller, was licensed as a certified building contractor under license number CB C039127 and was doing business as Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. On March 14, 1988, Robert Crowley, a semi-retired real estate broker and promoter, and Treasurer of Enterprise Industrial Park, Inc., (EIP), entered into contracts with the Respondent to construct three buildings, A, B, and H, for it within the park boundaries. Building A was to house offices and retail space; building B was to house warehouse and offices; and building C was to house garage space. The construction was to be financed by an infusion of shareholders' money and by a construction loan from the Southland bank in the amount of $375,000.00. The loan was ultimately increased to $614,000.00 so that EIP could begin development of phase II of the park. The contracts provided for Respondent to be paid $110,000.00 for Building A, $67,000.00 for Building B, and $52,807.00 for Building H. The loan was obtained in phases. The developers had outlined the project to bank officials who approved it, initially, for development of the park and construction of four buildings. Phase one was to include the roadway and one building. When that was completed, the other buildings were to be erected. Site preparation was accomplished by John T. Day. Most of the site preparation was completed before Respondent started construction. Thereafter, as work progressed, Respondent periodically certified to the bank what work had been done and that suppliers had been paid. Upon receipt of that certification, the bank would issue a check for the appropriate amount to EIP which would, thereafter, issue its own check to Respondent. There was an exception, however, in the case of payments to Ludwig Steel. Whereas that supplier would bill Respondent for small items delivered, it demanded payment by cashiers' check upon delivery for major structural steel fabrications. These checks, for steel for Buildings A and B, were for $18,511.84 and $17,716.84, were issued by Southland Bank, at the request of EIP. During the course of his performance of the contracts for the construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent executed several of the above mentioned certification forms. For Building H: These included: a. August 30, 1988 $ 9,505.00 b. October 4, 1988 9,505.00 c. October 17, 1988 9,505.00 d. December 28, 1988 11,881.50 e. January 31, 1989 9,437.50 TOTAL $49,834.00 Prior to these certificates, the bank also released $90,000 in advances for start up costs and the loan in March, April and May, 1988. In addition to the certificates listed above, Respondent also signed certificates for Building A totalling $91,446.00 as follows: a. August 30, 1988 $ 19,800.00 b. October 4, 1988 19,800.00 c. October 17, 1988 19,800.00 d. December 28, 1988 24,750.00 e. January 31, 1989 7,296.00 TOTAL $ 91,446.00 Respondent also signed additional certificates for Buildings B as follows: a. December 28, 1988 $ 46,642.00 b. January 31, 1989 28,031.00 c. March 1, 1989 28,031.00 TOTAL $102,704.00 These certificates were also signed by the architect, Mr. Wilcockson. In fact, they were not correct in that not all the work had been done and not all suppliers had been paid. Respondent admits to falsely signing the certificates but claims he was urged to do so by representatives of EIP who indicated to him it was just a routine procedure. Consequently, even knowing the certificates were not accurate, he signed them because he wanted to get paid. It is found, however, that Respondent has been a licensed contractor for a number of years and knew the implications of his actions. His attempts at justification for his actions are neither credible nor impressive. Construction progressed satisfactorily and without major problems up to the time for the last draw. At that point, the bank declined to issue a check to EIP for the construction of Building C, also to be erected on the site, when it became aware that numerous liens had been filed by subcontractors and materialmen indicating Respondent's failure to make satisfactory payment for buildings A, B, and H. These liens included claims by: American Roll-Up Door Co. $ 3,630.00 B & B Painting Contractors 3,020.00 Blackton, Inc., 5,820.73 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #1 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #2 1,025.00 Brownie Septic Tank Contractors #3 1,635.00 Don Alan Dinora 930.00 Energy Savings Systems, Inc. 10,750.00 Florida Mining & Materials 2,388.31 Mid Florida Air Conditioning, Inc. 3,982.00 Neeley-Built Structures, Inc., 4,995.78 Residential Building Supply 7,857.11 Total $47,058.93 Mr. Crowley claims the above liens were satisfied by EIP, and it is so found. He claims EIP also paid some subcontractors who did not file liens because of a desire to help small contractors who otherwise would not have been paid. No figures were available to support that latter claim, however, and it is not considered to be probative of any issue. It is found, however, that Respondent paid Neeley-Built the amount of $4,995.78 and the claim of lien form included within Petitioner's exhibit of filed liens refers to property other than that in issue here. In addition, the $10,750.00 lien of Energy Savings Systems is not totally attributable to services or materials for the instant project. It is estimated that 60 percent of that amount relates to work done outside the three contracts in issue here. Further, only $1,700.00 of the lien of Residential Building Supply relates to material provided for the work done by Respondent under these contracts. The balance relates to work done outside the original contract limits. Over the course of the contracts, EIP paid Respondent, in addition to a deposit of $25,786,99 for Bldgs. A & H, the sums below, for a total of $259,006.72 for Bldgs. A, B, & H: a. Aug. 31, 1988 $19,800.00 for Bldg. A b. Aug. 31, 1988 9,505.00 for Bldg. H c. Oct. 05, 1988 10,793.16 for Bldg. H & A d. Oct. 17, 1988 29,305.99 for Bldg. A & H e. Dec. 14, 1988 19,000.00 f. Dec. 29, 1988 49,417.06 g. Feb. 06, 1989 7,296.00 for Bldg. A h. Feb. 06, 1989 28,310.00 for Bldg. B i. Feb. 06, 1989 9,473.50 for Bldg. H j. Feb. 10, 1989 2,350.00 for misc. k. Feb. 15, 1989 20,000.00 l. Mar. 03, 1989 28,031.00 for Bldg. B In addition to those payments, EIP also paid $16,000.00 to Benson Drywall on December 12, 1988 at the request of Respondent. The total paid by EIP, either to or on behalf of the Respondent, was: $ 25,786.00 deposit 233,280.72 to Great Southern 16,000.00 Benson Drywall 36,228.68 Ludwig Steel $311,295.40 TOTAL Mr. Crowley was not the main source of corporate funds. The President of the company is a Mr. Nelson who was the "money man." Contractor selection was by agreement between Nelson and Crowley, but Crowley was the supervisor of the contracts and did most of the negotiating with Respondent. The work stipulated in the contracts between EIP and Respondent was not the only work called for in their relationship. The contracts provided for the basic construction but Mr. Crowley requested Respondent to perform additional work in or around buildings A, B, and H, which included: Tenant improvements in buildings A and B valued at $23,000 excluding labor; Additional site work including electrical, telephone, grading and filling, berm modification, concrete sidewalks and parking buffers, and repair of damaged concrete (all but the repair of concrete was the result of the failure of the original site preparation contractor to properly complete his work); Negotiations and discussions with Volusia County regarding the sewer/septic system necessary for the project. In addition to the $23,000.00 for tenant improvements mentioned in the paragraph next above, Respondent also paid out of pocket to the following contractors and suppliers for work outside the scope of the original contracts: a. Ludwig Metal Buildings $ 3,000.00 b. Concrete 3,840.00 c. John Bates & family 6,497.73 d. Four Seasons 1,190.00 e. Will Cox 975.00 f. Riley 3,100.00 All Star Electric 4,705.32 Jerry's Concrete Service 1,350.00 TOTAL $24,658.05 Though the contracts referenced in this proceeding pertain to construction of Buildings A, B, & H, Respondent was also retained to erect a metal building to be designated C. Respondent received a total of $253,000.00 from EIP to construct those buildings for which he had the initial contracts and also to put up the metal building, C. The cost to complete Building C was $45,500.00 but EIP had remaining only slightly over $6,000.00 to pay for that work. Respondent did substantial work for EIP which was over and above the services called for under the contracts for Buildings A, B, & H as amended by the change orders for which he was not paid because Mr. Crowley advised him no additional monies were available. For example, he and his brother, Thomas, did additional site work valued by him at $24,260.00; and additional labor and services on the septic and sewer system problems valued by him at $5,600.00 and for tenant improvement, valued by him at $5,000.00. Here, however, it must be noted that the figures cited are not documented by any supporting material and contain significant amounts for his labor which he priced at $90.00 per hour. Mr. Miller, during his relationship with EIP, purchased a 10 percent interest in the firm. He originally filed his own lien on the property for $80,364.00 based on the contracts he had in hand and the site work which he valued at $18,000.00. He claims he subsequently withdrew his lien without being paid so that the limited funds available could be used to pay the subcontractors. No corroborating evidence on this point was introduced, however. Mr. Miller's contracting license was, subsequent to the incidents herein, placed in inactive status and currently remains so. He is not now engaged in contracting and claims he does not intend to do so in the future. His motivation in contesting the allegations against him is, he claims, solely to clear his good name and reputation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT the Respondent, David P. Miller, d/b/a Great Southern Construction and Development, Inc. pay an administrative fine of $3,750.00 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7413 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. & 26. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as the total amount paid by EIP for the buildings constructed by Respondent. The figure is somewhat higher due to deposit and amounts paid to suppliers by EIP. Accepted and incorporated herein. * At this point, Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact become misnumbered. There are two numbers 5. The subsequent numbers are as reflected in Respondent's submittal. 5. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted. Alleged but not proven. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracy Sumner, Esquire William S. Cummins, Esquire Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kurt R. Borglum, Esquire 366 East Graves Avenue, Suite B Orange City, Florida 32763 Jack McRay General Counsel Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
