The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice as building contractors. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed individually as a Certified General Contractor pursuant to license number CG C 0055328 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board"). Respondent has never been licensed by the Board as the qualifying agent for Mr. Gary Butler ("Butler"), an unlicensed contractor. In 1993, Respondent entered into an agreement with Butler who has never been licensed by the Board. The terms of the agreement require Respondent to pull permits for construction projects entered into by Butler. Butler pays Respondent for each permit or weekly. Respondent supervises some, but not all, of the projects undertaken by Butler. In August, 1993, Mr. Lynn Kyler ("Kyler"), the owner of a residence constructed by Ms. Denise Pyke ("Pyke"), a Certified Residential Contractor, asked Pyke to find a contractor to build a new dock and boat house at Kyler's residence. The Kyler residence is a lake front home located at 10250 State Road 561 A, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. Kyler authorized Pyke to act as Kyler's agent for construction of the dock and boat house. Kyler resided in Indiana from August through late fall of 1993. Pyke obtained recommendations of various candidates including Butler. Butler represented himself as a licensed and insured builder of docks and boat houses. Butler provided Pyke with a business card representing that Butler is licensed and insured. Pyke obtained cost and design proposals from Butler and Norquist Construction Company and communicated the proposals to Kyler. Kyler chose Butler. Butler agreed to demolish the existing dock and construct a new dock and boat house (the "project"). Kyler paid Butler the full contract price of $6,897.60. Prior to the completion of the project, neither Respondent nor Butler disclosed to Pyke or Kyler that Butler was unlicensed. Nor did they disclose that Butler would use Respondent's license to pull the permit for the project. Respondent knew that Butler is not licensed as a contractor, in any capacity. On August 25, 1993, Respondent and Butler went to the Lake County Building Department. Respondent used his license to pull Permit Number T93- 04793 for the project. The permit was issued to Respondent, listed Respondent's license as the certified general contractor, and was maintained in the official records of the Lake County Building Department. Respondent listed himself on the permit as the contractor for the entire project without limitation and without reference to Butler. Respondent was not authorized by Pyke or Kyler to pull the permit or to participate in the project. At the time, neither Pyke nor Kyler were aware of Respondent's existence or his role in the project. Respondent did not participate and had no involvement in the project except pulling the permit. The project was commenced by Butler in August, 1993, and completed shortly thereafter. Respondent did not supervise or participate in the construction of the project. Butler began the project without first filing a Notice of Commencement. Butler constructed the project with only a 10 foot setback in violation of the 25 foot setback required in Lake County Code Ordinance 10.0401(3)(d). Butler also failed to obtain an electrical permit in violation of Standard Building Code, Section 103.1.1. (1991). The project, as built by Butler, has no value to Kyler. The project failed final inspection for violation of the 25 foot setback and failure to obtain an electrical permit. The roof tiles on the boat house had to be removed because they were falling off the roof. The project itself is coming apart. It will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 to bring the project into compliance with local code requirements and to make it usable. Respondent was aware of the 25 foot setback when he pulled the permit for the project. The project plans submitted for the permit reflect the 25 foot setback. Lake County allows contractors to withdraw permits that have already been pulled. Respondent never withdrew the permit for the project. Butler was unable to obtain a final inspection because he failed to file a Notice Of Commencement at the outset of the project. Pyke and Kyler filed the Notice Of Commencement in order to obtain the final inspection. As the contractor of record, it was Respondent's responsibility to ensure that a Notice of Commencement was filed and that the project passed final inspection. While obtaining the information necessary to file the Notice Of Commencement, Pyke and Kyler learned that Butler was unlicensed and uninsured and that Respondent had used his license to pull the permit. When confronted by Pyke, Respondent did not deny knowledge of the project and assured Pyke that the problems with the project would be corrected. Despite Respondent's assurances, the code violations have not been corrected. Nor have the defects in construction been corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating: Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a); and Sections 489.129(1) (e), (f), (n), and (p). It is further recommended that the Board place Respondent on probation for three years, subject to reasonable conditions, impose an administrative fine of $5,000, and assess costs of $717.50 plus reasonable costs incurred by Petitioner subsequent to the date of this Recommended Order to investigate and prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March 1996.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor, having been issued license number RG 0012013. On October 3, 1980, the Respondent, d/b/a Five Ray Enterprises, Inc., entered into a contract with David and Laytha Danley to construct a residence near Brooksville, Florida, for the sum of $61,621.00. This contract was a construction management type of agreement in which the Respondent was to be paid a fee for his services. The Respondent commenced construction, and completed between 85 percent and 95 percent of the project before discontinuing an active role in the work during June of 1981. The Respondent's base of operations was in Winter Park, nearly 100 miles from the construction site, and he was having some personal problems. Therefore, the Respondent agreed with Al Nickola to have Nickola supervise the completion of construction, which involved some painting, grading, finish electrical work and the installation of appliances. The Respondent knew that Al Nickola was unlicensed as a contractor when he entered into the agreement with Nickola to complete the construction. Before he discontinued his work on the project, the Respondent received all the inspections except for the Certificate of Occupancy. His agreement with Nickola was to complete the work which was left and to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy. The Respondent did not properly qualify Five Ray Enterprises, Inc., under which name he contracted to build the residence for the Danleys. On September 9, 1981, the Citrus County Hoard of Examiners revoked the Respondent's license for abandonment of the Danley construction project. However, the minutes of the Board meeting at which this action took place, do not reflect whether or not a full examination was made of all the facts. They simply indicate that the Respondent did not appear at the meeting as requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Roland C. Ray, be found guilty of one violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and one violation of Section 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $250 on each charge for a total fine of $500. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and that his license be suspended until such time as the Respondent has obtained reinstatement of his Citrus County license. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 11th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roland C. Ray 305 North Pennsylvania Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, DPR Case No. 0018288 DOAH Case No. 82-2395 ROLAND C. RAY RG 0012013 Post Office Box 5877 Orlando, Florida 32855 Respondent. /
The Issue The central issue in this case is Petitioner's challenge to part III of the licensure examination as set forth in his letter dated September 8, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert E. Rosser, is a candidate for licensure as a general contractor. Petitioner has taken the examination to become a licensed general contractor consecutively over the last four years. As a result of the twelve attempts at the examination, Petitioner has passed parts I and II on two separate test dates. In his attempts to pass the examination Petitioner has enrolled in and studied for the examination with two approved construction schools. Petitioner scored a 68 on part III of the general contractor's examination for the June 16, 1994 test date. Petitioner timely challenged questions related to part III (Project Management) of the general contractor's examination given on June 16, 1994. Petitioner attended a review session and claimed that as to question 2 his scratch sheet from the examination demonstrates he had used formulas properly and that he had inadvertently marked the incorrect response on the answer grid sheet. The minimum score required to pass part III of the examination was 70. For each of the challenged questions in part III (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 20) Respondent presented competent evidence to support the correct answer as scored by the Department. The Petitioner did not present credible evidence to dispute the accuracy of the answers which had been deemed correct by the Department. Based upon those answers, the Petitioner's score sheet was tabulated correctly. The questions challenged were clearly and unambiguously worded and contained sufficient factual information to reach a correct answer. The examination was open book and applicants were allowed to use reference materials. All current techniques were considered before the correct answer was chosen. All knowledge needed to reach a correct answer was within a candidate's expected range of expertise. The Department's scoring of part III was not arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. For each of the challenged questions, the correct answer was scored at a higher percentage than the answers marked by Petitioner. In fact, for question 4, for example, 79 percent of the examinees scored the correct answer while only 3 percent marked the same answer as Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the general contractor's examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5214 Rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner did not number the paragraphs denoted as "STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS". The lettered paragraphs are addressed as listed; but where no letter identified the paragraph, the rulings are as to the paragraphs in the order of presentation. Paragraph [A] is accepted. Paragraph [B] is accepted to the extent it identifies Petitioner as a candidate otherwise rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.005 is an error. It is accepted that the minimum passing grade for the challenged part is 70 percent out of 100 percent. Paragraph [C] is accepted in substance; however, Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.003 is an error. The next paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is accepted as a correct statement of procedural review. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 4 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 7 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 9 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 11 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 17 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 18 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 20 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph [D] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. Paragraph [E] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Department and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [F] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [G] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Division and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [H] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [I] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [J] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [K] is rejected as contrary to the record in this case since an order of prehearing instruction was not entered in this case and interrogatories were not served. Paragraph [L] is rejected as irrelevant, not a statement of fact, and contrary to the record. Moreover, Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. Paragraph [M] is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [N] is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [O] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [P] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 1 is accepted as statement of procedural information. Paragraph 2 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. Paragraph 3 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Rosser P.O. Box 560541 Miami, Florida 33256-0541 William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-6310
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C003076. This license was suspended on March 4, 1977, for three years, and was reinstated in March of 1980. On March 21, 1980, the Respondent became the qualifier for WWRS Enterprises, Inc. This corporation had been formed in 1978 by the Respondent and his partner, William Rymers, for the purpose of engaging in the general contracting business. Mr. Rymers became president of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and the Respondent acted as secretary, supervisor of construction, and manager of financial matters. Although the Respondent did not hold any direct stock ownership, his share of the corporate stock was registered in his wife's name. The Respondent knew that under the law WWRS Enterprises, Inc., needed to have a qualifying agent registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and the Respondent and his partner discussed this subject. Since the Respondent's license was under suspension during 1978 and 1979, it was proposed that a Max Dunaway would become the qualifying agent for WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but the necessary paperwork to register him as qualifying agent for the company was never filed. Thus, until March of 1980, the company was not qualified to engage in general contracting. In November, 1979, the Respondent negotiated a contract on behalf of WWRS Enterprises, Inc., with Wilhelm Hackenberg and his wife, for the construction of an addition to their home in Ormond Beach, Florida. Since the Respondent's license was suspended, Max Dunaway pulled the building permit for the company, but the job was supervised by the Respondent, not Max Dunaway. WWRS Enterprises, Inc., was the contracting company to which at least one subcontractor submitted invoices, Mr. Dunaway's company, Southwide Builders, Inc., was not involved in this transaction. At least four construction jobs were performed by WWRS Enterprises, Inc., but only the Hackenberg job was identified by a precise time-frame during which the company had no qualifying agent. The Respondent does not challenge many of these facts. Instead, he contends that he never held any stock in WWRS Enterprises, Inc., and was only a managing employee of the company, not responsible for its policies. These contentions, however, are not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, and have been discounted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CG C003076 held by the Respondent, Neil Wayne Smith, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 21 day of May, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 21st day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire May, 1981. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Neil Wayne Smith 14 Rain Tree Drive Port Orange, Florida 32019
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C016888. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, regulating the licensure and practice status and standards of building contractors in the State of Florida and enforcing the disciplinary provisions of that chapter. On December 14, 1981, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Frank J. Sullivan to build the Sullivans a home in Sarasota County, Florida. Those parties entered into a contract whereby the Respondent was to be paid the actual cost of construction including all labor and materials plus a commission in the amount of 8 percent of the actual cost of construction, provided however, that the total contract price would not exceed $49,000, including actual costs and commission. In January, 1982, Respondent commenced work constructing the home. The Respondent worked on the home for several months and then abruptly ceased and abandoned construction without explanation on May 14, 1982. At this time the house was approximately 70 percent complete. At the time the Respondent ceased work on the project he had already been paid $47,362.29 or approximately 97 percent of the total contract price agreed to by the parties. The Sullivans thereafter had to pay $10,633.53 to subcontractors and materialmen who had been hired by the Respondent to supply labor and/or materials to the house, at the Respondent's direction, prior to his ceasing construction and leaving the job. Additionally, the Nokomis Septic Tank Company, Inc., the subcontractor who installed the septic tank, was owed $1,180.07 by the Respondent for the installation of the septic tank, which amount was to have been paid out of the total $49,000 contract price. The Respondent failed to pay Nokomis Septic Tank Company, which then filed a mechanic's lien on the property. In order to remove this cloud on their title to the property and avoid foreclosure of the lien, the Sullivans were forced to pay the $1,180.07 amount of the lien. In addition to more than $10,000 paid to subcontractors who had already performed labor or supplied materials to the job before the Respondent left it, the Sullivans had to obtain a loan from their bank in order to finish the project. The contracted for items which the Respondent had left undone (approximately 30 percent of the construction) required them to expend $18,662.04 to complete the dwelling in a manner consistent with the contractual specifications. The items which remained to be constructed or installed are listed on Petitioner's Exhibit 7 in evidence. The remaining amount of contract price which the Respondent was due upon completion of the job would have been $1,737.71. With this in mind, as well as the fact that the Sullivans had to pay in excess of $10,000 to defray already outstanding bills to subcontractors for labor and materials already furnished and then had to obtain a loan in order to pay $18,662.04 in order to complete the house, and it being established without contradiction that the Respondent was unable to make his payroll at the point of leaving the job, the Respondent obviously used substantial amounts of the funds he received from the Sullivans for purposes other than furthering the construction project for which he contracted with the Sullivans. Concerning Count II, on December 22, 1981, Frederick Berbert doing business as Venice Enclosures of Venice, Florida, contracted with Mr. Emory K. Allstaedt of Grove City, Florida, Charlotte County, to build an addition to Mr. Allstaedt's mobile home. The contract specified a price of $4,952 for which Berbert was required to construct a 12-foot by 20-foot enclosure or porch. Mr. Allstaedt never did and never intended to contract with the Respondent, Mr. Martin, rather, his contract was only with Frederick Berbert. Mr. Berbert was a registered aluminum specialty contractor in Sarasota County. He was not registered or licensed to practice contracting in Charlotte County where Mr. Allstaedt lived and where the porch was to be constructed. On December 28, 1981, the Respondent obtained building permit number 72030 from the Charlotte County Building and Zoning Department to construct a "Florida room" for Mr. Allstaedt's mobile home, the same room to be constructed by Mr. Berbert. Under Charlotte County Ordinances in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 13A, only a properly licensed "A", "B" or "C" contractor or a registered aluminum contractor can perform this type of job. The Respondent was appropriately licensed for this type of work in Charlotte County, but Mr. Berbert was not and thus could not obtain the permit in his own right. The Respondent's only connection with this job was obtaining the permit in his own name as contractor of record and in performing some minor work in replacing some damaged sheets of paneling shortly after the construction of the room addition and after the performance of the contract by Berbert. Though the Respondent listed himself as contractor in order to be able to obtain a building permit for the job, he never qualified as the contractor of record nor "qualified" Mr. Berbert's firm with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Both Mr. Berbert and the Respondent were aware that Mr. Berbert could not legally perform contracting in Charlotte County at the time the Respondent obtained the building permit on Berbert's behalf.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the contractor's license of Jack A. Martin be suspended for a period of ten (10) years, provided however, that if he makes full restitution to the Sullivans of all monies they expended for labor, materials and permits to enable them to complete the work he had contracted to perform, within one year from a final order herein, that that suspension be reduced to three (3) years after which his license should be reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles P. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jack A. Martin 305 Park Lane Drive Venice, Florida James Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Construction Industry Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged violation of Section 489.129(1)(n) and (r), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Gary Kinney, holds General Contractor License No. CG C040517, issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on August 18, 1987. For almost the entire period of his licensure, the Respondent also qualified his company, Florida Construction and Development Inc. of Melbourne, to do business in Florida as a general contractor. (The Respondent was the sole owner, president and vice-president of the company.) Effective September 1, 1996, the Respondent’s license was placed on a delinquent status for non-renewal and is considered invalid. On or about May 20, 1992, the Respondent executed a personal guaranty in order for his company to obtain credit from Cox Lumber Co. Subsequently, his company purchased building materials from Cox Lumber, using credit, and incorporated the building materials into one of his company’s residential construction projects. The Respondent and his company paid only a portion of the purchase price, and January 23, 1994, Cox Lumber obtained a Second Amended Final Judgment against the Respondent under the personal guaranty in the amount of $8,829.56, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $1,176 and post judgment-interest until satisfied. The Respondent has made no payments on the Second Amended Final Judgment since its entry. In his request for formal administrative proceedings, the Respondent defended on the alleged grounds: (1) he had no prior knowledge of the purchase from Cox Lumber; (2) he did not request or submit a written credit application; and (3) he had no prior knowledge of the complaint or judgment. Based on the evidence, those alleged grounds are false. Based on the evidence, there is no basis to mitigate penalties recommended in the Construction Industry Licensing Board’s penalty guidelines. To the contrary, the Respondent’s cavalier attitude and false defenses are grounds to aggravate the recommended penalties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(r), Fla. Stat. (1995); (2) requiring that he satisfy the Second Amended Final Judgment against him; (3) imposing a $1,000 fine; and (4) revoking his license. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Chaves Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert Gary Kinney 920 Mesa Grande Road Aptos, California 95003 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7060 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on July 11, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, is and has been at all times material hereto a certified general contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1506071. Mr. Acevedo is also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CCC 1326888. Both licenses were issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board) and are in “current active” status. At all times material, Mr. Acevedo was the primary qualifying agent for All Design Systems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “All Design”). All Design is a Florida corporation. Mr. Acevedo is an officer of the corporation. All Design’s certificate of authority, License Number QB 26737, was issued on September 4, 2003. The license expired on August 31, 2007, and was in delinquent status from September 1, 2007, to May 14, 2008. Mr. Acevedo remained the qualifying agent during the delinquent period. All Design employed three to four sales agents who “sold” construction projects to commercial and residential property owners on behalf of All Design. All Design utilized these individuals because it believed they had experience in the construction industry and that they held licenses or certifications which would allow them to perform estimates on construction projects and make appropriate bids. The sales agents were to find customers for All Design and enter into contracts with them on behalf and in the name of All Design. In August of 2005, Mr. Acevedo was approached by Eduardo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez offered to locate potential home remodeling customers for All Design in exchange for a percentage commission. Mr. Acevedo agreed. At no time relevant to this matter was Mr. Rodriguez licensed in Florida to engage in contracting as a state certified or registered contractor. Nor was Mr. Rodriguez’s business entity, Eduardo’s Construction, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Eduardo’s Construction”), licensed with a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business. Mr. Rodriguez was the president and sole officer of Eduardo’s Construction. Eduardo’s Construction was not incorporated in Florida. Some time during 2005, Grace Esposito obtained a business card for Eduardo’s Construction. She obtained the card after discussing with a neighbor construction work that was being performed by Eduardo’s Construction on the neighbor’s residence. The neighbor informed her that Mr. Rodriguez was the contractor performing the work. The business card incorrectly represented that Mr. Rodriguez was licensed and insured. Ms. Esposito called the number listed for Eduardo’s Construction and spoke with a man who identified himself as Eduardo Rodriguez. In August 2005, Mr. Rodriguez met with Ms. Esposito at her condominium residence, located at 20301 West Country Club Drive, Aventura, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Ms. Esposito discussed with Mr. Rodriguez the work which she desired. Based upon representations from Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito believed that he was licensed to perform the work being discussed. The evidence failed to prove, as suggested by Mr. Acevedo, that Mr. Rodriguez “bid on the Esposito job, [and] orally agreed to essential terms with Esposito on behalf of All Design Systems, Inc., Respondent’s Firm.” Mr. Acevedo’s testimony in this regard was uncorroborated hearsay and was contradicted by the credible testimony of Ms. Esposito. On September 5, 2005, Ms. Esposito entered into a written contract with Mr. Rodriguez, doing business as Eduardo’s Construction, for the remodeling of the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Ms. Esposito agreed in the Contract to pay $24,000.00 for the remodeling. Upon execution of the Contract, Ms. Esposito paid Eduardo’s Construction with three checks totaling $12,000.00 for the remodeling. Mr. Rodriguez informed Mr. Acevedo of the project in September 2005. At that time, without reviewing the Contract, Mr. Acevedo executed a building permit application which Mr. Rodriguez provided him for the project. The permit application had not been signed by Ms. Esposito. In October 2005, Mr. Rodriguez presented the building permit application to Ms. Esposito for her signature. The permit application was then submitted to the building department. The building permit was subsequently approved and issued under Mr. Acevedo’s license and in the name of All Design. Ms. Esposito had been told that part of the work would be completed in October. When this representation proved untrue, she began contacting Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez told her that it was taking time to get the permit due to delays at the building department. Eventually, when she was no longer able to contact Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito went directly to the building department where she learned that All Design was the contactor of record and not Eduardo’s Construction. On or about October 31, 2005, Ms. Esposito telephoned All Design and spoke with Mr. Acevedo. She informed Mr. Acevedo about the Contract. Mr. Acevedo agreed to meet with her. On November 1, 2005, Mr. Acevedo visited Ms. Esposito at the Subject Property. She showed him the work that had been performed and explained the details of the Contract and what had transpired with Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that his relationship with Mr. Rodriguez was that he merely allowed Mr. Rodriguez to use his license to pull permits in exchange for $150.00. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that he would attempt to get Mr. Rodriguez to complete the job. This meeting was memorialized in a letter to Mr. Acevedo written by Ms. Esposito. At some time in November, work recommenced on the project. Within approximately three days, however, work stopped. Ms. Esposito sent four emails to Mr. Acevedo describing the work performed and the cessation of the project. Ms. Esposito made a final request that the project be completed. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to the emails. On or about November 17, 2005, Ms. Esposito sent a letter to Mr. Acevedo outlining the events, requesting termination of the Contract, and the removal of Mr. Acevedo from the building permit. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to this letter. The building permit was cancelled by Mr. Acevedo in December 2005. The total investigation costs incurred by the Department, excluding those costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $381.83. Mr. Acevedo has not previously been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Daniel F. Acevedo violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(d), (i), and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; imposing fines of $250.00 for Count I, $1,000.00 for Count II, and $2,000.00 for Count III; requiring that Mr. Acevedo pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; placing Mr. Acevedo’s licenses on probation for a period of two years, conditioned upon his payment of the fines, payment of the costs incurred by the Department; and any other conditions determined to be necessary by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Coats, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Daniel Acevedo All Designs Systems, Inc. 2813 Executive Drive Weston, Florida 32388 Kenneth Stein, Esquire 8436 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33351 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner, William P. Pearson, Jr., is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111 Florida Statutes and Rule 221-6,35. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of William P. Pearson, Jr. and had admitted five exhibits. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Richard Hartog, Investigator, and Douglas A. Shropshire, the Department of Professional Regulation's senior attorney for the prosecution of all Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board cases, and had admitted five exhibits. At close of formal hearing, Petitioner elected to make oral closing argument and to file no post-hearing proposals. Respondent elected to file a transcript of proceedings and written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 10 days of filing transcript. Respondent's proposals are ruled on within the appendix to this recommended order pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs associated with his defense against charges contained in an administrative complaint filed and prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation which was styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industrv Licensing Board v. William P. Pearson, Jr., DOAH Case No. 85-0672. The administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-0672 contained two counts. Count I alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(c) through violation of Section 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1983), which statutory section addresses making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in the practice of the profession of construction. Count II alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1983) by not complying with the specific escrow requirements imposed by the consumer protection Statute, Section 501.1375(2) Florida Statutes and violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), which latter statutory section addresses gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The state agency was therefore not a nominal party only but was an accusing and principal party. Petitioner seeks an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $3,568.75 together with costs of $11.10. Respondent, in its Amended Response to Petitioner's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, did not challenge the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs set forth in Petitioner's affidavit attached and incorporated in his Amended Motion and specifically stipulated to reasonableness and necessity at formal hearing. Accordingly, the foregoing amounts are found to be necessary and reasonable. Pearson Construction Co., Inc.'s domicile during the whole of DOAH Case No. 85-0672's initial prosecution was Charlotte County, Florida. It had no employees other than William P. Pearson, Jr. and his wife, who worked without compensation. William P. Pearson, Jr. was the president and qualifying agent of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. which was a Florida corporation at all times material to the initial prosecution. The combined net worth of William P. Pearson, Jr. and of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. never exceeded two million dollars and presently petitioner Pearson's personal net worth does not exceed two million dollars. In early 1986, prior to initiating this instant fee and costs recovery case, Mr. Pearson failed to update payment of his corporate fees and Pearson Construction Co., Inc. was automatically dissolved by the secretary of State. Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) notified John Vlasek of its intent to investigate his complaint against Petitioner in late July 1984. DPR's investigation was conducted by Investigator Richard Hartog. Mr. Hartog has been employed by the Respondent since November 1982 and has been its investigator since March 1983. He has a degree in criminal justice and 23 years prior experience as a detective with the Police Department of Nassau County, New York. Investigator Hartog was first made aware of vlasek's complaint against Pearson Construction Co., Inc. by way of a memorandum dated July 16, 1984 received directly from the State Attorney's Office for the 20th Judicial Circuit. Attached to the State Attorney's memorandum was a 6 page consumer complaint form signed by John A. Vlasek. Hartog determined that William P. Pearson, Jr. was the qualifying agent for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. and then telephoned DPR's complaint section in Tallahassee, giving the complaint section the basis of the information received from the State Attorney's Office and statutory citations for alleged violations of sections 489.129(1)(m), 455.227(1)(a) and 501.1375 Florida statutes. His purpose was to obtain a complaint number to continue the investigation. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Petitioner William P. Pearson, Jr. regarding the allegations underlying Vlasek's complaint. Upon completion of the investigation the Department's investigator prepared an investigative report. The investigative report includes a narrative summary of the investigator's interview with Pearson. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the investigator's interview of Pearson: Mr. Pearson states he built a good number of homes a year. Last year he built thirty-nine (39) homes. Mr. Pearson was readvised of the allegations made by Mr. Vlasek, a prospective buyer of one of Pearson's spec homes. Mr. Pearson maintains the reason the house was not completed on June 12, 1984, the date originally stipulated in the contract, was the fact Mr. Vlasek was not in a hurry to have the house completed. Mr. Pearson stated he is not aware of the requirements of P.S. 501.1375, therefore, he did not handle the deposit according to the requirement set forth. The money was used to complete the spec house for Vlasek. Mr. Pearson states he received a letter from the First Federal Savings and, Loan of Charlotte County indicating Mr. Vlasek obtained an extension of his loan commitment with the bank. Mr. Malone, who was present, verifies that such a letter was received by Mr. Pearson. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Barbara Lowe, a loan officer for the First Federal Savings and Loan of Charlotte County. The investigator interviewed Ms. Lowe to determine "whether the bank had, in fact, sent a letter to Mr. Pearson indicating that an extension to Mr. Vlasek's 45-day loan had been extended." The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the interview of Ms. Lowe: Barbara Lowe, who states she handled the transaction, states no such letter was mailed to Pearson Construction. It would not be appropriate to grant an extension in this type of action. Mr. Vlasek would be required to enter into a separate agreement for an additional forty-five (45) days thereby nullifying the original commitent. This was not done by Mr. Vlasek, therefore, the original commitment expired 5/31/84. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Tom Hannon, a loan officer with the First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Charlotte County. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following finding: Mr. Hannon contacted this office to relate that the loan commitment obtained by Vlasek was for a period of forty-five (45) days between 4/19/84 and 5/31/84. There is no record a thirty (30) day extension was asked for or granted according to the records. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Jack R. Malone who was a salesman for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation relates that Malone stated the deposit money was not required to be deposited in an escrow account but when referred to section 501.1375 Malone stated money might have been given to an attorney, presumably for escrow, and further Malone related that: Mr. Vlasek became very impatient because he said very little was being done to complete his house. He was concerned because the terms of his loan agreement was a commitment which expired June 1, 1984. The completed investigative report as forwarded by the investigator to the Department's legal section consisted, in part, of the following: a three page narrative summary of the investigator' s findings; a copy of the memorandum and accompanying executed consumer complaint form; a First Federal savings and Loan Association loan transfer commitment to John and Madelyn Vlasek; a copy of section 501.1375, Florida statutes; a copy of the April 1984 contract between Pearson Construction Company and John and Madelyn Vlasek reflecting a completion date altered from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Douglas A. Shropshire was the DPR attorney responsible for reviewing the investigative report with regard to making a recommendation to the probable Cause Panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The complaint against Petitioner was a "case of first impression" in that DPR had not previously investigated a complaint alleging a violation of the escrow requirement of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes. As a result of the complaint against Petitioner, Mr. Shropshire requested that a law clerk prepare a memorandum of law with regard to the relationship between Section 501.1375, Florida Statutes and the regulation of licensed contractors under Chapter 489 Florida Statutes. On or about September 21, 1984 the law clerk provided Mr. Shropshire with a two page memorandum of law exploring the relationship between Chapter 501, Florida Statutes and the regulation of the construction industry. The memorandum reached the general conclusion that licensed contractors were subject to the provisions of Chapter 501 Florida Statutes. In preparing his recommendation to the Probable Cause Panel, Shropshire reviewed both Hartog's investigative report with all attachments and the law clerk's memorandum of law. On January 10, 1985 DPR, through Mr. Shropshire, made a probable cause recommendation to the Construction Industry Licensing Board Probable Cause Panel. Prior to January 10, 1985 DPR had provided each panel member with a copy of the DPR's probable cause package. The probable-cause package as reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel consisted of the following: a cover sheet setting forth the Subject's name, case number and statutory violations; a proposed administrative complaint; a copy of the narrative portion of the Department's investigative report. The Probable Cause Panel did not review a copy of the Vlasek-Pearson contract which provided it was not contingent on financing, which provided for forfeit to Pearson of Vlasek's deposit upon Vlasek's default, and which provided for escrow of Vlasek's deposit pending closing of the transaction. However, this item was reviewed by the DPR attorney before making the probable cause recommendation and the copy of this item reviewed showed that the completion date had been altered, allegedly by Malone. Petitioner stipulated to the correctness of the procedure employed in impaneling the Probable Cause panel. Each panel member had the opportunity to review the probable cause package before the Probable Cause Panel was convened. Each panel member had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the probable cause materials prior to the meeting. The Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel was Mr. Roy Adams. Mr. Adams is a certified general contractor. The other probable cause member was Mr. Joseph Richards. Mr. Richards is a pharmacist and is a public member of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Neither Mr. Richards nor Mr. Adams is an attorney. The Construction Industry Licensing Board is not involved in the investigation or prosecution of a complaint. In making the determination of probable cause the panel members discussed the allegations contained in the complaint with both DPR's prosecuting attorney and their independent advisor from the Department of Legal Affairs. On January 10, 1985 the Probable Cause Panel found probable cause to believe Petitioner violated Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The panel's finding of probable cause included, but was not limited to, the violations alleged by DPR in its recommendation. The Probable Cause Panel directed DPR to file a formal complaint. On January 16, 1985 DPR's Secretary signed a formal administrative complaint charging Petitioner with violating the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes reviewed by the panel plus Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes. Petitioner denied all the allegations in the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On August 20, 1985 a formal hearing was conducted before the undersigned hearing officer. Petitioner interposed the defense that Section 501.1375 Florida Statutes did not apply to him because he had constructed less than 10 houses in the year 1984 despite constructing more than 20 homes per year in most years. Section 501.1375 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Building Contractor" means any person who, for compensation, constructs and sells one-family or two-family residential dwelling units, except for a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. "Developer" means either a building contractor who offers new residential dwelling units for sale or any person who offers a new one-family or two-family dwelling unit for sale except a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. The Recommended Order entered December 20, 1985 found as fact that: On April 12, 1984 John and Madelyn Vlasek contracted with Pearson Construction Company for the purchase of a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. . . .The contract specified a $2,000 escrow deposit on the purchase price of $68,500. On April 12, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearson Construction Company with $200 in cash toward the escrow deposit. On April 13, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearso Construction Company with a check in the amount of $1,800 toward the escrow deposit. The contract specified the deposit was to be held in escrow pending closing of the transaction. . . .The contract referred to above was not contingent on the buyer obtaining financing. However, the deposit was not placed in escrow as specified in the contract and as required under the terms of the contract. Instead, it was used by the Respondent in purchasing lighting fixtures, carpeting, tiling and other accoutrements in colors and styles selected by John R. Vlasek. On April 23, 1984, the Vlaseks executed the loan transfer commitment. . . .After executing the loan transfer commitment, Vlasek realized that the commitment would expire prior to the June 12, 1984 closing date. Vlasek then notified Pearson Construction Company of the discrepancy between the expiration date of the loan commitment and the actual closing date. Upon being informed of the discrepancy, Jack R. Malone agreed to modify the closing date. Malone expressly modified the contract by changing the closing date from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Vlasek subsequently informed the Respondent of the change of the closing date. When informed of the change, Respondent indicated the home would be substantially completed by June 1, 1984. . . .Vlasek was repeatedly assured by Malone and other members of the construction team (not Pearson) that the home would be completed by June 2, 1984. . . .the Vlasek contract was rescinded . . .Pearson Construction Company, Inc. and William P. Pearson constructed a total of 8, possibly 9 houses during the calendar year of 1984. In most previous years he has constructed in excess of 20 houses per year. The findings and conclusions of law of the recommended order are replete with analyses of credibility of witnesses. The conclusions of law discuss such diverse legal concepts as the differences in actual versus apparent authority and ratification of an agent's/employee's misrepresentations by his employer, reasonable reliance thereon, and whether section 501.1375 should be applied annually (10 houses constructed per year) or upon a pattern of annual house construction (8-9 houses in 1984 versus more than 20 houses each previous year). The recommended order determined that DPR had failed to establish Count I (misleading, deceptive or fraudulent representations) by clear and convincing evidence and found only a "minimal" violation of Section 429.129(1)(m) had been established within Count II due to the petitioner's failure to escrow. By Final Order dated March 17, 1986, the Board adopted the findings of fact in toto. The final order rejected the conclusions of law and dismissed the administrative complaint. No evidence was introduced to indicate or otherwise explain why the Board rejected the hearing officer's conclusions of law.
