The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding and should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At no time material to the allegations was Respondent licensed or certified as a contractor of any type by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about June 2000, Respondent entered into a written contractual agreement with Harold Knowles to construct a swimming pool at Mr. Knowles' residence located at 235 North Rosehill Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The contract price for the swimming pool was $18,650.00. Mr. Knowles paid directly to Respondent $9,400.00. Respondent performed some work on the pool project and then stopped work on the project. Respondent failed to return to Mr. Knowles any monies received for the project. The homeowner was forced to pay out-of-pocket expenses to have a second, licensed pool contractor finish the pool that Respondent left unfinished. These expenses total in excess of $24,000.00. Respondent acknowledges that he had no license. Respondent testified at hearing along with his wife. It was clear that Respondent was sorry for his actions. He was unaware of the gravity of his acts. He does not have any financial resources, and a significant fine will not benefit Mr. Knowles. A substantial fine adversely impact Respondent's family more than Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be fined $500.00, together with the investigation and prosecution costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-2202 Robert Footman 2702 Lake Mary Street Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Gail Scott-Hill, Esquire Lead Professions Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0771 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue All cases involve loan funding in the 2002 funding cycle for the HOME Rental program. The issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4137 is whether Respondent properly determined that Petitioner's application for the Magic Lake Villas development failed to meet the applicable scoring threshold. If Petitioner fails to prevail in DOAH Case No. 02-4137, DOAH Case No. 02-4594 is moot. If Petitioner prevails in DOAH Case No. 02-4137, the issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4594 is whether Respondent's rescoring of the application of the competing developer of the Brittany Bay development erroneously placed the Brittany Bay application ahead of the Magic Lake Villas application. The issue in DOAH Case No. 02-4726 is whether Respondent's rescoring of the application of the competing developer of the Brittany Bay development erroneously placed the Brittany Bay application ahead of Petitioner's application for another development, Magnolia Village. The 2002 funding cycle is closed, so, pursuant to Rule 67-48.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner's application or applications would be included in the 2003 funding cycle, if it prevails in DOAH Case No. 02-4594 or 02-4726.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public corporation whose purpose is to administer programs for the financing and refinancing of affordable housing in Florida. The HOME Rental program is one of the programs administered by Respondent. Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation that is in the business of developing affordable residential housing in Florida. Petitioner filed two applications for funding in the 2002 HOME Rental funding cycle. Petitioner's Magic Lake Villas application sought $5 million in HOME funds for a development costing about $6.5 million, and Petitioner's Magnolia Village application sought $3 million in HOME funds for a development costing about $3.5 million. Respondent receives funds for the HOME Rental program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Because the federal funds allocated to Florida are insufficient to meet demand, Respondent has adopted a competitive process for the allocation of these funds to developers seeking to develop qualifying projects. Rules 67-48.004 and 67-48.005, Florida Administrative Code, detail the scoring procedure applicable to HOME Rental applications. The application for the HOME Rental program 2002 funding cycle contains certain threshold items. Respondent rejects any application that fails to pass the threshold items. The scoring process for qualifying applications starts with a preliminary score for each application. Applicants may challenge these preliminary scores assigned to competing applications for scoring errors by issuing Notices of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSEs). After examining the NOPSEs filed against its application, as well as Respondent's proposed decision concerning each NOPSE, a developer may submit supplemental information, which is known as a Cure. The Cure information is limited to material responsive to the NOPSEs or preliminary scoring. After the applicant has submitted a Cure, competing applicants may issue Notices of Alleged Deficiencies (NOADs) to challenge the information submitted as a Cure. Respondent then rescores each application, issues a final score, and ranks all applications based on their final scores. Aggrieved applicants may challenge these pre-appeal scores in formal or informal hearings. After the conclusion of the hearings, Respondent issues the post-appeal scores and the final rankings of the applications. If a challenger prevails after the final rankings are approved by Respondent, the challenger's approved application is assigned to the next year's funding cycle. In these cases, Respondent issued the final rankings on October 8, 2002. In DOAH Case No. 02-4137, Petitioner challenges Respondent's determination that its Magic Lake Villas application fails to meet the threshold requirements. The Magic Lake Villas application is for funding to construct a 72-unit garden apartment complex in Ocala. Item III.A.3 of the HOME Rental Application (Application) requires the applicant to indicate the type of development design by checking a box next to one of eight categories. The categories are: "garden apartments," "townhouses," "high rise (a building comprised of 7 or more stories)," single family," "duplexes/quadraplexes," "mid-rise with elevator," "single-room occupancy," and "other." Petitioner selected "garden apartments" to describe the 11 one-story buildings that it was proposing to develop on 9.67 acres for a gross density of 7.45 units per acre. The proposed development nearly encircles a lake that is used for drainage. Item II.B.1 of the Application requires the applicant to "Provide the Developer's Prior Experience Chart behind the tab labeled "Exhibit 11." Exhibit 11 contains a certification, which Petitioner executed, that represents, among other things: "I have developed and completed at least two affordable housing developments similar in magnitude to the Development proposed by this Application as evidenced by the accompanying prior experience chart." The "Chart of Experience" that Petitioner attached as part of Exhibit 11 lists information under six columns: "Name of Development," "Location (City/State)," "New Const. or Rehab.," "Design Type," "# of Units," and "Affordable/Subsidized market." Petitioner's chart supplies four rows of information, by development. The first development is "Citrus County Scattered Sites," which comprise 40 single-family units of new construction in Citrus County under the HOME program. The second development is "Marion County Scattered Sites," which comprise 40 single-family units of new construction in Marion County under the HOME program. The third development is "Heron Woods Homeownership," which comprises 49 single-family units of new construction in Inverness, Florida. The fourth development is Heron Woods Rental, which comprises 50 single-family units of new construction in Inverness, Florida. Item II.B.1.c of the Home Rental Application Instructions and Information (Instructions) addresses the requirement of developer experience. The Instructions require: The Developer or principal(s) of Developer must demonstrate experience in the completion of at least two affordable housing developments of similar magnitude by providing a prior experience chart behind a tab labeled "Exhibit 11." The chart must include the following information . . .. For the developer-experience chart, the Instructions require: "Name of Development," "Location (City & State)," "Construction Category (New Construction or Rehabilitation)," "Design Type: garden, townhouses, high-rise, duplex/quad., mid- rise w/ elevator, single family, or other (specify type)," and "Number of Units." The ninth Threshold Requirement contained in the Instructions states: "Experience of the Development team must be demonstrated." Petitioner has failed to prove that any of its listed single-family development experience is similar in magnitude to garden apartment development. Petitioner has thus failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of prior developer experience. Garden apartments are a form of multifamily residential development--usually involving 6-12 units per building and a limited number of buildings, which may be one to three stories. As reflected by the itemization contained in the instructions, each of these types of development represents differences in developed density and development difficulty. In ascending order of developed density and development difficulty, the typical order would be single family, townhouses, duplex/quadraplex units, garden apartments, mid-rise with elevator, and high-rise. Petitioner's development experience has involved single-family construction, which contains simpler draw schedules than does multi-family construction. Petitioner's development experience has involved projects that were all consistent with the zoning, which may often not be the case with higher-density development. Petitioner's development experience has been limited to providing the typically less-demanding infrastructure needs of the relatively low-density single-family development. Higher-density multi-family development normally requires more planning for stormwater management, common area and facilities, parking and roads, and central water and sewer. Petitioner has failed to prove that its single-family development experience, as reflected on its application, was of a similar magnitude to the garden apartments that it proposed as Magic Lake Villas. Petitioner has thus failed to prove that Respondent incorrectly determined that Petitioner's Magic Lake Villas application failed to pass the threshold requirement of developer experience. This determination moots DOAH Case No. 02-4594. In DOAH Case No. 02-4726, Petitioner challenges Respondent's decision to fund another development, rather than Magnolia Village. Petitioner's Magnolia Village application passed the threshold requirements and received 82.65 points, which would have been sufficient for funding, until Respondent, following an informal hearing, rescored the application for the Brittany Bay, which is located in Collier County. The rescoring raised Brittany Bay's score from 81.55 points to the maximum available 86 points. To prevail, Petitioner must prove that Respondent erroneously added at least 3.35 points to Brittany Bay's score. Although Petitioner has identified two issues concerning the rescoring of Brittany Bay's application, one of them involves only 0.4 points, so it is irrelevant to this case, given the point spread of 3.35 between Petitioner's Magnolia Village score and Brittany Bay's rescore. The other issue is relevant because it involves 4.45 points. If Petitioner demonstrates that Respondent improperly awarded these points to the Brittany Bay application, Petitioner's Magnolia Village application would receive funding in the 2003 funding cycle. Respondent assigned the Brittany Bay application 4.45 more points because it qualified for a nonfederal match. In this case, Petitioner must prove that the match identified in the Brittany Bay application did not qualify as match under applicable law. Item III.F of the Instructions addresses match and states in relevant part: Insert requested HOME loan amount and calculate the state required match amount. HUD regulation 24 CFR Part 92.220 requires Florida Housing to match funds for each HOME dollar spent on a Development. Applicants who can provide the full 25 percent match requirement will receive the maximum score of 5 points. For information on eligible match sources and instructions on how to calculate match, refer to the HUD HOME regulations at 24 CFR Part 92.220. . . . Provide amounts of each source of match. For each source of match funding identified, Applicant must provide a signed statement from the source detailing the type of contribution, amount, and how it was calculated. If the amount of contribution is determined based upon a present value calculation, include the actual present value calculation as described in 24 CFR 92.220. No points will be awarded for any source for which a narrative and documented evidence are not provided. This documentation must be provided behind a tab labeled "Exhibit 28." The specific references to 24 CFR Section 92.220 do not relieve the applicants or Respondent from the necessity of complying with all applicable HUD regulations. The first sentence of the Instructions states: "All Applicants are encouraged to review Rule 67-48, F.A.C., 24 CFR Part 92 and the following instructions before completing this Application." The original Brittany Bay application contained no documentation for Exhibit 28 because the developer was not seeking points for match. Even though no NOPSE addressed match, the Brittany Bay developer added match information in its Cure, pursuant to a practice--endorsed by Respondent and unchallenged by Petitioner--in which developers may add match to a Cure even though their original applications omitted match. The Cure contains three elements in describing the match for which points are sought. First, the Cure states: "Collier County's commitment to or issuance of $10,200,000 in Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds will result in $5,100,000 in eligible HOME match. This match created by other affordable housing communities is being made available to Brittany Bay . . . by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County." Second, the Cure states that "tax-exempt bond financing may be utilized to provide HOME match equal up [sic] to 50% of the amount of tax-exempt financing," again noting Collier County's "commitment to provide up to 50% of the tax- exempt financing issued or committed to on [sic] behalf of other multi-family projects in 2002 to Brittany Bay . . . for purposes of a HOME match." Third, the Cure incorporates a letter dated June 26, 2002, from the general counsel of the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County, which states: The Housing Finance Authority of Collier County (the "Authority") has committed to or has issued Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds totaling $10.2 million for two affordable housing communities this year. It is our understanding that fifty (50) percent of the loan amounts made from bond proceeds to multifamily affordable housing developments quali[f]y as HOME Match funds under the HUD regulations. Based upon this understanding, we are requesting that [Respondent] consider the appropriate percentage of our Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds as eligible match for the HOME loan requested for Brittany Bay . . .. The Authority is pleased to support this community . . . without an allocation of Region Eight Private Activity Bond Allocation or other Collier County resources. This Cure drew several NOADs. One NOAD notes that the Brittany Bay project is self-funded and was not using any tax- exempt bonds, but the claimed match was from tax-exempt bonds. This NOAD contended that bonds from unrelated developments do not qualify for match. Another NOAD asserts that the Brittany Bay developer does not claim to be receiving any funds from the Collier County tax-exempt bond proceeds, which are instead going to two other developments. This NOAD states that bond proceeds qualify as match only if the proceeds are made available to the development seeking the match. A third NOAD stresses that "match contributions must be attributed directly to the proposed HOME financed development and used to reduce the cost of the affordable housing development." A fourth NOAD notes that a non-participating jurisdiction is not authorized to commit match without providing bonds to the development purporting to receive the match. This NOAD states that HUD officials agreed that Brittany Bay would not qualify for match under these circumstances. The factual contentions of these NOADs are true. Unmoved by the Cure materials seeking match, Respondent's staff declined to award the Brittany Bay developer any points for match. The reason for declining to award points for the match was: "Per HUD, the Bond match which applicant requests in the cure can be considered as match is not eligible match. Funds from a HOME-like development which is not under control of [Respondent] is [sic] not eligible." Upon the request of the Brittany Bay developer and, due to the absence of disputed issues of fact, an informal hearing took place on, among other things, the accuracy of Respondent's refusal to assign Brittany Bay any points for the claimed match, as described above. The transcript of the hearing reveals that the parties addressed the issue addressed in DOAH Case No. 02-4726--whether the Brittany Bay application should be awarded points for match--but they focused on largely different arguments. In defending the decision not to recognize Brittany Bay's claimed match, Respondent raised questions concerning the technical sufficiency of the Cure materials. Respondent challenged the general counsel's letter. Respondent argued that the letter inadequately described the source of the funds and thus failed to preclude the possibility of a source that was a Section 501(c)(3) organization, from which a match cannot be derived for the HOME Rental program. Respondent also contended that the Brittany Bay developer was relying on information not contained in the Cure or other application materials to obtain the points for match. Respondent's proposed recommended order in the Brittany Bay case does not explicitly rely on the points raised by Petitioner in this case. Brittany Bay's proposed recommended order incorrectly asserts that the sole federal regulation governing match, as suggested by the portion of the Instructions covering match, is 24 CFR Section 92.220. Addressing directly the severance of the recipient of the match from the recipient of the funds used to generate the match, Brittany Bay's proposed recommended order contends that 24 CFR Section 92.220 does not so limit match and that Respondent agrees that this severance may take place, even when the recipients of the funds are not HOME-assisted. The recommended order succinctly addresses the complicated match issue by reciting the three elements of the Cure pertaining to "nonfederal match sources" and concluding: "Petitioner properly documented well in excess of $1,562,500 in non-federal match funds issued by the Collier County Housing Finance Authority for affordable housing." The final order adopted the recommended order without elaboration. It would have been a reasonable inference for the hearing officer to determined that Respondent's argument concerning a possible Section 501(c)(3) source of the funds was too improbable. But that inference, alone, would probably not account for the decision. If, as seems likely, the hearing officer also relied on the assurances of the general counsel, a problem would arise because the general counsel's assurance was expressly conditioned on "our understanding" that the match would qualify under HUD regulations--which is exactly the issue in question. As implied by the Cure and stated by the NOADs, Collier County attempted to provide Brittany Bay match out of bond proceeds that were allocated to two unrelated projects, Saddlebrook Village and Sawgrass Pines. In other words, Collier County attempted to sever the match, by sending it to Brittany Bay, from the funds, which were going to two projects that are not HOME-assisted. Neither Collier County nor the Collier County Housing Finance Authority was a participating jurisdiction, as designated by HUD, at the time of the allocation of the match to the Brittany Bay developer. HUD imposes upon Florida and other states certain match requirements. However, Florida currently maintains a large surplus in match, surpassing all HUD match requirements through a multifamily rental bond program unassociated with the HOME Rental program. As one of Respondent's witnesses testified, Florida could go years without any new match and continue to meet HUD match requirements. Based on these facts, Respondent does not now object to Brittany Bay acquiring more points by using the match that arises out of revenue bonds, whose proceeds are allocated to two developments having nothing to do with Brittany Bay. On the other hand, regardless whether Florida needs match, the purpose of awarding points to an applicant demonstrating qualifying match is to recognize some superior quality in its proposed development in terms of meeting the goals of the HOME Rental program. It is questionable whether qualities suitable for recognition include the mere fact that a development would be located within the jurisdiction of a funding entity or that the developer somehow succeeds in obtaining from the funding entity a designation that does not carry with it the expenditure of any of the entity's funds, but confers competitive advantage to that developer in seeking limited HOME Rental funding from Respondent. If match is untethered from funding, there may be sufficient available match for local governments to provide the maximum match points to all applicants for HOME Rental funding, so that the match criterion would become meaningless.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: Dismissing Petitioner's challenge in DOAH Case Nos. 02-4137 and 02-4594; and In DOAH Case No. 02-4726, determining that Petitioner's Magnolia Village application should have been included in the funding range for the 2002 funding cycle of the HOME Rental program and funding the application in the next funding cycle, subject to the requirements of credit underwriting. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 14th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Kaplan, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth Arthur, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jon C. Moyle, Jr. Cathy M. Sellers Moyle Flanigan Katz Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paula C. Reeves Deputy General Counsel Hugh R. Brown Assistant General Counsel 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed an act of discrimination based upon familial status against Petitioners in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own Unit L-105 at The Collins, located at 6917 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. Petitioners have a three-year-old daughter who resides with them and claim membership, for purposes of alleging discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act, in the class of familial status. Petitioners have exclusive use of their private patio, a limited common element, adjacent to their ground floor unit, subject to the terms and conditions, as well as the rules of the Association. This patio is in close proximity to the Association’s ungated common swimming pool. Unlike most of the condominiums on floors above the pool area, Petitioners’ unit does not have a glass protective barrier on their patio, or any barrier whatsoever installed outside their unit by the Association. All of the units located above Petitioners’ unit that have balconies that are raised from the pool’s surface in heights varying between the second floor and many floors above, without a glass barrier at the end of the balconies, would have a significant and dangerous drop to the pool level for anyone stepping over the edge. Petitioners owned Unit L-105 for 13 years before having a daughter, now three years old, which changed their status to familial for the past three years. Petitioners sought to have the Association allow them to install a glass barrier between their patio and the ungated pool in order to end their claim of discrimination based upon familial status and protect their daughter from accidentally falling into the pool if left unattended on the patio. Respondents refused to install or allow the installation of a glass barrier on Petitioners’ patio, citing that it would not conform with the rules and regulations of the condominium association concerning the common elements of the condominium. Petitioners installed what they called a “temporary” fence around their patio. The fence involved the drilling of holes into the concrete surface of the pool deck and installing posts and netting into the holes to create a fencelike barrier. Claiming this was not approved and not in conformance with the rules and regulations for the common elements of the condominium, the Association brought in workers who removed the fence, the posts, and filled in the holes that had been drilled into the concrete. The Association billed Petitioners $1,200 for having the removal and repair work done for the unapproved installation of the fence. At some point, after the fencing had been removed, Petitioners moved out of their condominium unit, but remain the owners of it. At the time of the hearing, Petitioners had pending in circuit court an action regarding the pool fence. No further details were given regarding the nature of the action and relief sought. Mr. Riveiro testified that he and his wife are willing to bear the cost, including any needed permits, parts, labor, and inspections for installing a temporary fence that will protect their daughter from accidentally falling into the pool. Mr. Blanco, the Association’s board president, who has served on the board of the Association for 15 or more years, testified that, during his tenure, the board has never discriminated against persons for any reason, including based upon their familial status. Respondents offered several solutions to Petitioners, including allowing a temporary fence that could be easily removed, but did not involve drilling holes in the common area of the pool deck. According to the local code enforcement officials, all that is required for garden or pool level doors that open to an “ungated pool” are door alarms to alert the occupants when the door is opened from inside or out. Mr. Riveiro testified that he could not use door alarms and keep his doors open to enjoy the breeze and fresh air because, after a time, the alarms sounded to remind the occupants the door has been left open. Because of this, Petitioners were not satisfied with setting up an internal fence that would keep their daughter from running out the door. An internal fence was superfluous since always keeping the doors closed avoids the need for a fence, but restricts Petitioners full use and enjoyment of their unit. If the residents wanted fences to be installed on the pool level, they would have to be uniform in design and function. Because this would be considered a material alteration to the common elements, 75 percent of the unit owners would have to vote in favor of such a change. A material alteration to the common elements was neither requested by Petitioners nor voted upon by the Association’s unit owners upon request from any individual, family, or the Association board itself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondents not liable for housing discrimination and dismissing Petitioners’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Darrin Gursky, Esquire Gursky Ragan, P.A. 141 Northeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Fernando Riveiro 14838 Southwest 35th Street Davie, Florida 33331 Mayelin Perez 4495 Southwest 67th Terrace, No. 207 Davie, Florida 33314
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed general contractor and pool contractor. He is employed by Sally Dysart, Inc., and is currently the qualifying contractor for that company. Additionally, Respondent has served as qualifier for ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc. On June 6, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Theresa Pica to construct a swimming pool at her North Lauderdale residence. On June 9, 1981, Respondent obtained a permit from the City of North Lauderdale to construct the Pica pool. The permit indicated that ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc., was the contractor. The contract specified that the pool would measure 16 x 32 x 3 x 6 1/2 feet, with stainless steel walls. The contract allowed "minor variations in dimensions . . ." and provided that, "Dysart is authorized to use its discretion in making changes or additions if the customer is not immediately available." The pool as installed was 8 feet rather than 6 1/2 feet deep, and the walls were of aluminum rather than stainless steel. These changes were not approved by Theresa Pica and she complained to Petitioner regarding these changes and other problems which are not relevant to the charges herein. This was an 18 inch change in pool depth and could not be considered a minor variation in dimensions, nor could the change in materials be considered insignificant. Respondent should have, but did not, obtain the owner's concurrence before substituting the 8 foot aluminum pool for the 6 1/2 foot steel pool, which the contract called for. This installation was also held to be in violation of Broward County Ordinance Section 9-14(b)(9), by the local board having jurisdiction. Respondent was not properly registered as the qualifying agent for Sally Dysart, Inc., at the time of this project. He was registered as the qualifier for Ark beginning in 1977, but his application to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., was not received by Petitioner until November 1981 and not issued until December 1981. A Julius Kaplan was also a qualifier for Sally Dysart, Inc., but his application was not received by Petitioner until October 1981. Sally Dysart, Inc., was therefore not qualified by a licensed pool contractor at the time this company undertook the Pica project. The permit was improperly drawn on Ark Pool Service, Inc., by Respondent since Ark was not a party to the Pica contract. Respondent demonstrated that the administrator for Sally Dysart, Inc., was attempting to secure a qualifier for this company between April and December 1981. Thus, while some effort had been made to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., this had not been accomplished at the time the Pica project was undertaken. Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with James J. Mirrione to install a spa for him at his residence in Boca Raton. The permit was obtained by Respondent on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., on April 23, 1981. As noted above, Respondent was not a qualifier for Sally Dysart until December 1981. No final inspection of the Mirrione installation was ever made. Respondent believed that officer personnel at Sally Dysart, Inc., had arranged for such inspection, but it was either not requested or requested but not performed. On June 25, 1981, Warren Schober contracted with Sally Dysart, Inc., to construct a pool at his Miami residence. He negotiated the contract with a Milton Wolf who he understood to be the sales manager for Sally Dysart, Inc. The project was completed, but Schober encountered problems with a defective light and leaks in the pool. The difficulties were eventually corrected and Schober is now satisfied with the installation. In late August 1981, Milton Wolf agreed to sell Dr. Ronald Scott a swimming pool for $5,970. Scott made an initial payment of $3,970 to Milton Wolf by cashier's check dated September 8, 1981. Scott believed he was dealing with Sally Dysart, Inc., since Wolf held himself out as a representative of that company. Although he had some reservations about making the check payable to Milton Wolf personally, he had contacted a Better Business Bureau to determine that Sally Dysart, Inc., was a reputable company. Further, Wolf was available when he telephoned him at the Sally Dysart, Inc., offices. Sally Dysart, Inc., later disclaimed the Wolf agreement but offered to honor it if Scott would turn over the balance due. However, Scott rejected this offer and it was later withdrawn. He did not receive the pool or return of his initial payment. The evidence did not establish whether or not Sally Dysart, Inc., approved the contract for sale of the pool negotiated by Wolf. However, there was no construction contemplated and therefore no active involvement by Respondent in his capacity as construction supervisor. On July 31, 1981, Milton Wolf, on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Mr. William D. Black for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at the latter's Miami resident. By check dated August 28, 1981, Black made an initial payment of $4,585 to Wolf. Black left the payee portion of the check blank at Wolf's request on the representation that he would use a stamp to supply the Dysart firm name. Wolf later filled in his own name, cashed the check and absconded. Black had no reason to distrust Wolf as he had communicated with Wolf at Sally Dysart, Inc., and had checked on the company through the Better Business Bureau. Wolf held himself out as sales manager and this was not repudiated by Sally Dysart, Inc., until after Wolf absconded. Respondent obtained a permit for the Black project on October 13, 1981, and some of the initial approvals were made. However, by letter dated September 22, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc. (by its president, Sally Dysart), advised Black that the company would attempt to complete the project only if he would pay the balance of all payments due. This letter also disclaimed responsibility for Wolf's representations. In response, Black demanded that Sally Dysart, Inc., honor the contract and proposed that remaining payments be placed in escrow pending satisfactory completion. This proposal was rejected, and Black did not obtain the pool nor was his $4,585 "deposit" returned. Respondent sought to establish that Milton Wolf was not authorized to act on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., but that he was merely present in the Dysart offices as a potential business partner. His contact with customers was purportedly limited to investigation of leads and company business potential. However, the testimony of a former Dysart employee established that Wolf did make sales and brought in cash receipts to the company prior to his defalcation. Therefore, regardless of any private understanding between Sally Dysart, Inc., and Milton Wolf, the latter was holding himself out to the public as a company representative with the knowledge and approval of Sally Dysart, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor licenses for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of May 1984.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for violations of Chapter 849, Florida Statutes, which prohibits gambling. At the formal hearing, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco called as witnesses Beverage Lieutenant Thomas Stout and Beverage Officer Stephen Tompkins. The Respondent called as witnesses Jack Bent, Wade Byington, Sam Fritz, Daniel Cronin, John Hengerle, Ward Hill, Earl Martel and Neal Mills. The Petitioner offered and had admitted seven exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted three exhibits. A drawing of the licensed premises as contained in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages official records was placed into evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that these proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions herein they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held Beverage license No. 18-67, Series 11C issued to the licensed premises at 629 Tamiami Trail, N.W., Port Charlotte, Florida. Elks Lodge No. 2153 is a local chapter of the National Elks Lodge. It is a fraternal organization having 2,994 members in the local lodge. The licensed premises at 629 Tamiami Trail, N.W., is the club facility where the members hold meetings and also socialize together. The lodge building is a large building consisting of a lobby, lounge area with bar, kitchen, and large dining and meeting room. Additionally, there is a smaller room which is located behind the lounge area. This small room is called the "Stag Room" and is open to and used only by the local members of Elks Lodge No. 2153. No guests, wives, or nonmembers are allowed in the Stag Room. The Stag Room contains a pool table area, card table area with several tables, a shuffleboard court, a bar, and an area of tables for just lounging. The bar is tended by a bartender. The local lodge is governed by a Board of Governors which sets policy for the lodge and a Board of Trustees which is responsible for the financial matters and building and other physical assets of the lodge. The chief operating officer of the lodge is elected by the members and has the title of "Exalted Ruler." The manager of the club facility is hired by the Board of Governors. On January 27, 1983, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Beverage Officer Tompkins, of the Ft. Myers District, visited the licensed premises of the Respondent. His purpose was to investigate a complaint that the lodge had sold kegs of beer to another club. After speaking with the manager of the club facility, Officer Tompkins made a routine inspection of the licensed premises. As a part of his routine inspection, Officer Tompkins entered the Stag Room and first checked the bar area of that room. Behind the bar, he found a slip of paper (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) which reflected bets between unknown individuals on the Super Bowl game to be played within a few days between the Washington Redskins and the Miami Dolphins. The sheet was undated and unsigned and was laying in the open on a counter behind the bar. After checking the bar area, Officer Tompkins proceeded to inspect the contents of a cabinet located between the pool area and the card playing area. In that cabinet, Officer Tompkins found several items which he seized as evidence. In the top drawer of the cabinet, Officer Tompkins found three white pieces of paper, each appearing to be scoresheets for a game of some sort. On the first sheet (Petitioner's Exhibit 2-A) appears the first names of six individuals in columns with scores or running totals under each name. These totals consist of plus and minus numbers which after each round totaled zero. These numbers appear to represent amounts owed to and from each player and at the bottom of five of the columns is the entry "Pd." This sheet was used to keep track of winnings and losses in some type of game. No evidence was presented which identified the individuals named or the date the sheet was prepared. The second sheet (Petitioner's Exhibit 2b) contains several paired columns titled "We" and "They" at the top of each pair. These columns contained numbers which appear to be scores in some type of game. Some of these numbers contain decimal points, such as "14.67" which appear to represent dollar amounts. The third sheet (Petitioner's Exhibit 2c) is similar to Petitioner's Exhibit 2b, but does not contain decimal numbers or numbers that appear to represent dollar amounts. In that same drawer Officer Tompkins found three yellow envelopes with writing on the front of each envelope. The first envelope (Petitioner's Exhibit 3a) was empty and on the outside of the envelope was written "3 players." The second envelope (Petitioner's Exhibit 3b) also was empty and bears the notation "4 players." The third envelope (Petitioner's Exhibit 3c) bears the notation "tally sheets" and contained two sheets of paper that appear to be tally sheets for some type of game. In the same cabinet, but not in the drawer, Officer Tompkins found two paper bags bearing the business name "Quick Print." (Petitioner's Exhibits 4a and 4b). Each bag contained several hundred blank tally sheets. These sheets are similar to tally sheets used in card games such as bridge. These sheets were not purchased by the Respondent. Also in the same cabinet in Respondent's Stag Room, Officer Tompkins found a yellow folder, Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, containing a typewritten rule book called "Eight Ball Tournament House Rules" dated August 23, 1982, with a notation that it was amended October 8, 1982. The rule book provides that "[e]xcept for the rules specified herein, the Official Book of Rules in the Stag Room will apply." The book further provides that the players' positions on the singles and doubles elimination sheets will be determined by lot. Also contained within the yellow folder, Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, were original elimination sheets designed for tracking the players, drawn by lottery, through various levels of play in a pool tournament. These elimination sheets are titled "Elk's Lodge 2153 Pool Tourney." (See Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5). In that same cabinet in the Stag Room of Respondent's licensed premises Officer Tompkins found a manila envelope containing Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, a handwritten registration sheet titled Registration - 8 Ball Tournament 22 Jan 83 Doubles Fee: $3.00. This sheet contains four columns - two titled "Name" and two titled "Fee Paid." In the first column entitled Name are listed five names after which, in the Fee Paid column, is listed the amount of $3.00. This sheet further indicates that the listing was made as of 11 a.m. on 22 Jan 83 and that the money was refunded. Also found within that manila folder were "Guidelines for Coordinator on Day of Play." (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). Those guidelines provide that if less than 12 players sign up for the tournament, the tournament will be cancelled and the money refunded. Those guidelines further provide that, using the registration sheets, names will be drawn by use of numbered pills and given a position on the elimination sheet. The guidelines provide for prizes for first and second place winners in the doubles and for first, second and split third place winners in the singles. While play is underway, the coordinator is to calculate prize money by arriving at the "kitty" with $2.00 per player for the 12 to 15 players, then deduct $3.00 for the coordinator's services. The balance of the kitty would be divided with 45 percent going to the first place winner, 30 percent going to the second place winner, and 25 percent going to the third place winner to be split 50/50 between the two third place winners. A different method for calculating allocation of the kitty is provided for the doubles play. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). Also contained within that folder found in the cabinet in the Stag Room of Respondent's licensed premises were copies of the original elimination sheets previously seen in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5. The above described guidelines were prepared for a proposed pool tournament which did not take place. Sometime in the fall of 1982, the officers of the Respondent club became aware that a pool tournament was being planned. Upon learning of this, the Exalted Ruler, the chief presiding officer, cancelled the pool tournament and instructed those persons who were planning the tournament that such an event could not be held in the lodge. The Respondent has a policy against gambling on the lodge premises. Section 210 of the annotated statutes of the Grand Lodge of Elks prohibits gambling, in any and all forms, in any lodge room, club room or social parlor connected with a lodge. Failure to abide by a section of the annotated statutes can result in revocation of the local lodge's charter. The officers of Respondent were not aware of any gambling taking place on the lodge premises and after receiving notice from Officer Tompkins that he suspected gambling was occurring, the Lodge published an article in its monthly newsletter reminding its members of their duty to not gamble and to abide by the annotated statutes of the lodge. Petitioner presented no evidence that gambling had actually been observed by anyone on the licensed premises. No gambling had been observed by the officers or trustees of the lodge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of the charges alleged in the Notice to Show Cause and that such charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of October 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 27th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice G. Scott, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Bader, Esquire 209 Conway Boulevard, N.E. Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The basic allegations of the complaint having been proven or admitted, the sole question at hearing was one of mitigation.
Findings Of Fact Rivers is a licensed general and a licensed pool contractor. All the complaints against Rivers arose in relationship to his pool contracting activities. Rivers did begin construction of two pools in Levy County without first obtaining a building permit as required by the Levy County Building Code, a certified copy of which was identified by the Levy County Building official. Rivers paid a late fee in both instances. Although in one instance all inspections were made, in the second instance no inspections were possible because construction was essentially complete when the construction was discovered by the Levy County Building official. Rivers did fail to pay materialmen on two pools although he received payment in full for the jobs. His failure resulted in materialmen's liens being placed on the property, although Rivers provided each owner a written statement that all bills had been paid. Rivers admitted that he had not paid the materialmen because he lacked funds to do so. His contract with both parties for construction of a specified pool contained a provision stating that he would provide them an affidavit that all labor and material had been paid prior to receipt of final payment on the contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Residential Pool Contractor's License and General Contractor's License of Norman Rivers be suspended for a minimum of ninety (90) days and that thereafter be reinstated upon his satisfying the Board of his ability to meet his financial obligations. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488 9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. J.K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. Norman Rivers 1710 South East 19th Street Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This proceeding arises out of Respondent's alleged failure to remedy defects in a swimming pool that she built in 1981 which resulted in disciplinary action by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board; for failing to remedy defects in another pool that she built in 1981 whereby she allegedly made fraudulent representations and failed to honor a warranty; and for constructing a pool in 1982 after her Certificate of Competency had been revoked by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board. Respondent appeared at the hearing without counsel, and was thereupon advised of her rights and the procedures applicable to an administrative proceeding. She indicated that she understood such rights and elected to represent herself. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses and submitted 22 exhibits in evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf, but did not submit any documentary evidence. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact, and are specifically rejected.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Laura H. Eubanks is a state registered commercial pool contractor who operates Eubanks Company Big Bend Pool Builders, Tallahassee, Florida. She was originally licensed in 1975 and remained licensed at all pertinent times relative to this proceeding, but her license was in a delinquent status as of July 1, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On May 2, 1981, Respondent entered into an agreement with Thomas V. and Barbara J. Mulqueen, Jr., 6719 Johnston Loop, Tallahassee, Florida, for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at their residence for the amount of $6,725.63. On September 22, 1981, Mr. Mulqueen filed a complaint against Respondent with the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board. Mr. Olin Williams, Supervisor of Inspections for the Board, investigated the complaint and found that staples were protruding underneath the pool liner, that a water pipe leaked at the pump, apron or deck concrete cracks were caused by curing tension at inside corners, about 35 percent of the concrete deck was darker in color than the remainder of the deck, an improperly placed outlet for the pool drain permitted seepage under the pool liner, and that repairs to a neighbor's fence and the owner's driveway had not been completed. He classified those discrepancies as pertaining to workmanship. In addition, he determined that there had been a violation of the health code in that a septic tank had been broken by workmen and waste sewage had flowed into the pool excavation for a period of several days. The owner was seeking to have Respondent correct the problems and complete the job. Inspector Williams contacted the Respondent on October 12, 1981, and, although she told him that she would come to his office that day and bring the individual responsible for the job, she failed to do so. No final inspection of the work had been requested by Respondent. (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By letter dated November 12, 1981, Respondent was advised by the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board that a formal hearing had been scheduled on the complaint for December 3, 1981. A copy of the complaint and the Building Inspector's Report was enclosed, and she was advised of her right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. In fact, the hearing by the Board was held on December 4, 1981, at which the Mulqueens were present and presented their complaint, and Inspector Williams informed the Board of his investigation and subsequent actions. Respondent was not present at the hearing, although the certified mail receipt reflected the signature of "L. H. Eubanks." At the December 4th meeting, the Board voted to suspend Respondent's license with the provision that the Board would not consider reinstatement unless repairs to the Mulqueen pool were made within thirty days after December 9, 1981, and if not, then the Board would consider permanent revocation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6) By letter of January 12, 1982, the Board advised Respondent of the suspension of her license as a result of a hearing held on December 3, 1981. (No explanation was provided by Petitioner as to the discrepancy in the minutes of the Board meeting which reflected a date of December 4, 1931, and the letters sent to Respondent which stated that the hearing had been held on December 3, 1981.) Respondent was advised in the letter that the Board would not consider any application for reinstatement of Respondent's license unless repairs were effected to the Mulqueen pool within thirty days from receipt of the letter. She was further advised that if they had not been so completed, the Board would consider permanent revocation of her license, but if they had been completed within the required time, the Board would consider a written application for reinstatement at its meeting scheduled for January 28, 1982. This letter was hand delivered to Respondent's place of business on January 18, 1982. On January 20, 1982, Respondent telephoned Inspector Williams and stated that she would seek legal counsel and be at the Board meeting on January 28. She indicated to him that she had had some personal problems due to the illness of her sisters, and also had been the subject of theft (although a memo of Williams reflecting the telephone call was dated January 20, 1981, it was apparent from his testimony that the call was made on January 20, 1982.) (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 18) The Licensing Board met on January 28, 1982, and determined that Respondent's license would be revoked on February 26, 1982, if the previously noted defects had not been corrected. By letter dated February 3, 1982, she was advised by the Board of this fact and that the Board would meet again on February 25 concerning the matter. On February 25, the Board revoked Respondent's license. She was not present at the meeting. She was advised of this action by Letter of the Board, dated March 4, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 8-10) By contract dated July 15, 1981, Respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Rex Tyler at their residence in Tallahassee, Florida, for the sum of $23,784.91. The project included installation of aluminum fencing and a brick wall, together with various items of pool equipment. The agreement provided that the contractor would remedy any defects in workmanship without cost, provided written notice was provided within one year after connection of the filter. After the pool was built and paid for by the Tylers, it was found that several problems existed. A pool light continuously went on and off improperly, the motor of the pool sweep leaked, the bottom drain was not adequately secured and would be knocked off by operation of the pool sweep, step tiles were not complete, one tile popped loose, and water faucets leaked. The primary problem, however, was that the main drain would not circulate water on the bottom of the pool. The Respondent was notified of these problems by the owners and repaired some of them over the course of time, but was unable to fix the pool light or the main drain. In this regard, Respondent called upon Walter Swans, another licensed pool contractor, who determined that both the light and the drain were stopped up with "marble" finish. The Tylers were obliged to spend $312.74 to pay Swann's bill and for a plumber to repair the leaking faucets. (Testimony of McCausland, A. Tyler, Clemens, Swann, Petitioner's Exhibits 21-23) By agreement dated May 28, 1982, Respondent contracted with Charles and Brenda Short for the installation of a swimming pool at 3249 Baldwin Drive West, Tallahassee, Florida, for a price of $6,809.20. During the course of construction, Mr. Short inquired of Respondent as to the need for a building permit. She initially told him that she would get one, but later when Short asked her again about the matter, she told him that if he didn't want one it would be all right with her because otherwise it would hold up completion of the pool. Short told her that that was all right with him. He was not familiar with permit requirements. After the walls of the pool had been finished, heavy rains caused the sides of the pool to partially collapse. Inspector Williams was notified of the problem and he found that the work was being done without the required permit. He therefore posted a stop work order at the construction site. On September 1, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the Leon County Court, Case No. 82MM2702. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months. The Shorts had paid Respondent a total of $4,000 on the contract price at the time work was stopped on the pool project. They eventually settled the matter with Respondent by agreement. (Testimony of Brenda Short, Charles Short, Courtney, Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 19-20) In a civil proceeding filed by the Mulqueens against Respondent in the Leon County Circuit Court, Case No. 82-68 the parties entered into a joint stipulation of settlement under which Respondent agreed by promissory note to pay the Mulqueens the sum of $2400 with interest by 24 monthly payments of $100.00 commencing January 1, 1983. On January 27, 1983, the Leon County Contractors Licensing Examination Board reinstated Respondent's license, subject to a 12 month probationary period. By letter October 24, 1983, Mr. Mulqueen advised the County Building Inspector that Respondent had only made two payments on the settlement agreement as of March 1983. (Testimony of Courtney, Petitioner's Exhibits 13-16) Section 2C, Leon County Ordinance No. 74-22, provides that its Contractors Licensing and Examination Board has the duty to suspend or revoke "authorized contractor" certificates for violation of the ordinance, violation of the County Building and Zoning Codes, or violation of any other state, municipal, or county law upon due cause shown to the Board after a hearing. Section 1E provides that the Board must provide the certificate holder with written notice of its intent to consider the revocation or suspension of the certificate, and afford him a hearing before the Board, and that all decisions concerning suspension of revocation of certificates shall be in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had had continuing financial problems commencing a number of years ago when some of her employees were building pools "on the side" with her materials. During the time that problems arose in connection with the Mulqueen and Tyler pools, she was preoccupied with serious personal problems involving her sisters, one of whom died of cancer and the other having been in a mental hospital. She acknowledged that she should have corrected the customer complaints and regrets that she did not do so. Respondent further stated that although she attempted to pay her note to the Mulqueens, her financial situation was such that she was unable to continue meeting the payments. Although she received notice of the various hearings before the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board, she testified that she had not been thinking of the consequences and didn't even read the letters of notification which were sent to her. She also acknowledged entering into the contract with the Shorts because she was "desperate" for money to pay her various creditors. (Testimony of Eubanks)
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the registration of Respondent Laura H. Eubanks as a pool contractor for a period of three months. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 29th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura H. Eubanks 1421 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 21738, 20754, 25386 LAURA H. EUBANKS DOAH CASE NO. 83-2362 737 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Respondent. /
