Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Joseph Barrass is a registered roofing contractor holding State of Florida license number RC0026890. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Respondent began doing business as a registered roofing contractor through his corporation, J. B. Roofing and Repairs, Inc., about six years ago. This corporation was dissolved and he continued as a roofing contractor through a corporation known as Roofing Services, Inc. He next did business through a third corporation, C. B. Roofing, Inc. Most recently he has done business as C. B. Roofing, a sole proprietorship. Respondent failed to register any of these entities with Petitioner, and is still licensed under his original fictitious name, J. B. Roofing and Repairs. Respondent contracted with Green Glades Construction Co. in early 1979, to install roofs on some 28 new houses. A dispute arose between the parties regarding several unfinished and leaking roofs. Respondent contends he refused to complete the roofs at issue due to nonpayment in accordance with the oral contract. He also argues that he was unable to repair the leaks while the roofs were wet, as demanded by Green Glades. The dispute was settled through civil proceedings. Another matter which culminated in civil action concerned the installation and repair of a patio roof pursuant to an oral contract between Respondent and Marvin Berkowitz, at the latter's Coral Springs residence. Berkowitz complained that Respondent failed to correct a leak in this roof as required by their agreement. Respondent claims the leak was the result of an improperly installed ceiling fan and the flat roof design demanded by Berkowitz. Respondent completed the job and received final payment on October 9, 1979. However, the roof leaked and Berkowitz thereafter contacted Respondent on numerous occasions requesting repairs. It was not until Berkowitz retained counsel and threatened legal action that Respondent made any effort to repair the leak. He returned on February 14, 1980, and did limited repair work. The roof continued to leak and Berkowitz sought damages through civil action. The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not the ceiling fan had been removed when Respondent returned in February, 1980. Berkowitz testified that it had been removed, and Respondent testified that it had not. The evidence is also in conflict with respect to the caveats and/or assurances Respondent gave Berkowitz regarding this installation. The recollections of both witnesses were self-serving and their testimony was generally lacking in credibility. The City of Coral Springs' building code requires a contractor to obtain a permit prior to roof installation. Respondent knew he was required to obtain such a permit for the Berkowitz project, but failed to do so.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.119, 489.129(1)(g) and 489.129(1)(j), F.S., in failing to register his business entities and contracting without requisite qualification. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., for wilful disregard of the Coral Springs building code pertaining to building permits. It is further RECOMMENDED: That all other charges against Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be disciplined for failure to comply with provisions of Florida law?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George F. Garrard, is licensed as a registered roofing contractor holding State of Florida license number RC 0045805. On May 14, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Ronald Skinner to reroof a house located at 2226 Eudine Drive, in Jacksonville, Florida. The contract provided that Respondent would: "Tear off the entire roof to sheeting. Haul off all debris. Install 5 ply-build-up roof. New metal edging." In exchange for the work, the contract called for Respondent to receive $1100.00, $600.00 to be paid in advance for materials and $500.00 to be paid upon completion of the job. 2. Mr. Skinner paid Respondent the $600.00 advance for materials and work on the roof began the following day. While the work on the roof was in progress, Mr. Skinner conducted periodic inspections and noticed that the felt had buckled up. Mr. Skinner asked Respondent how he was going to fix the felt and Respondent said that he could fix the felt by cutting out the buckled parts and patching the felt. Mr. Skinner responded that he had a patched roof before and did not want another; he wanted a new roof. Respondent promised he would fix the problem. Prior to the work being completed, Respondent made a telephone call to Mr. Skinner and asked for payment of the remaining balance on the contract in order to purchase the materials needed to finish the job. Mr. Skinner agreed to meet John T. Garrard (Respondent's son) at the house and pay the balance. Respondent authorized Mr. Skinner to pay John T. Garrard. When Mr. Skinner arrived at the house, John T. Garrard and another person were unloading rocks from a pick-up truck and placing the rocks in a pile on the carport roof. Mr. Skinner paid John T. Garrard $500.00 and John T. Garrard wrote "Paid in Full" on the face of the contract and signed his name. A few minutes after Mr. Skinner left the house, John T. Garrard and the other person also left the house. Two or three days later, Mr. Skinner returned to the house. He noticed that no further work had been done. The rocks which had been unloaded from the pickup truck were still in a pile on top of the carport. Mr. Skinner was afraid the weight of the rocks would damage the carport so he spread the rocks on the roof. There were not enough rocks to cover the whole roof. Also, the rocks were loose because no tar had been spread on the roof to hold the rocks in place. Mr. Skinner contacted Respondent or someone in his household several times, and Respondent assured him he would finish the job. No further work was done on the roof by Respondent. Mr. Skinner last contacted Respondent by letter dated January 26, 1987, wherein he asked that Respondent finish the job since he had been paid in full. On the date of the hearing, the roofing job had not been completed. The rocks were still insufficient to cover the entire roof, no tar had been spread to hold the rocks in place, and the felt was still buckled in various places. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the reroofing job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $2,000 on Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 120 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 George F. Garrard 4622 Tabernacle Place, East Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent alleging an inadequate performance in work done for a customer, Louise A. Bright. In particular, Respondent is said to have proceeded to do work for Ms. Bright without having obtained a timely permit to commence the work, in violation of local law, by his deliberate action or through improper supervision. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In addition, Respondent is accused of having done business under a name other than the name reflected on his license, as issued by Petitioner, the name which he had done business under having not been qualified with Petitioner. Again, this constitutes alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Finally, Respondent is accused of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct and/or deceit in connection with work based upon his personal activities or his failure to properly supervise, leading to a performance which did not provide a reasonably watertight roof, which roof leaked; the improper installation of window seals, resulting in water draining towards the interior; and misconduct in the competitive-bid process associated with the Bright job. The administrative complaint points out that the Respondent had previously been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in an unrelated case.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, has the responsibility of prosecuting administrative complaints brought by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The authority for the activities of these entities is announced in Chapters 120, 455 and 49, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules promulgated under the authority of those statutes. At times pertinent to this inquiry, Respondent has been licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified residential contractor. His license number is CR C0277268. The license he holds is as an individual. Respondent has not served as a qualifying agent for a company known as Stratton Construction Company. Ms. Louise A. Bright of 5143 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, was interested in having remodeling and re-roofing work done at her home at that address under the auspices of the HUD Rehabilitation Program. In this connection, she sought bids from two contractors other than Respondent. The intention of those two contractors in submission of sealed bids to Ms. Bright was to secure their contents from being disclosed to competitors, such as Respondent. Respondent contacted Ms. Bright about bidding on this project. This solicitation of Ms. Bright was not inappropriate. It was inappropriate for Respondent, once he entered into discussions with Ms. Bright at her home, to insist on Ms. Bright revealing the contents of his competitors' bids. Ms. Bright told Respondent that she did not think this was an appropriate arrangement. Respondent replied that it was done all the time. Respondent kept asking Ms. Bright about different items in one competitor's bid quotation. Eventually, Ms. Bright tired of the discussion and laid one of the two proposals on her table and Respondent examined it and began to describe how he thought he could undercut the price of his competitor. As Robert H. Adams, a certified residential contractor licensed by the State of Florida, testified in the hearing, it was an act of misconduct for Respondent to ask for the contents of the sealed bid of the competitor before submitting his own bid. In fact, Respondent did not offer his terms until he had had the opportunity to examine the position of a competitor and the terms of that competitor's bid. On May 28, 1987, Ms. Bright and Respondent entered into a contract to have the remodeling work done at her home and the roof work. The roof work was constituted of shingles in one portion and the installation of materials which approximate a built-up roof in another portion. The price of the contract was $15,140.00. Respondent entered into the contract with Ms. Bright under the name of Stratton Construction Company. Respondent commenced the work sometime around June 8 or 10, 1987. Respondent, under the name of Stratton Construction Company, obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, for purposes of the re- roofing work only. That permit was obtained on June 11, 1987, after the overall work began at the residence. Although it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a permit from the City of Jacksonville to do the remodeling portion of the work, as contemplated by requirements of the City of Jacksonville's Building Code, the remodeling permit was never obtained before commencement of the work, nor at any other time, as the record stands. As the work proceeded, several change orders were executed on May 28, 1987, June 2, 1987 and June 3, 1987. A fourth change order was not allowed. The reason for its rejection was based upon the perception of an official with HUD, Hank Pocopanni, who felt that the cost of the fourth change order was too expensive. The ultimate contract price was $15,130.00. Based upon the progress of the work, 30% and 60% payments on the contract amount were rendered based upon a 40% and 80% completion. At the time of the second draw, the roof had been installed. The roof in question, although needing repair, had not been leaking prior to the work that was done on it. The roofing work was done at the residence by Bailey's Roofing of 2922 West 6th Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32205. The inspections on the quality of the roof work which were done by the HUD and the City of Jacksonville were not detailed inspections. The inspections by the City of Jacksonville were merely to see that the roof had been installed. The more complete inspection of the roof which would have been done by HUD was to be performed at the time of the final inspection. That final inspection never occurred because Ms. Bright and Respondent terminated their relationship as owner and contractor under the contract. Respondent has also placed a claim of lien against Ms. Bright for the balance of the contract money not disbursed. The roof has leaked in a bedroom in the home, as well as in the breakfast room and around one of the chimneys, running down rafters from the chimney. In addition, as Mr. Adams pointed out in his expert opinion testimony, which is accepted, the prefab chimney structure, which had heavy asphalt cement placed upon the top of the cap, was an inappropriate installation because chimneys produce heat and one should not put asphalt cement next to them. Respondent has sufficient expertise to understand the inappropriateness of this form of installation. It is not necessary for him to be a roofing contractor to understand that this was an incorrect choice. Nor does he need to be a roofing contractor to understand, as Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified that the shingles on the roof were improperly installed and the fact that the shingles had been improperly cut because they did not cover the eaves drip completely. A certified residential contractor, such as Respondent, has the necessary expertise to understand the re-roofing by use of shingles. Respondent is also capable of understanding that the installation of flashing material around the chimney at the home was unsightly and improper, as identified by Mr. Adams, whose expertise is accepted and opinion is credited. Mr. Adams also identified the fact of a 48-inch overhang at the rear of the house without vertical support columns or beams and some concern about the stability of that situation. On balance, his opinion does not seem to state with certainty that this, indeed, is a problem. Likewise, his opinion about the part of the roof which is, by nature, more akin to a built-up roof and its potential for physical damage because of problems with its membrane is not credited because he is not found to be an expert in those types of roofs. According to Mr. Adams, the problems with the roof and window seals were representative of incompetence and lack of proper supervision on the part of Respondent. This opinion of Mr. Adams is accepted. Mr. Adams, in his expert opinion, identified the fact that the window seals, which had been installed in this project, did not have an appropriate slope to allow them to divert water away from the windows, resulting in the possibility of water intrusion into the house. This refers to rainwater. His opinion is accepted. Although a copy of a punchlist dated August 25, 1987, which Respondent had and is shown as Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, makes reference to repairs of a roof leak in bedroom 1, on February 2, 1988, Ms. Bright was still having problems with the roof as evidenced by correspondence directed to Stratton Construction Company on that date. Respondent has been disciplined in the past by the imposition of a $100.00 fine in DOAH Case No. 87-2699. This pertained to a contract of August 14, 1986 with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street, Jacksonville, Florida. It was the finding in that case that prior to that situation, Respondent had only built new homes in Florida and was unaware of the necessity to obtain a permit to affect repairs to the interior of the home other than the permit he had obtained. The facts went on to describe how Respondent was aware of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room but only applied for that permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed and he was in dispute with the homeowners. As a consequence, Respondent was found in violation of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and the fine imposed.
Recommendation In accordance with Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, having in mind Respondent's disciplinary history, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which imposes an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 18th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2164 Petitioner's facts are responded to as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found, except its suggestion of problems other than those associated with the roof and the window seals, which other problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to problems other than with the roof and the window seals, which problems are not relevant to this inquiry. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found, except to the reference to comments by Mr. Adams related to the roofing membrane, which is found to be beyond his expertise. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Stuart Stratton 3365 Silver Palm Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32250
The Issue Whether Respondent's registered roofing contractor's license should he revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on charges that he violated Ch. 455, Florida Statutes (1979), by (1) abandoning a construction project; making a misleading, deceptive or untrue representation in the practice of his profession; (3) violating local building codes in two instances; and (4) engaging in the business of contracting in a county or municipality without first complying with local licensing requirements.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent held registered roofing contractor's license, number RC 0033215, issued by the State of Florida. The license has been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Between October 1, 1979, and September 30, 1980, respondent held an occupational license issued by the County of Indian River, Florida, which enabled him to engage in the business of roofing contracting in that county. However, this occupational license expired on September 30, 1980. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9). In February, 1981, respondent entered into a verbal agreement with Ezra Grant to repair, for compensation, all leaks in the front and rear sections of the roof on Grant's home, which was located in Sebastian, Florida. (Testimony of Grant). When respondent and Grant entered into this verbal agreement, respondent gave Grant one of his calling cards. On the face of the calling card, in the lower right corner, was written "licensed and insured." (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; Testimony of Grant). At all time material hereto, respondent was not licensed to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Pursuant to the agreement, respondent performed roof repairs on Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent failed to obtain a permit to perform such roof repairs in violation of Section 105.1, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8a and b). On February 19, 1981, respondent submitted a bill in the amount of $800.00 to Grant for the roof repairs. The bill described the work performed and stated that the "work is guaranteed for 1 year." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Testimony of Grant). On February 20, 1981, Grant paid respondent, in full, for the described roof repairs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Approximately two weeks after respondent performed the roof repairs, the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home began to leak, again, in the area where it was repaired. (Testimony of Grant). Respondent returned to Grant's home, on two occasions1 after the discovery of continuing leakage in the roof over the rear portion of Grant's home. However, respondent did not perform roof repairs on either occasion. On the first occasion, he merely removed equipment which he had left at Grant's home. (Testimony of Grant). After Grant complained to petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, respondent returned a second time. He inspected the rear portion of Grant's roof, removed two layers of slate from the roof, and tested it by pouring water over it. Although this test revealed that Grant's roof still leaked, Grant made no effort to repair the leakage. (Testimony of Grant). Arthur Mayer, then the Building Official for the City of Sebastian, observed respondent removing the slate from the roof. He instructed respondent that, upon finishing the work, he should go to the Sebastian City Hall and apply for a roofer's license and a permit for the roof repairs already performed on Grant's home. Respondent promised to comply. (Testimony of Mayer). But, despite his promise, he failed to apply for and obtain a license to engage in the business of roofing contracting in the City of Sebastian, Florida. He also failed to apply for and obtain a roof permit, and pay the proper late fees, as required by Section 107.2, Standard Building Code, as adopted by the City of Sebastian, Florida, in Section 7-16, Article II, Sebastian Code of Ordinances. (Testimony of Mayer; Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 8a and c). Grant, eventually, had his roof repaired by another contractor at a cost of $150.00. (Testimony of Grant).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's registered roofing contractor's license be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry E. Smith Route 1, Box 111B Fellsmere, Florida 32948 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a roofing contractor and held license number RC 0021620. Respondent has worked in the roofing business since 1947 and has been a licensed contractor since 1969. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the owner and qualifying agent for Dingle Roofing Company. There have been no previous disciplinary actions brought against the Respondent and he has never been sued. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At the time his deposition was taken Ted Matchett lived in Crescent City, Florida. At all other times pertinent hereto, Mr. Matchett was the owner and a resident of a duplex located at 2595 Tigertail, Miami, Florida. Mr. Matchett lived in one side of the duplex, which consisted of approximately two- thirds of the property, with his housekeeper, Daniel Lopez. The remainder of the duplex was rented to a tenant who was not identified by name. The roof of Mr. Matchett's duplex consisted of two pitched roofs which tied in to a flat roof. Prior to the work at issue in this proceeding, the pitched portions of the roof were covered with Spanish tile. The roof was approximately twenty years old, leaked in several locations, and was in bad repair. The evidence in this proceeding is consistent with the opinion expressed by the Respondent that Mr. Matchett's roof should have been replaced five years before he contracted with Respondent. At some date prior to contracting with the Respondent, Mr. Matchett hired a "handyman" to go up on his roof and repair the leaks that Mr. Matchett had detected. This handyman did not testify at the formal hearing and his qualifications as a roofer were not established. The handyman patched portions of the flat roof by covering the existing roof with slats and plywood, covering this with tar paper, and applying cold tar. The manner in which the handyman repaired Mr. Matchett's roof does not meet the South Florida Building Code and is not an effective method of repairing leaks. The only practical way to seal a flat roof is to mop it with hot tar. Mr. Matchett testified that the handyman had stopped the leaks and that his roof was not leaking when Respondent's company began its work. The greater weight of the evidence established that the roof was still leaking after the work by the handyman, and that these leaks could not be stopped until the roof was repaired by a roofer. The flat portion of the roof had an air conditioning unit on it. The vent areas of the air conditioner were still leaking after the handyman had done his work. On July 19, 1991, Dingle Roofing Company entered into a contract with Mr. Matchett to re-roof the subject duplex. The contract between Dingle Roofing Company and Mr. Matchett was on a form used by Dingle Roofing Company. The Respondent negotiated this contract and executed it on behalf of his company. The contract amount for the re-roofing portion of the job was in the amount of $5,460. The parties agreed that Respondent's company would add insulation to one portion of the property for an additional payment of $350. The contract required that debris be removed and that rotten wood be replaced. The amount specified in the contract contemplated that up to 200 feet of rotten wood would be replaced. Any rotten wood in excess of 200 feet that needed to be replaced would be replaced at the rate of $1.40 per foot. The contract was silent as to when payment would be due for replacement of rotten lumber exceeding 200 feet. The following appeared as paragraph two of the "General Terms and Conditions" of the standard form contract used by Dingle Roofing Company: 2. EXCEPTED LABILITY: Dingle Roofing Company shall not be responsible for damages or delay, either before commencement of or during the said work described herein on account of transportation difficulties, priorities, accidents, war, act of God, fire, sudden rains, storms, windstorms, other casualty or theft or other causes beyond its control. There was no beginning date for the work and no completion date specified by the contract. The contract was accepted by Mr. Matchett on July 19, 1991. Pertinent to this proceeding, the form contract contained the name, address and telephone numbers of Dingle Contracting Company and the following language that Petitioner asserts violates the provisions of Section 489.119(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1989): "ALL TYPES OF ROOFS" and "FREE ESTIMATES". The number, CC 000011956, appearing under the Respondent's signature on the contract with Mr. Matchett was not the Respondent's state contractor license number but was a county license number. The Respondent's state contractor license number RC 0021620 did not appear on the contract. On July 23, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $1,000. On August 15, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $2,000. 3/ Respondent's company did not start the subject job right away because he was backed up with work. Mr. Matchett knew at the time he executed the contract that Respondent's company would not be able to immediately begin the work on the roof. On August 12, 1991, Respondent's company began the subject job. The South Florida Building Code, the code used by the City of Miami, required that a building permit be obtained for roof repairs. Respondent's company did not secure a building permit for this work until November 6, 1991. The Respondent's company worked on Mr. Matchett's roof between August 12 and August 16, 1991. There was a considerable amount of rain prior to and during the time Respondent's men started work on the roof. The work began on the pitched parts since a pitched roof is easier to seal off in the event of rain. After drying in the pitched portions of the roof, work began on the flat portion of the roof where most of the rotten wood was located. On August 14, 1991, Respondent's workmen opened a small section of the flat portion of the roof to replace rotten wood. Before they could complete the work, it began to rain. The workers covered the area with plywood and tar. The workmen returned on August 17, 1991, and placed a tarpaulin over this area. There was no evidence that the workmen failed to act within the standards of the industry in sealing this exposed area. Petitioner asserted at the hearing that the workmen tore holes in the roof and caused tile to be dropped through the ceiling of the duplex into the interior of the premises. Mr. Matchett testified that the interior of his home was damaged by these acts and by leaks caused by the workmen employed by Respondent's company. David Dingle and Edward Dingle, two of the workers who did the work on Mr. Matchett's roof, testified at the formal hearing as to the work that was done on the roof and as to the manner in which the work was done. Their testimony conflicts with that of Mr. Matchett. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that while the interior of the duplex was damaged by leaks and there was a hole in the ceiling, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent's workmen caused the leaks that damaged Mr. Matchett's property by the work they did on the duplex. Respondent presented credible evidence that the leaks that damaged the interior of the duplex were on the flat portion of the roof and existed before the Respondent's company began work on the roof. Respondent's company stopped work on Mr. Matchett's roof on August 16, 1991. On August 17, 1991, the workers returned to Mr. Matchett's property, but only to place a tarpaulin over an area of the roof they knew was leaking. Although there were conflicts in the evidence as to the reasons the work was stopped on August 16, 1991, these conflicts are resolved by finding that there were two reasons that work was stopped on that date. First, the workmen discovered that the job was more difficult and would be more expensive because of the amount of rotten wood that needed to be replaced. Respondent had asked Mr. Matchett for more money, but he refused to pay any more until the job was completed. Respondent asked Mr. Matchett for additional money to replace rotten wood since it became apparent that there was rotten wood in excess of 200 feet. 4/ Mr. Matchett had paid the Respondent $3,000, and he refused to make further payment until the work was completed. Second, the rainy season began in South Florida. To properly repair the flat portions of the roof, the Respondent's workmen would have to replace the rotten wood and replace the roof using a hot tar mix. The rotten wood could not be removed during rain because such removal would expose the interior of the house to rain. Additionally, hot tar cannot be mopped on during rain. Mr. Matchett's roof was leaking at the time that the Respondent's company discontinued work in August 1991. Respondent knew that most of the flat portion of the roof was rotten, and he should have known that it was not watertight. Petitioner did not establish what Respondent should have done knowing that the flat roof was not watertight. On August 19, 1991, a heavy rain revealed several leaks. Mr. Matchett made repeated efforts to reach the Respondent by telephone at the telephone numbers listed on the contract. Mr. Matchett talked to the Respondent by telephone on Sunday, October 6, 1991, and was told by the Respondent that he had underestimated the job and that he would finish when he could. After August 17, 1991, the Respondent's company did no further work on Mr. Matchett's roof until November 4, 1991. Thereafter, the Respondent's men worked steadily until they completed the dry-in on November 11, 1991. The dry- in passed inspection on November 22, 1991, and the Respondent finished the job in December, 1991. Petitioner failed to establish that the failure of Respondent's company to resume work on Mr. Matchett's roof prior to November, 1991, constituted fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The only expert testimony in this proceeding was that Respondent acted consistent with the industry practices considering the rainy season, the extensive amount of rotten wood that needed to be repaired, and Mr. Matchett's unwillingness to pay for the additional wood that the job required. Petitioner introduced no expert testimony to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which: Finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and which assesses an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $100.00 for that violation. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of July 1994.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Jesse Bruce, Respondent herein, is a registered roofing contractor and has been issued license No. RC0022948. On September 2, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract to repair a roof at 3684 NW 29th Street, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, for Ms. Beryl Babb for the sum of $485.00. Respondent admits that he commenced construction under the above-referenced contract without first having obtained a building permit. Respondent was paid in full under the contract by Ms. Babb on September 4, 1981. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, Respondent provided for a two-year warranty on the roof repairs. Within an approximate two-month period following the repairs by Respondent, Ms. Babb made repeated phone calls to Respondent's construction company to report complaints that she was having in that the roof and garage appeared to "leak more than it had leaked prior to the repairs." Ms. Babb made at least six telephone calls to Respondent's construction company to no avail. During November, 1981, Ms. Babb filed a civil complaint in small claims court and during January, 1982, Ms. Babb received a judgment against the Respondent for $300.00. 1/ Respondent ahs been a licensed and registered roofing contractor since October, 1974. Respondent acknowledged that he received complaints from Ms. Babb as was testified herein; however, he states that he was busy during the times in which the complaints were made, an further that he did not want to make repairs inasmuch as Ms. Babb had elected to file a civil complaint against him in small claims court. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he was obliged to return tot he Babb residence to make the repairs inasmuch as the complaints from Ms. Babb came during the two-year period in which the warranty for the roof repairs was in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Jesse Bruce 721 NW 20th Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that at all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C58099. Respondent passed the licensing examination in August 1995. Case No. 99-0261 Respondent is not a licensed roofing contractor. Respondent's Certified General Contractor's license did not and does not permit him to obtain roofing permits to perform any type of work on roofs. Respondent's Certified General Contractor's license number was not low enough for him to be grandfathered in by the State to allow him to lawfully perform roofing work with his Certified General Contractor's license. On or about February 23, 1998, Delfina Valdes contracted with Johnny Hatcher, d/b/a Hatcher's Roofing, to repair the roof on her residence located at 18101 Northwest 32 Avenue, Miami, Florida. They contracted for Hatcher to remove Valdes' old roof and install a new roof at a cost of $4,000. Valdes paid Hatcher $2,000 as a down payment toward the cost of the roof's repair. At no time material hereto was Hatcher a licensed roofing contractor. Furthermore, at no time material hereto was Hatcher's Roofing qualified by the State of Florida to perform contracting. Hatcher removed the roof from Valdes' residence. After removing the roof, he did not perform any more work. Respondent met with Valdes and represented to her that Hatcher was working for him. Respondent further represented that he would obtain the permit for the roofing work. Respondent paid Cayetano Alfonso to obtain a roofing permit for the work on Valdes' roof. On or about March 26, 1998, Alfonso made application to Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation for the roofing permit, which was subsequently issued. Alfonso was a Certified General Contractor who was licensed to perform roofing work. Alfonso's Certified General Contractor's license number was low enough for him to be grandfathered in by the State to allow him to lawfully perform roofing work with his Certified General Contractor's license. Alfonso was not the qualifier for Hatcher's Roofing nor was he Respondent's qualifier. Alfonso did not enter into the contract with Valdes for repairing her roof. Alfonso was not a party to the contract for repairing Valdes' roof. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Hatcher was not acting on behalf of Alfonso when he entered into the contract with Valdes. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Respondent was not acting on behalf of Alfonso when he represented to Valdes that he would obtain the permit for the roofing work. When Respondent discovered that Hatcher had received a $2,000 deposit from Valdes, he requested Alfonso to cancel the permit. On or about April 20, 1998, Alfonso cancelled the roofing permit. On or about June 5, 1998, Valdes cancelled the contract between her and Hatcher Roofing. Valdes received a refund of the $2,000 from Hatcher, through a third party, that she had paid him. Case No. 98-4859 On or about April 9, 1995, Respondent entered into a contract with Susan Casper to construct an addition to her residence located at 17350 Northeast 12th Court, North Miami Beach, Florida, at a cost of $38,135. Casper paid Respondent $36,285.00 toward the cost of the addition. Respondent was not licensed at the time that he entered into the contract. On or about March 20, 1996, Respondent obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation for the work on the addition. Several delays were encountered during the performance of the work. Some of the delays resulted from changes by Casper, which changes required approval by Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation; however, most of the delays were Respondent's own doing. In October 1996, Casper paid $2,588 to Best Truss Company for a claim of lien filed on her residence, associated with the work being performed on her residence. Respondent worked sporadically on Casper's addition through April 1997. He would inform her at times that he was returning but failed to return. At one point, Casper's children constructed a sign in their own handwriting, instructing Respondent to keep out and indicating that there was no trespassing by him. The sign was posted on the door of Casper's residence. Casper informed Respondent that her children constructed the sign. It was obvious that the keep out, no trespassing sign was constructed by children. Respondent's assertion that he was kept away from Casper's residence by the children's sign is not credible. Even after the children's sign was posted on the front door of Casper's residence, Respondent agreed with Casper to resume work, and he did so. However, his work was sporadic. In or around June 1997, Casper sought assistance from the Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Planning, Development and Regulation to get Respondent to complete the work. In July 1997, Respondent obtained a window permit for the work on Casper's residence. After July 1997, Respondent ceased working on Casper's residence. He did not provide Casper with any notice that he was ceasing work. Respondent had no valid reason for ceasing the work. In September 1997, Casper transferred the permit for the work on her residence from Respondent's name to her name. Respondent failed to perform all the work under the contract. Some of the work performed by Respondent or caused to be performed by Respondent contained code violations and needed correcting. Certain work performed by Respondent or caused to be performed by Respondent needed correcting. Wood doors, glass block, electrical work, and a sprinkler were in need of correction. Casper bore the expense of the corrections. The corrective work was completed at a cost of $1,675.00. The value of the work performed by Respondent on Casper's residence was $18,272, minus the cost of the corrective work of $1,675, which equals a total value of the work at $16,597. This cost value includes overhead and profit. Even though the value of the work by Respondent was $16,597, Casper paid Respondent $36,285, a difference of $19,688. Casper hired a new contractor on or about September 17, 1997, to complete the construction on her residence at a cost of $16,350. As to Case No. 98-4859, as of January 26, 1999, Petitioner incurred a cost of $1,108.76 for the investigation and prosecution of Respondent. Petitioner previously disciplined Respondent for violating Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (1995), including violating Subsection 489.127(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1995), abandonment of a construction project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order and therein: As to Case No. 99-0261, finding that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). As to Case No. 98-4859, finding that Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), in Count I; and dismissing Count II. Revoking Respondent's license. Ordering Respondent to pay restitution to Susan Casper in the amount of $19,688.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard F. Hayes, Esquire 10300 Sunset Drive, No. 499 Miami, Florida 33173 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
