Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Maccelli, is a certified general contractor in inactive status for the period 1981 through 1983, holding License #CG C011040. He was in inactive status as of June 1, 1981. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Respondent was employed as a building inspector for Broward County, Florida. He was required to be a certified contractor to fill this position. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) On June 1, 1982, Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of violating Section 838.015, Florida Statutes, by taking a bribe in relation to the performance of his duties as a building inspector for Broward County. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Robert Maccelli, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke the certificate of Respondent as a general contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 13th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Mr. Robert Maccelli Post Office Box 8243 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent undertook to act as a contractor without a license as charged in the Administrative Complaints, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 20.165, the Division of Professions is a subordinate unit of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department). The Department provides administrative support, including prosecutorial support to the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board), which is also located within the Department. Mr. Grandmont is not currently licensed as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in this state, nor has he ever been licensed by the Board. Mr. Grandmont's last known address is 355 China Berry Circle, Davenport, Florida. He was provided notice of the hearing at that address, and at 7733 Park Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28210, which is the address he used when demanding a hearing on disputed facts in two of these cases. In DOAH Case No. 06-3279, he provided no address in his demand for a hearing. All attempts by U. S. Mail to notify Mr. Grandmont of the hearing, were returned. Mr. Grandmont is deemed to have known of the time, date, and place of the hearing, and is deemed to have waived his appearance at the hearing. On November 11, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Robert L. Coe, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged mobile home. He provided a written estimate of $10,500. The estimate contained a list of 11 items requiring repair, and stated that he would accomplish the repair of them. He demanded a $4,200 down payment, which Mr. Coe provided in a draft drawn on Fidelity Cash Reserves, and dated November 11, 2005. Mr. Coe never saw Mr. Grandmont again. The repairs set forth in the written estimate were not accomplished. The draft, however, was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont. On November 12, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Joseph Webster, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to repair his damaged residence. Mr. Grandmont discussed charging $13,500 in return for repairing Mr. Webster's residence. After negotiations, Mr. Grandmont agreed to do it for $11,500. No written estimate or contract was prepared. Mr. Grandmont demanded $5,750 payment in advance. Mr. Webster rounded off the down payment to $6,000 and presented Mr. Grandmont an official check of the Taunton Federal Credit Union, of Taunton, Massachusetts, for that amount. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the promised repairs were not accomplished. On November 4, 2005, subsequent to Hurricane Wilma, Ella Arseneau, of Lake Worth, Florida, was contacted by Mr. Grandmont, who offered to replace her roof. He provided an estimate of $5,500 in return for repairing Ms. Arseneau's residence. He demanded that she pay $3,500 in advance, which Ms. Arseneau provided by presenting Mr. Grandmont a check for $3,500, drawn on an account in Wachovia Bank. The check was negotiated by Mr. Grandmont, but the roof was not repaired as promised. Mr. Coe is 78 years of age, Mr. Webster is 85, and Ms. Arseneau is 77.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation impose a fine upon Clifford Grandmont in the amount of $30,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Clifford Grandmont 7733 Park Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Simone Marstiller, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent committed various violations of Chapter 489, F.S., regulating the practice of contracting, by failing to complete a roofing job which he had agreed to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Michael W. Ballans was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor, holding License Number CB C036542. He qualified as an individual doing business at 1107 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida 32769. On April 6, 1988, H. Earl Fisher signed his acceptance of a written proposal by Michael Ballans for Ballans to install a new roof on Fisher's double-wide trailer at 7650 E. Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway, in St. Cloud, Florida. The price for the job was $1,575.00, for supplies and labor. Fisher made an initial payment of $1,018.00 on June 6, 1988. Materials were delivered to the job site, but Ballans never commenced work. Fisher contacted Ballans four or five times to try to get him to do the job or to get someone else to do it. Ballans never returned the funds and at one point told Fisher that he could not do the work because he lost his insurance. Fisher did not agree to do the work himself and told Ballans he wanted the money back and the materials removed from his property. Stanton Alexander was qualified as an expert in construction industry contracting, including roofing. He has practiced in the profession for approximately thirty years. He served two terms on the construction industry licensing board, including a term as chairman. He has testified in the past as an expert in construction industry practices. A contractor terminates his responsibility under a contract after payment and final inspection and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Until then, he is responsible for completion of the job. Proper procedure when a contractor becomes unable, to complete a job is to refund the money and remove the materials or to get permission from the building department and owner to bring in another contractor to complete the work. Michael Ballans did neither, and simply abandoned the job. This deviation from the standards of construction industry practice constitutes incompetency or misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Michael W. Ballans guilty of violations alleged in Counts I, II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 16th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael W. Ballans 2314 Knob Hill Drive, Apt. #12 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0031831. During the times of the alleged violations, the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for J & J Construction Company (the company.) The principals of the company were the Respondent and a man named James Jimenez. Both men sold jobs for the company and were responsible for overseeing some of the work of the company. The Respondent pulled permits for, and was primarily responsible for, the roofing work contracted by the company. But sometimes, when the company had more than one job going at the same time, the Respondent would be primarily responsible for overseeing one, and Jimenez would be primarily responsible for overseeing the other. The Respondent thought that Jimenez held a license of some kind that enabled him to do some kinds of minor renovation construction. The Respondent restricted his work to roofing and did not mind Jimenez doing some renovation work on the side, separate from the business of the company. But the Respondent understood that Jimenez' "side deals" would be done separately under Jimenez' own license and would not be part of the business of the company. On or about August 14, 1986, Jimenez entered into a contract on behalf of the company to build an addition, remodel and reroof the existing structure and roof the addition of the residence of Ernest and Mercedes Riccio located at 3117 West Henry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price was $18,999. Jimenez telephoned the Respondent about the job but only told him about the part of the contract that called for the existing roof to be torn off and reroofed. He told the Respondent that the contract price for the job was $3,800. The Respondent pulled a permit for what he thought was the job and started and finished what he thought was the work to be done. The Respondent personally was compensated approximately $700-$800 for his part in the reroofing job. When the Respondent was finished, Jimenez continued with the rest of the contract, which was to include roofing the addition, without telling the Respondent about it. Jimenez did not get very far before a Tampa building inspector happened past and, seeing unfamiliar work in process, inspected the job site. He discovered that the building permit displayed at the site had been altered to expand the work purportedly permitted to include building, in addition to the roofing work for which the Respondent had obtained a permit. Someone other than the Respondent (probably Jimenez although he denied it) altered the permit. The Respondent knew nothing about the contract (other than the reroofing that he did), the alteration of the permit, or the work Jimenez was doing after he left the site. When he discovered the permit violations, the building inspector "red- tagged" the entire job, and work stopped. That was only the beginning of the Riccios' problems. Further investigation revealed that the job would require not only a valid permit but also zoning variances and utility easements. Although the contract had called for the company to obtain all necessary permits, Jimenez and the Riccios agreed that the Riccios would apply for whatever else was necessary in their own names and that Jimenez would assist them. By the time work stopped, the Riccios already had paid the company $12,666 of the total contract price. Nonetheless, when Jimenez' minimal assistance did not resolve the Riccios' problems quickly, Jimenez decided that he already had put too much into the job, and he began to lose interest and make himself scarce. The Riccios finally got their necessary permits on January 26, 1987. They then approached Jimenez about the work to be done under the contract (and the matter of the remaining $6,333 draw). The Riccios and Jimenez agreed that the Riccios would provide the materials and supplies necessary to complete the work and the company would provide the labor. Despite these alternate arrangements, the company did not promptly finish the job. Eventually, the Riccios gave up on Jimenez and in April or May, 1987, began to deal directly with the company's former job superintendent, a man named Ray. To improve their chances of getting the job done (and reduce some of their extra expenses), the Riccios agreed to allow Ray to live in the house free of charge while they were doing the work. The job still did not get finished. Eventually, Mrs. Riccio and some of her relatives finished the job themselves. Even so, the Riccios wound up spending about $20,000, in addition to the $12,666 they had paid the company, to complete the job which the company had contracted to do for $18,999, total. The Respondent was not aware of any of Jimenez' dealings with the Riccios after the Respondent completed his reroofing work. The Respondent assumed that Jimenez had called for a final inspection and that the job had been completed satisfactorily. But in approximately February or March, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by a DPR investigator in connection with the Riccios' complaint against the company. He learned at about that time about Jimenez' other dealings with the Riccios. He also learned that the roof over the addition that had been built had failed inspection. The Respondent eventually corrected the deficiencies, and the roof passed final inspection on August 19, 1987. The Respondent attempts to excuse himself of any wrongdoing, saying that he had a right to delegate the supervision of jobs such as the Riccio job to Jimenez and that he himself was victimized by Jimenez, along with the Riccios. Respondent nonetheless negotiated with Jimenez through the end of the year 1987 in an attempt to come to an agreement to continue to do business together, but the negotiations finally failed. The Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 7, 1988, for offenses which occurred during the same time frame in which the Riccio job took place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald F. Royal, pro se 8509 North 16 Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, James Cordray, was licensed as a registered mechanical contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), under license Number RM0016993, and Cordray Electric Company, Inc., was qualified by the Respondent under his license with the Board. Respondent was President of both Cordray Electric, Inc. and Sharp Construction. The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board is now and was at all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the state agency responsible for licensing of contractors in Florida. On January 8, 1985, Robert Lee Johns entered into a contract with Sharp for the construction of a dwelling in Tampa, Florida. The contract was executed by Johns as owner and by Sondra D. Thompson Sharp's Vice President. Respondent was not present when the contract was signed. It was not until three days later, in Sharp's office, that Mr. Johns met Respondent and at that point, Ms. Thompson identified Respondent as President of the company. As a result of their conversations, Mr. Johns was led to believe that Respondent was to be the contractor on the construction of his house. Mr. Johns arranged financing for the project through Amerifirst Savings Bank and construction was to begin on or about June 19, 1985. The terms of the contract provided that work was to be completed within 125 working days from the date of start of construction. During the period of construction, several draws against the construction loan were made by Respondent's firm with the last draw taking place on September 23, 1985. With that draw, $45,124.00 was paid to Sharp Construction Company. When construction stopped before the house was completed, Mr. Johns first spoke with Ms. Thompson who indicated she would try to see what had caused the liens to be filed against the property and why construction had stopped. After two weeks without an answer, Mr. Johns went to see Respondent in person at his office on or about December 18, 1985. During the conversation, Respondent blamed Ms. Thompson for the difficulty, saying that she had paid bills on other projects with the draw money from the Johns account rather than paying the bills due on his property. At this point, according to Respondent, it was out of his hands and repeated questioning by Mr. Johns met with evasive answers. As a result of this conversation, Mr. Johns immediately discharged Sharp. Thereafter, acting as his own general contractor, Mr. Johns arranged with other subcontractors to complete the items remaining to be done on the house. At this point, the kitchen cabinets had been installed and the exterior walls had been stuccoed, but neither the wiring nor the plumbing had been completed nor was the drywall installed. Though the contract cost for the construction was supposed to be $56,830.00, by the time Mr. Johns finished paying for the work left undone by Sharp the total cost to build the residence was somewhat in excess of $61,000.00. This figure was arrived at by adding the total amount of unpaid bills for work done or materials furnished on the house unpaid at the time Sharp stopped work, ($20,225.00); the total amount of bills paid on the construction by Sharp while it was doing the work, ($26,205.99); and $16,125.00 paid by Mr. Johns for work left undone. On March 26, 1985, Kathy M. Rodriguez entered into a contract with Sharp for the building of a residence in Tampa with a purchase price of $59,900.00. As in the previous case, Respondent was not present at the signing of the contract and it was executed on behalf of Sharp by Ms. Thompson. Ms. Rodriguez made a down payment of $20,000.00. Because of some difficulty with the city, it was impossible to start work on this project right away. It was agreed that work was to start in August, 1985, when the difficulty with the city was supposed to be resolved. Construction did not begin as scheduled, however, and Ms. Rodriguez began repeated calls to Sharp's office, attempting to reach Respondent. She finally spoke with him in October, 1985, at which time he indicated that work would soon start. However, shortly after that conversation, Ms. Thompson advised Ms. Rodriguez there might be some problems with the building because Sharp was having financial difficulties. At this point, Ms. Rodriguez and her attorney met Respondent at his office in early November, 1985. At this point, only the footers for the house had been dug and poured. Ms. Rodriguez asked if she could get her deposit back and deal with another contractor in light of the possibility that Sharp's financial problems might interfere with construction. Respondent then told her he had no intention of filing bankruptcy but, if she desired, would reimburse her the $20,000.00 she had placed as a deposit in December, 1985. He admitted he was having some difficulties and that her deposit had been used to buy material for other projects. Sharp did no further work on the project. Ms. Rodriguez was not given her deposit back and she thereafter filed a complaint with the police. In addition, she was required to pay a subcontractor $435.00 additional for digging and pouring the footer. Mr. Cordray is currently repaying Ms. Rodriguez the $20,000.00 consistent with an Order of the Circuit Court. His payments are current. On July 23, 1985, Geralde J. Upcavage entered into a contract with Sharp for the building of a residence to be valued at $29,428.00. Though the contract was signed by Ms. Thompson for Sharp, Respondent was present at the signing as President of the company and the contractor with whom Mr. Upcavage was dealing. No deposit was called for in the contract nor was one given. Financing for the project was secured with Pioneer Savings Bank which agreed to pay all draws directly to Sharp. Construction on the Upcavage residence started in either July or early August, 1985 and stopped at some date prior to November 13, 1985, probably in mid-September. Mr. Upcavage is not sure of the exact time. At the time construction was stopped, the slab was poured, the footers were in, and basic plumbing had been installed. The bank had issued one draw in the amount of $4,153.00 on or about October 4, 1985. When the construction was stopped, Mr. Upcavage contacted Ms. Thompson and the Respondent several times. Respondent stated that the work stoppage was due to a delay in delivery of certain materials but no additional work was ever done on this property. Mr. Upcavage also received several notices from subcontractors that they had not been paid. The subcontractors included CastCrete, (concrete); the plumber; the fill dirt supplier; and others. When Mr. Upcavage received these notices, he spoke with Respondent who told him not to worry about it - this was a normal situation. At that time, Respondent said nothing to Mr. Upcavage about experiencing any financial difficulties. On November 13, 1985, CastCrete Corporation filed a lien against the property for $351.50. When Mr. Upcavage was notified of this lien he immediately called Ms. Thompson who said that Cordray Electric Company was going bankrupt. At this point Mr. Upcavage prepared a handwritten release which he prevailed upon Respondent to sign, which he, Mr. Upcavage, believed released him from any further obligation to deal with Sharp. When he received the signed release, Mr. Upcavage paid the other suppliers off prior to their filing liens and he satisfied the lien filed by CastCrete plus a recording fee. The total amount he paid to satisfy the lien and the unpaid subcontractors and suppliers was somewhat in excess $2,000.00. After securing the release from Respondent, Mr. Upcavage contracted with another contractor who was recommended by Ms. Thompson. This contractor got the complete construction file from Sharp and completed the work for an additional $2,000.00. At no time was Mr. Upcavage ever reimbursed by Respondent for the amounts he had to spend over and above the contract price to have his house completed. At the time the Upcavage contract was signed in June, 1985, subcontractors and suppliers were already complaining. Ms. Thompson advised Respondent of this and it is clear Respondent was aware of the situation. Ms. Thompson started working for Sharp in 1983 as a salesperson. At that time the company was owned by Mr. Sharp, a licensed builder. Respondent later took over the firm. As the vice president in charge of sales she was to negotiate with prospective purchasers, estimate the cost of construction, and enter into contracts for construction at that price, approved by Respondent. Once the contract was signed, it was also her responsibility to line up the subcontractors and supervise construction. She did all of this even though she had no experience in the construction business and was not licensed as a contractor. She solicited the contracts in issue here. Under the routine practice in Sharp's office and that of Cordray Electric, Inc., when suppliers' subcontractors' bills were received, she would list the amount on a running account sheet she maintained for each construction project as appropriate, and then send them to Mr. Henry, the bookkeeper, to pay. She did not keep nor did she see the corporate books. The working arrangement she had with Mr. Henry for the payment of subcontractors and suppliers called for the oldest bills or those from suppliers who were currently providing supplies to be paid first. The others had to wait. Mr. Henry contends that he was instructed by Ms. Thompson as to what bills were to be paid and from which draw installment the payments were to come. Ms. Thompson denies this, stating that she did not receive the draw checks which went directly to Mr. Henry when the mail came in. In evaluating the relative merits of the testimony, it would appear, and it is found, that checks were delivered directly upon receipt to the bookkeeper who paid them in accordance with the above-described protocol. In any case, both Thompson and Henry told Respondent that bills could not be paid. Ms. Thompson had authority in writing from Mr. Angel Gonzales, vice president of Sharp and a director of Cordray Electric, Inc., a licensed contractor, to pull permits on his license. He was, however, to have been told what projects his license was being used for. Ms. Thompson indicates that she would apply for permits under Sharp's name which had been qualified by Mr. Gonzales. In each of the cases involved here, however, the permits issued reflected Cordray Electric, Inc., as the contractor of record. Ms. Thompson does not understand why this happened, and no evidence was introduced by any party to explain it. Construction was stopped on the Johns' residence because the subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid on the prior job they had done for Sharp. When subcontractors would complain, Ms. Thompson would try to pacify and satisfy them. At the beginning, they were advancing credit to Sharp Construction but this practice quickly stopped. Ms. Thompson's cost estimates were figured on a square foot basis in these three contracts, following a procedure she had always followed. Both Mr. Johns and Mr. Upcavage had their own plans, but Sharp provided the plans for the Rodriguez construction to her specifications. Ms. Thompson ultimately resigned from her position with Mr. Cordray because she was uncomfortable with the way things were going. A lot of homeowners were being hurt and she was frustrated with her inability to get any work done.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered mechanical contractor in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 18th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James C. Cordray 1526 Rivershores Way Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The central issue in this case is Petitioner's challenge to part III of the licensure examination as set forth in his letter dated September 8, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert E. Rosser, is a candidate for licensure as a general contractor. Petitioner has taken the examination to become a licensed general contractor consecutively over the last four years. As a result of the twelve attempts at the examination, Petitioner has passed parts I and II on two separate test dates. In his attempts to pass the examination Petitioner has enrolled in and studied for the examination with two approved construction schools. Petitioner scored a 68 on part III of the general contractor's examination for the June 16, 1994 test date. Petitioner timely challenged questions related to part III (Project Management) of the general contractor's examination given on June 16, 1994. Petitioner attended a review session and claimed that as to question 2 his scratch sheet from the examination demonstrates he had used formulas properly and that he had inadvertently marked the incorrect response on the answer grid sheet. The minimum score required to pass part III of the examination was 70. For each of the challenged questions in part III (2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 20) Respondent presented competent evidence to support the correct answer as scored by the Department. The Petitioner did not present credible evidence to dispute the accuracy of the answers which had been deemed correct by the Department. Based upon those answers, the Petitioner's score sheet was tabulated correctly. The questions challenged were clearly and unambiguously worded and contained sufficient factual information to reach a correct answer. The examination was open book and applicants were allowed to use reference materials. All current techniques were considered before the correct answer was chosen. All knowledge needed to reach a correct answer was within a candidate's expected range of expertise. The Department's scoring of part III was not arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. For each of the challenged questions, the correct answer was scored at a higher percentage than the answers marked by Petitioner. In fact, for question 4, for example, 79 percent of the examinees scored the correct answer while only 3 percent marked the same answer as Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Testing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the general contractor's examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5214 Rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner did not number the paragraphs denoted as "STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS". The lettered paragraphs are addressed as listed; but where no letter identified the paragraph, the rulings are as to the paragraphs in the order of presentation. Paragraph [A] is accepted. Paragraph [B] is accepted to the extent it identifies Petitioner as a candidate otherwise rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.005 is an error. It is accepted that the minimum passing grade for the challenged part is 70 percent out of 100 percent. Paragraph [C] is accepted in substance; however, Petitioner's citation to Rule 21E-16.003 is an error. The next paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is accepted as a correct statement of procedural review. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 4 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 7 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 9 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 11 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 17 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected as not a statement of fact. Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 18 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The next paragraph is rejected regarding question 20 is rejected as not a statement of fact or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph [D] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. Paragraph [E] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is not supported by the evidence. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Department and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [F] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [G] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. The next paragraph is merely an address for the Division and is not a statement of fact. Paragraph [H] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [I] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [J] is accepted as statement of procedural information but is irrelevant. Paragraph [K] is rejected as contrary to the record in this case since an order of prehearing instruction was not entered in this case and interrogatories were not served. Paragraph [L] is rejected as irrelevant, not a statement of fact, and contrary to the record. Moreover, Petitioner's scratch sheets have been received as Petitioner's exhibit 1. Paragraph [M] is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [N] is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [O] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph [P] is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 1 is accepted as statement of procedural information. Paragraph 2 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. Paragraph 3 is accepted as to the substance but is not a statement of relevant fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Rosser P.O. Box 560541 Miami, Florida 33256-0541 William M. Woodyard Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-6310
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds certification with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a general contractor and a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license numbers CG C009484 and RC0043155, respectively. Tate has qualified a company known as Allstate Roofing and Construction, Co., under the terms of the aforementioned licenses, and at times relevant to this inquiry, operated under that company name. On February 17, 1983, respondent through his business name, Allstate Roofing and Construction, contracted with Wayne Lackey to furnish the necessary labor and materials to build a 28' by 78'brick-veneered housing shell in Clay County, Florida. The specified amount of the contract was $34,365 to be paid in four equal draws, or installments, in the amount of $8,591.25, following the completion of work related to each of the phases. In accordance with the contract terms, Lackey paid the respondent three draws in the amount of $8,591.25, upon assurances that respondent had satisfied the expenses related to subcontractors, suppliers, and materialmen. Respondent requested advance payment of the final draw and indicated to Lackey that this money was to be used to pay for materials related to the construction of the housing shell. Lackey complied with this request and made two advanced payments on the fourth draw in the amount of $2,700 and $500. The total amount of the three draws and the advance payments related to the fourth draw was $28,973.75. At the point of paying the advance on the fourth draw, Tate had also told Lackey that all subcontractors, materialmen and suppliers had been paid, and indicated to Lackey that a written lien affidavit acknowledging that all the costs had been satisfied would be provided to Lackey at the conclusion of the construction. While respondent was still obligated under the terms of the contract, Lackey began to receive phone calls and statutory notices of intentions on the part of materialmen, subcontractors and suppliers indicating that they would lien the homesite of the owner, Lackey. These demands were made on the basis that several of these claimants had not been paid for services or' supplies. When Lackey confronted the respondent, the respondent initially told Lackey to ignore those notices and that they had been paid on checks drawn on the Allstate account. In fact, the claimants had either not been paid, or had been paid with checks upon which insufficient funds were available to honor the checks drawn on respondent's business account. Under the circumstances, the claimants continued to press Lackey for satisfaction of their claims for labor and supplies. As a consequence the Lackey's had to expend money of their own to satisfy the contract conditions on the subject of costs for services by subcontractors, materialmen, and suppliers. These costs should have been defrayed by respondent pursuant to the terms of the contract. Some of the expenses, which are recounted below, were expenses incurred prior to the respondent's entitlement to his fourth draw. Payments by the owners to the claimants are as follows: Acorn Windows Mr. Silvers, carpenter Mr. Bruning for fill material Joe Williamson, brickmason & concrete =$1,875.50 =$1,183.57 =$ 551.00 =$1,100.00 Taylor Concrete =$1,629.85 Mr. Karneol, clean-up =$ 200.00 United Electric =$1,523.00 SUBTOTAL PAID BY CHECK BY THE LACKEYS =$8,060.92 Cash payments for which receipts were given: Williamson =$1,000.00 United Electric =$ 800.00 door hardware =$ 136.08 TOTAL EXPENDITURE BY THE OWNERS =$10,003.00 When the amount paid by the Lackeys to subcontractors, materialmen, and suppliers is added to the $28,973.75 paid directly to the respondent, the expenditure on the part of the Lackeys' was $38,976.75. Respondent is due credits for extras in the amount of $200 for rear concrete slab, $160 for extra brick, and $70 for an interior door. That sum of $430 when subtracted from the overall payments of the Lackeys leaves $38,546.75 expended by the Lackeys, which exceeds the agreement, or contract price, between the respondent and the Lackeys by $4,181.75. From the facts presented, it is evident that the Lackeys did not receive the performance from the respondent which they were entitled to under the terms of the contract, and as a consequence, had to pay an additional $4,181.75 above the contract price, before receiving what they had bargained for. This was at some considerable inconvenience in time as well as money. The proof is not clear on whether the respondent diverted monies or property which he had received to carry out the contract with the Lackeys into some other pursuit or whether respondent made a bargain with the Lackeys which could not be concluded with the amount of available funds which the respondent had accepted by contract as being sufficient for the Lackeys to perform their obligation under the contract.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, (1992 Supp.). Specifically, the Respondent has been charged in a four-count Administrative Complaint with violations of paragraphs (k), (m), (n) and (p) of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007303, by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. On September 18, 1992, the Respondent, doing business as an individual, contracted with Charles and Elba Williams (hereinafter referred to as "Customers") to reroof their dwelling and shed at 15205 SW 78 Place, Miami, Florida, for the price of Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventeen dollars ($15,117.00). On October 1, 1992, the aforementioned contract was amended to provide for the payment of half of the second draw before the second stage of the project was completed, and to provide for the payment of an additional Three Hundred and Fifty One dollars ($351.00) in materials. On November 5, 1992, the aforementioned contract was amended to provide the Customers with a credit on the contract of One Thousand, Six Hundred Thirty Six dollars and Sixty Four cents ($1,636.64) for their purchase of roof shingles. The revised contract price was Sixteen Thousand and Fifty Eight dollars ($16,058.00). The Customers paid the Respondent Twelve Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy Seven dollars and Ninety cents ($12,277.90) toward the contract. After receiving a credit on the balance due on the contract, the Customers owed Two Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two dollars and Thirty Two cents ($2,142.32) to the Respondent. On September 23, 1992, the Respondent obtained roofing permit number 92-110050 for the Customers' project from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. The Respondent worked on the Customers' roof from September 23, 1992, through November 15, 1992, when the installation of the shingles was completed. On November 19, 1992, the Respondent failed a final inspection performed on the Customers' roof by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department because the Respondent failed to supply Dade County with product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent he had installed. On November 24, 1992, the Respondent again failed a final inspection performed on the Customers' roof by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for the same reason as on November 19, 1992. The Respondent never obtained a passing final inspection on the Customers' roof from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. On November 24, 1992, the Customers sent the Respondent a Certified letter, Return Receipt requested, informing the Respondent that the roof could not pass final inspection until Dade County was provided with the product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent he had installed. On December 4, 1992, the Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for failure to provide product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent that had been installed on the Customers' roof. On December 4, 1992, the Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation from the Dade County Building and Zoning Department for failure to remove construction debris from the Customers' property. The Respondent did not comply with either Dade County Notice of Violation and did not supply the Dade County Building and Zoning Department with the product approval information and manufacturer installation specifications for the ridge vent that had been installed on the Customers' roof. The Customers were left with a roof that did not comply with Dade County Code. On March 26, 1993, the Customers paid a Forty Five dollar ($45.00) renewal fee to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and had the roofing permit renewed and reissued in their own names. On March 4, 1993, the Customers paid another contractor, Mark Mitchell, Two Hundred dollars ($200.00) to remove the ridge vent and close the hole in the roof left by the removal of the ridge vent. On March 27, 1993, after the ridge vent had been removed, the Customers paid a Special Investigator, Ken Nash, Fifty dollars ($50.00) to perform a final inspection of the roof. On March 31, 1993, Ken Nash performed a final inspection of the roof and the roof passed inspection. The Customers paid Steve Wooten Thirty dollars ($30.00) to remove construction debris left on their property by the Respondent and to bring their property in compliance with the Notice of Violation issued on December 4, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charges alleged in Counts I, II, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violation charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a fine in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($250.00) for the violation charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 780 Miami, Florida 33156 Mr. Al C. Hufeld Post Office Box 681064 Orlando, Florida 32868-1064 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified building contractor having been issued license No. CE C014020. Be was so licensed and was the qualifier for ARC Construction, Inc. at all times material to this proceeding. On July 25, 1980, Respondent, on behalf of ARC Construction, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Richard Doyle to remodel a residence in St. Petersburg. The contract price was $43,180, plus extras of $1,525. Respondent was paid $1,500 initially and received draw payments of $4,318 on August 11, 1980, $8,636 on August 19, 1980, and $10,795 on September 3, 1980. These payments totaled $25,249, or about 58 percent of the basic contract amount and 56 percent of the contract price with add-ons. Respondent was obligated to pay suppliers and acknowledged this responsibility to the complainant, Mr. Richard Doyle, but advised him that he was having cash flow difficulties. Respondent's checks to Scotty's, dated August 10, 1980, for $2,518.28, and August 22, 1980, for $738.99, were dishonored by the bank. His check for approximately $5,000 to Florida Forest Products was likewise returned. Respondent failed to settle these accounts and the complainant was eventually obliged to do so in order to remove the liens on his property. Respondent ceased work on the project in mid-October, 1980, and was terminated by the complainant in January, 1981. At the time Respondent ceased work the project was 50 percent to 80 percent complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1983, 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James H. Thompson, Esquire 620 Madison Street Suite 2-C Tampa, Florida 33602 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, violated the construction industry licensing law, by: (1) willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the State or any municipalities, cities or counties thereof; (2) diverting construction funds resulting in his unwillingness or inability to perform pursuant to a construction contract; and (3) abandoning a construction project; and if the Respondent is guilty of such violations, the appropriate disciplinary penalty which should be imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation That Respondent's certified general contractor's license No. CGC005174 be suspended until such time as Respondent furnishes the Board satisfactory evidence of having made restitution to Simon H. and Alexandra U. Ramos in the amount of $2,515 for monies expended by them to pay for lumber, electric and plumbing charges arising out of their construction contract.
