The Issue Whether Respondent's License as a residential pool contractor should be suspended for alleged violation of Section 468.112(7), Florida Statutes. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing although proper notice thereof had been furnished under date of February 11, 1976 to him by the hearing officer. Accordingly, the hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a registered pool contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board since June 20, 1974. The license was not renewed for 1975/76 (Exhibit 4). Respondent filed a Voluntary Petition in Bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Bankruptcy No. TBK 75-25, on March 13, 1975 (Exhibit 5).
Recommendation That the registration of William R. MacKinnon as a residential pool contractor be suspended until such time as he meets the qualifications and other requirements for renewal of registration and applies therefor. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William R. Mackinnon Route 3, Box 584C Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following material and relevant facts are found. At no time material hereto was Respondent, Donald Clark, licensed by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in construction contracting. At no time material hereto was Cancun Development Company ever qualified or certified by any State of Florida agency as a certified contractor. With knowledge of that he was not licensed by the State of Florida to solicit, engage in, nor contract for construction work, Respondent entered into an oral agreement with homeowner Ms. Eichar to build a second-story addition to her home, located in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, for a contract price of $30,000.00. Respondent, who was paid by Ms. Eichar a total of $25,000.00, subcontracted with Mr. Erwin, a licensed electrical contractor, to do the electrical work at the Eichar's residence for $2,364.00. Respondent, after notice, failed to attend the formal final hearing regarding this matter. The investigative and prosecution costs to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding cost associated with attorney time, were $550.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered by the Department as follows: Finding Respondent, Donald Clark, guilty of having violated Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint herein filed and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Assess costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $550.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 23rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald Clark 813 East Bloomingdale Avenue Suite 252 Brandon, Florida 32720 Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grades he received on the Business and Financial Management and General Trade Knowledge portions of the April 1996 plumbing contractor certification examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the certification examination for plumbing contractors administered in April of 1996 (Certification Examination). The Certification Examination consisted of two parts. One part contained questions relating to business and financial management. The other part contained questions testing the applicants' general knowledge of the plumbing trade. Prior to the Certification Examination, applicants were given a list of reference materials (Reference Materials) and advised that questions on the test would be taken from these sources, which included AIA Document A201, the Builder's Guide to Accounting, the Contractor's Manual, the National Standard Plumbing Code Illustrated, NFPA 99- Health Care Facilities, and NFPA 54- National Fuel Gas Code. The applicants were further advised that they would be permitted to bring these Reference Materials to the testing site and to use them in attempting to answer examination questions. Question 8--Business and Financial Management, Session One Question 8 of Session One of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required the applicants to determine which one of the choices given did not represent, according to AIA Document A201, a basis upon which an architect could withhold certification of payment. Section 9.5 of AIA Document A201 addresses the subject of "decisions to withhold certification" and provides as follows: DECISIONS TO WITHHOLD CERTIFICATION The Architect may decide not to certify payment and may withhold a Certificate for Payment in whole or in part, to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the Owner, if in the Architect's opinion the representations to the Owner required by Subparagraph 9.4.2 cannot be made. If the Architect is unable to certify payment in the amount of the Application, the Architect will notify the Contractor and Owner as provided in Subparagraph 9.4.1. If the Contractor and Architect cannot agree on a revised amount, the Architect will promptly issue a Certificate for Payment for the amount for which the Architect is able to make such representations to the Owner. The Architect may also decide not to certify payment or, because of subsequently discovered evidence or subsequent observations, may nullify the whole or a part of a Certificate for Payment previously issued, to such extent as may be necessary in the Architect's opinion to protect the Owner from loss because of: defective Work not remedied; third party claims filed or reasonable evidence indicating probable filing of such claims; failure of the Contractor to make payments properly to Subcontractors or for labor, materials or equipment; reasonable evidence that the Work cannot be completed for the unpaid balance of the Contract Sum; damage to the Owner or another contractor; reasonable evidence that the Work will not be completed within the Contract Time, and that the unpaid balance would not be adequate to cover actual or liquidated damages for the anticipated delay; or persistent failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. It is clear from a reading of Section 9.5 of AIA Document A201 that the only correct answer to Question 8 of Session One of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(C)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(B)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 11--Business and Financial Management, Session One Question 11 of Session One of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required the applicants to select the choice which represented the most likely explanation for a decrease in gross profits in relation to sales. Page 149 of the Builder's Guide to Accounting reads, in pertinent part, as follows: A second useful test shows your cash position over a period of time. Take your gross profits as a percentage of sales volume for a given period. Then compute this percentage for a number of periods to get a trend. This indicates the amount of real control you have over your costs. When gross profit decreases in relation to sales, either you are not controlling your costs or your prices do not allow enough markup over your costs. Other factors that affect the level of gross profit can be unexpected inventory losses, increases in idle time, and material theft. It is clear, particularly upon a reading of the foregoing excerpt from the Builder's Guide to Accounting, that the only correct answer to Question 11 of Session One of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(C)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(B)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 33--Business and Financial Management, Session One Question 33 of Session One of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required the applicants to select the choice which accurately described the characteristics of a joint venture. Page 1-15 of the Contractor's Manual gives the following description of a "joint venture": A joint venture is a special combination of two or more persons jointly seeking a profit in some specific venture, without an actual partnership or corporate designation. The rights of persons who intend to do business as joint venture are governed substantially by the same rules that govern partnerships. An oral agreement between the parties may be sufficient to form a joint venture. However, to preclude misunderstandings it is strongly recommended that the agreement be in writing. The primary difference between a partnership and a joint venture is that a partnership is usually created for the transaction of business of a particular type, while the joint venture is usually limited to a single transaction. The advantages and disadvantages of a joint venture are substantially the same as those listed above for partnerships. It is clear, particularly upon a reading of the foregoing excerpt from the Contractor's Manual, that the only correct answer to Question 33 of Session One of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(C)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(B)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 36--Business and Financial Management, Session Two Question 36 of Session Two of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required applicants to determine which of the choices given indicated the point in time when revenue, costs, and expenses are first recognized under the percentage of completion method of accounting. Page 19 of the Builder's Guide to Accounting contains the following statement regarding the percentage of completion method of accounting: The advantage of the percentage of completion method is that income and its related costs, expenses, and profits are recognized and reported as the job progresses. It is clear, particularly upon a reading of the foregoing excerpt from page 19 of the Builder's Guide to Accounting, that the only correct answer to Question 36 of Session Two of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(C)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(D)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 37--Business and Financial Management, Session Two Question 37 of Session Two of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It asked how a contractor can be sure that general ledger entries have been correctly made. Page 202 of the Builder's Guide to Accounting states the following regarding general ledger entries: After you post your ledger at the close of the period, the first step to take in drawing up financial statements is to put together a trial balance. See Figure 21-1. This worksheet proves that the ledger is in balance. In all cases, debits should equal credits. So the total of all debits on one side of the trial balance must equal the total of all credits on the other side. Otherwise, none of the financial statements will balance. . . . The general ledger is in balance when all entries into it have been made correctly. The way to prove this is to add up the totals of all accounts. Modern-day general ledgers are maintained by the double entry system. This means that every entry is made twice- one debit and one credit. Debits are positive numbers and credits are negative. Because every entry includes a positive (debit) and a negative (credit), a correctly posted general ledger will add up to a net of zero. It is clear, particularly upon a reading of that portion of page 202 of the Builder's Guide to Accounting set forth above, that the only correct answer to Question 37 of Session Two of the Business and Financial Management portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(B)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(D)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 40--General Trade Knowledge, Division II, Session Three Question 40 of Session Three of the General Trade Knowledge (Division II) portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required the applicants to examine a drawing illustrating fixtures in a public lavatory and to compare the drawing to the requirements set forth in the National Standard Plumbing Code Illustrated, Section 7.16.2 of which addresses the "size of floor drains" and provides as follows: Floor drains shall be of a size to serve the intended purpose. Minimum size trap shall be 2 inches. The only correct answer to this question is choice "(A)." Inasmuch as Section 7.16.2 of the National Standard Plumbing Code Illustrated provides that the"[m]inimum size trap shall be 2 inches," the response selected by Petitioner, choice "(B)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 3--General Trade Knowledge, Division II, Session Four Question 3 of Session Four of the General Trade Knowledge (Division II) portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required the applicants to determine which of the devices listed, according to NFPA 99- Health Care Facilities, was required to be located on a medical gas line immediately outside of each vital life-support or critical care area. Section 4-4.1.3.2 of NFPA 99- Health Care Facilities provides as follows: A shutoff valve shall be located immediately outside each vital life-support or critical care area in each medical gas line, and located so as to be readily accessible in an emergency. Valves shall be protected and marked in accordance with 4-6.4.1.2. All gas-delivery columns, hose reels, ceiling tracks, control panels, or other special installations shall be located downstream of this valve. It is clear from a reading of the pertinent portions of NFPA 99- Health Care Facilities that the only correct answer to Question 3 of Session Four of the General Trade Knowledge (Division II) portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(C)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(B)," is incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Question 25--General Trade Knowledge, Division II, Session Four Question 25 of Session Four of the General Trade Knowledge (Division II) portion of the Certification Examination was a multiple choice question that was clear and unambiguous and covered subject matter with which the applicants should have been familiar. It required the applicants to identify which of the piping materials listed would be suitable for use in a fuel gas system according to NFPA- 54 National Fuel Gas Code. Section 2.6 of NFPA 54- National Fuel Gas Code describes the "acceptable piping materials and joining methods" for a fuel gas system. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 2.6.2 Metallic Pipe. Cast-iron pipe shall not be used. Steel and wrought-iron pipe shall be at least of standard weight (Schedule 40) and shall comply with one of the following standards: Standard for Welded and Seamless Wrought- Steel Pipe, ANSI/ASME B36.10. Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated Welded and Seamless, ASTM A53; or Standard Specification for Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service, ASTM A106. Nodular (ductile) iron pipe shall comply with one of the following standards: Standard for Ductile-Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, in Metal Molds or Sand- Lined Molds, for Gas, ANSI A21.52; or Specification for Ductile Iron Pressure Pipe, ASTM A377. Such pipe shall be not less than 3-inch size, shall not be welded, and shall be used only underground outside building foundation boundaries, or above ground, provided that joints are properly restrained against movement and separation. It is clear from a reading of the pertinent portions of NFPA 54- National Fuel Gas Code that the only correct answer to Question 25 of Session Four of the General Trade Knowledge (Division II) portion of the Certification Examination is choice "(A)." The response selected by Petitioner, choice "(D)," is clearly incorrect. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for this question. Isometric Drawings In Session Three of the General Trade Knowledge (Division II) portion of the Certification Examination the applicants were given "five (5) problems relating to the interpretation of various plumbing codes as they pertain to piping and equipment systems illustrations as are commonly used on construction drawings and in the plumbing industry." For each problem the applicants were given a floor plan or "plan view," as well as a "blank isometric sheet" on which they were required to "develop an isometric drawing from each of the floor plans in the space provided . . . compl[ying] with applicable codes and the directions given in the problem." The following "plumbing isometric drawing criteria" were listed in the examination booklet: Listed below are the criteria used to evaluate all isometric drawings. Remember to display all symbols and the directions of flow. You must meet all the criteria specified, for each drawing to obtain credit. 1.0 Proper Orientation of Fixtures and Piping in Reference to the Floor Plan All fixtures and piping must be properly oriented as outlined by the floor plan. 2.0 Display of Symbols on Isometric Drawings All symbols must be displayed in the correct manner. 3.0 Indication of Direction of Flow as per the National Standard Plumbing Code Illustrated 1993 and the 1995 supplement The direction of flow must be indicated even if the direction is implied. . . 4.0 Elevations of Connections All connections must be displayed at the proper elevations. 5.0 Use of 30-60-90 Degree Angles All angles must be displayed at the proper orientation. 6.0 Code Compliance as per Standard Plumbing Code, 1994 with 1995 revisions, (SBCCI) The drawing must be in compliance with this code and pass inspection. 7.0 Representation of Floor Plan Elevations in Piping The piping must display the correct elevation in reference to the floor plan. The examination booklet also contained the following instruction: "Use only those symbols, abbreviations and drawing conventions as are contained in the approved references and this booklet." Petitioner's drawings in response to Problems 1, 3, 4, and 5 (Petitioner's Drawings 1, 3, 4, and 5) did not "meet all the criteria specified." Therefore, in accordance with the grading policy set forth in the examination booklet,2 Petitioner did not obtain any credit for these drawings. In Petitioner's Drawing 1, vents and fittings were not properly displayed, and the water closet line was not displayed at the correct elevation. Petitioner's Drawing 3 was not in compliance with applicable code requirements governing elevation. In addition, vents and direction of flow were not properly indicated in the drawing. Petitioner's Drawing 4 failed to display a vent stack going through the roof that was shown on the "plan view." In addition, the wash fountains were mislabeled and an inappropriate fitting was indicated on the drawing. In Petitioner's Drawing 5, vents, fittings, and direction of flow were not properly displayed.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing grades he received on the Business and Financial Management and General Trade Knowledge portions of the April 1996 plumbing contractor certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1997.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement, pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a certified plumbing contractor's license by endorsement. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another state or territory of the United States where the criteria for issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's criteria. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. For the purpose of his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was not precluded from submitting information regarding the examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. However, Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most recently. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia, Petitioner successfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia Examination (Georgia Examination). Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the examination requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant must successfully complete the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors). Stephen Allen, a psychometrician employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of measuring knowledge in the various content areas. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. The area in which the examinations are significantly different is the isometric area or category. First, the relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent. Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the candidate draw five different isometric drawings, which show the room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles, piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isometrics by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four possible answers. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 15th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Lantrip 927 Lakewood Drive Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218 Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by contracting without a license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating entry into and the practice of contracting. It is also charged with discipline of licensed contractors who violate the various provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and the related rules, as well as those who practice contracting without appropriate licensure or certification. The Respondent, by his own admission and by stipulation, was not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the State of Florida for engaging in the practice of contracting, at pertinent times. On or about February 21, 1996, at her request, the Respondent provided Betty Thompson with a proposal to remodel and complete a new addition to her home at 110 Granger Street, Panama City Beach, Florida. The agreed-upon contract price was $26,685.00. Ms. Thompson signed the proposal, which contemplated construction of an addition in the amount of 593 square feet, at a price of $45.00 per square foot or $26,685.00. The price included all concrete, plumbing, and electrical work and installation. The terms of the contract stated that the price included the materials and the labor involved. The Respondent also obtained plans for the addition on Ms. Thompson's behalf. The plans depict the Respondent's name thereon as the contractor for the project. The Respondent then instructed Ms. Thompson to obtain the necessary building permit, which she did. The Respondent obtained several laborers to perform work on the project, including Eddie George, his son Shannon George, and Tim Polston. He introduced them to Ms. Thompson as the men who would perform most of the labor on the addition to her home. He hired these men as laborers and not Ms. Thompson. Later when he abandoned the job she hired them, or at least some of them, to finish the job. Eddie and Shannon George performed the majority of the actual labor on the project under the Respondent's supervision. Mr. Polston performed the electrical work. According to Mr. George's testimony they were supervised by the Respondent just as they would be by any contractor. They were paid by the Respondent by the hour. The Respondent stopped at the job site frequently and discussed the job's progress with Ms. Thompson. She addressed any questions and concerns to the Respondent, who conveyed any necessary information to his foreman, Eddie George. The Respondent also performed some construction work himself. The Respondent helped tear out a back wall of the house, set two (2) doors, did some painting, and did some air conditioning work on the project. He also checked the job site each day, and checked to see what materials were needed, and bought and delivered the needed materials. The Respondent received intermittent payments from Ms. Thompson, which he used to pay for the materials he purchased for the project. He also used a portion of those payments to pay his laborers. On or about May 6, 1996, the Respondent abandoned the job. This occurred shortly after he first met with Ms. Thompson's father who was paying for the job. Apparently there were some disagreement or issue raised between them and the Respondent never appeared at the job site again. After the Respondent abandoned the project, Ms. Thompson was unable to get another contractor to complete the job. She thereupon employed the laborers who had already worked on the job, the Georges and Tim Polston, to continue working there, which they agreed to do. It was only after the Respondent abandoned the job that Ms. Thompson paid the laborers directly herself. The addition that the Respondent contracted to construct has numerous construction flaws, including, but not limited to, malfunctioning air conditioning in the addition, improperly installed flooring, gaps between the old and new roofs and the old and new exterior concrete block work, as well as a leaking roof. These problems arose during the construction which occurred under the Respondent's supervision.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, finding that the Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by contracting without proper licensure or certification, and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams, and Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Sher L. Allan, Esquire 731 Oak Avenue Panama City, Florida 32402 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Linda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent was a registered building contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RB 0009164. At no time material to this proceeding was Domingo Alonzo (a/k/a Domingo Alonzo) registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent and Alonzo signed and submitted a proposal to Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox for remodeling and additions to their residence located at 1550 Zuleta Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida in accordance with plans prepared by Frese - Camner Associates on file with the City of Coral Gables, Florida, File No. 2897 for a contract price of $65,940.00 with draw schedules attached. On December 6, 1982, Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox (Homeowners) accepted the Proposal (Contract). On December 6, 1982, the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,297.00 in accordance with the contract whereby they were to receive 5 percent of the contract amount as a down payment upon signing. The draw schedule provided for a 10 percent retainage from each draw which was to be paid to Respondent and Alonzo upon completion and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. On December 21, 1982 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $2,025.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 3 for $1,350.00, Schedule II - Item 2 for $360.00 and Item 5 for $315.00. On December 17, 1982 the Homeowners and Respondent filed the affidavit required by ordinance with the City of Coral Gables for the purpose of having a building permit issued covering the work under the contract. 9. On January 19, 1983 Respondent using his building contractors license applied for building permit to cover the work anticipated under the contract and on the same day was issued building permit, No. 28214. Under the contract the Homeowners were to pay for the building permit and the bond required by the city. On January 26, 1983 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,000.00 which along with a payment on January 27, 1983 of $500.00 and January 31, 1983 of $544.60 represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 2 for $405.00, Item 5 for $1,260.00, Item 6 for $1,547.10 and Item 13 for $832.50. All payments from December 6, 1982 through January 31, 1983 under the contract by the Homeowners totaled $9,366.50 and were paid jointly to Respondent and Alonzo. On February 4, 1983 Respondent and Alonzo entered into an agreement, prepared by Myron Gold in the law office of Gold and Fox, whereby the Homeowners were to pay the balance of the funds remaining under the contract to Alonzo individually. After this date all payments were made to Alonzo. It was the Homeowners understanding after the February 3, 1983 agreement that Respondent would still be responsible for the supervision of the construction although they never saw Respondent again until October 1983. Edward Borysiewicz testified that he dealt with Respondent during March 1983 when he made the floor slab inspection on March 3, 1983 and the columns inspection on March 14, 1983. The record is clear that shortly after the agreement on February 3, 1983 Respondent no longer came to the construction site and supervised the work of Alonzo. On February 8, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,060.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 1 for $810.00, Item 5 for $1,417.50 and Item 13 for $832.50. On February 28, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,155.40 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 4 for $1,705.50 and $729.90 for extras apparently not covered by the contract but whether the balance of check No. 1161 (Pet. Ex. 13) of $720.00 was for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 18, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $1,000 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 9 for $819.00. Again whether the balance of check No. 1206 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) of $181.00 is for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 21, 1983, the Homeowners paid Alonzo $6,400.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Items 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. On March 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $2,166.90 but Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 does not list check No. 1210 as being a payment under the contract or for extras. On March 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $4,230.00 which represents a draw under Schedule I - Item 7 for $2,520.00 and a payment for extras not covered under the contract in the amount of $1,710.00. On April 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,207.40 which represented a draw Schedule I - Items 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14. On June 24, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,788.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 12 for $667.00, Item 14 for $3,024.00 and payment for extras not under contract for $2,097.00. After March 14, 1983 Respondent was not seen on the job site and there was no longer any apparent supervision of Alonzo by Respondent. After Respondent left the job site there was no licensed building contractor involved in the construction. After Respondent left the construction site the Homeowners soon realized that Alonzo did not know how to proceed with the work and experienced problems with the pace and manner in which the work was being accomplished. On July, 1983, Alonzo stopped working altogether. Although the Homeowners were aware of the problems that Alonzo was having with the construction and that Respondent was not on the job, the record does not reflect that they ever attempted to contact Respondent after the meeting on February 3, 1983. On August 1, 1983 the Homeowners notified Respondent and Alonzo that the contract had been terminated. The Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo $42,174.20 total under the contract (pages 1-5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) and paid Alonzo $10,766.37 for extras (Pages 6- 10, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15). On August 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Edward Bryant, plastering contractor the sum of $3,100.00 for plastering performed by Edward Bryant. This was for work under the contract that had not been completed or work necessary to correct problems that were already completed. Roberta Fox testified that there were no extras on plaster, however, page 7, line 11 and page 9, line 21 of Petitioner's Exhibit 15 indicates that there was extra plastering. On August 29, 1983 and September 29, 1983 the Homeowners paid Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. the total amount of $4,875.00 for work contemplated under the contract that had not been completed or needed correction. Homeowners had paid Alonzo $3,591.00 for plumbing under the contract. Both Alonzo and Southwest Plumbing, Inc. were paid for extra plumbing not covered by the contract in the amount of $567.00 and $391.50, respectively by the Homeowners. From September 13, 1983 through June 13, 1984 the Homeowners paid Charles Brueg, Jim Brueg, Charles Buffington and Dan, Inc. the total amount of $4,192.91 for electrical work contemplated under the contract that was not completed or required correction after Alonzo left the construction site. Page 6 lines 6 and 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 indicate that there were extras not covered by the contract. The total amount for electricity contemplated by the contract was $3,649.00. Alonzo was paid $2,627.10 under the contract and $1,710.00 for extras. The Homeowners were required to obtain the services of an air conditioning contractor to complete the work contemplated under the contract after Alonzo left the job site and as a result were required to pay Cameron, Inc., the air conditioning contract the amount of $5,181.60 between August 16, 1983 and January 24, 1984. The total amount contemplated under the contract was $3,600.00 of which $1,134.00 had been paid to Alonzo. Debris was dumped in the swimming pool requiring the Homeowners to pay $7,000 to refurbish the swimming pool. This amount included the repair contemplated under the contract and the extra work caused by Alonzo. The contract contemplated $2,300.00 for repairs of which none had been paid to Respondent or Alonzo. The Homeowners paid $1,150.00 to a painting contractor to finish the painting contemplated under the contract. Alonzo had been paid $1,125.00 for painting. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) The contract provided $2,500.00 for all painting required under the contract. Respondent failed to notify the building department that he was no longer responsible for the construction. After the Homeowners terminated the contract due to Respondent's and Alonzo's nonperformance, the Homeowners had to expend a substantial amount of extra money to complete the construction. The evidence is insufficient to determine an exact or approximate amount. Roberta Fox's testimony was conflicting with regard to her understanding as to whether or not the Respondent would continue to supervise the construction after the meeting in the Homeowners' law office on February 3, 1983 when Respondent and Alonzo entered into this agreement. Myron Gold testified that it was his understanding that Respondent would continue to supervise Alonzo after the agreement. However, the Homeowners action in this regard subsequent to February 3, 1983, in making no effort to bring the matter to a "head" and requiring Respondent to supervise the work or terminate the contract and in continuing to deal with Alonzo although Homeowners were aware shortly after February 3, 1983 that Alonzo could not perform without Respondent's supervision and that they knew Respondent was not on the job, tends to show that they were aware or should have been aware that Respondent was no longer involved in the day to day supervision of the construction. Alonzo installed a fireplace pursuant to the contract that the building department determined to be a fire hazard and recommended against its use. The Homeowners applied for and were granted a "owner/builder" permit on September 1, 1983 and requested cancellation of the building permit issued to Respondent which was cancelled on September 6, 1983. They have not received a certificate of occupancy because the building department has not performed the following inspection: electrical final; plumbing final; air conditioning final; roofing final and public works final. The building department would have issued a "stop-work order" had it been aware that Respondent was not supervising the construction and would have required the Homeowners to obtain another licensed building contractor or proceed as a owner/builder. The plans prepared by Frese-Camner Associates that were made a part of the contract by reference were not introduced into evidence with the contract and thus the record is insufficient to determine what was required to meet the specifications of the plans and thereby determine if the specifications had been met. There was a permit issued for the septic tank and drain field which work was started in December, 1982. The construction of the house itself was started in January 1983. The first inspection (foundation) on the house was made by the building department of January 21, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)(k)(m), Florida Statutes (1981) and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) years, provided, however, that if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of restitution to Myron Gold and Roberta Fox within one (1) year from the date of the final order herein, then the suspension shall be stayed and Respondent placed on probation for the balance of the suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 6th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2529 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 except clarified as to the last date on construction site. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact24 but clarified to show correct amount paid under contract as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified to show that extra plastering not under contract was required. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32 but clarified to show that the record does not support a figure that approximate $32,000.00. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence even though the Homeowners' testimony supported this fact because the Homeowners' actions with regard to Respondent after February 3, 1983, was to the contrary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: No Findings of Fact was submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Beason Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George J. Soler, Pro Se 3315 S.W. 96th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and the entire record compiled, the following relevant facts are found. Bradford Clough, Respondent, is a registered pool contractor who holds license No. RP 0031551, which license is current and active. Respondent was first licensed on December 6, 1977, as qualifier of Aqua-Vac Self Clean Swim Pools. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Arnold Verway has been the Building Director for Charlotte County since May 8, 1978. As Building Director, Mr. Verway is in charge of receiving and investigating complaints filed by homeowners against contractors licensed by the Charlotte County Building Board. In this regard, on October 5, 1978, the Charlotte County Building Board listened to two complaints which had been filed with the Department against Respondent "for not fulfilling his contract and for jobs done in an unworkmanlike manner . These complaints were filed by Mr. and Mrs. Phillip J. Greulich and Mr. and Mrs. George Beveridge, of Port Charlotte. After discussion, the Board sent formal notification to Respondent to attend the Board's next regular meeting in order to allow him an opportunity to present any defense respecting the above referenced complaints. Respondent was notified by certified letter dated October 13, 1978, return receipt requested. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) At the Board's meeting on November 2, 1978, complainants George Beveridge and Phillip Greulich restated their complaints which had earlier been made to the Board at its October 5, 1978, meeting. Respondent had not resolved the complaints to the satisfaction of complainants as of the date of this hearing. Respondent did not appear at the Board's November 2, 1978, meeting. The Board suspended Respondent's certificate of competency "until such time as he demonstrated to the Board that he had rehabilitated himself and was thus eligible and capable of working in Charlotte County". (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3.) The Petitioner has reviewed the disciplinary action taken by the Charlotte County Building Board. (Testimony of Petitioner's investigator, John Viking.) RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE As stated, Respondent did not appear at this hearing or at the hearing before the Charlotte County Building Board, despite proper notice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's registered pool contractor's license, RP 0031551, be REVOKED RECOMMENDED this 30th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Respondent was charged in a November 19, 1998, Administrative Complaint, filed December 7, 1998, with ten counts of professional violations. The statutory violations alleged are: Count I: Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), obtaining a certificate or registration as a Certified Roofing Contractor by fraud or misrepresentation; Count II: Section 489.129(1)(h)2, Florida Statutes (1995), by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm to a customer; Count III: Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1995), by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor; Count IV: Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; Count V: Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; Count VI: Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department plumbing permits and inspection; Count VII: Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department electrical permits and inspection; Count VIII: Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1995), by proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department framing, insulation, and/or final inspections; Count IX: Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing gross negligence, repeated negligence, or negligence resulting in a significant danger to life or property; and Count X: Section 389.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), by violating any provision of Chapter 455, to wit, Section 455.227(1)(o), practicing beyond the scope permitted by law and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, he is not competent to perform.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a Certified Residential Contractor, having been issued license number CR C057235, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At the time of hearing, Respondent's license had been suspended. Since January 27, 1998, Respondent also has been a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CC C057649, by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material was Respondent licensed, registered, or certified to perform electrical work. At no time material was Respondent licensed, registered, or certified to perform plumbing work. On or about February 27, 1997, Respondent entered into a $39,050.40, contract with Reuben M. Adams to restore and repair the Adamses' home at 7037 Mark Street in Jacksonville, Florida, which had been destroyed by fire on February 1, 1997. The work contracted-for included complete restoration of the living room, kitchen, two hallways, two bathrooms, four bedrooms, a laundry room, and a dining room; restoration of heat and air conditioning; and a virtually new roof. Among the electrical and plumbing restoration involved, Respondent specifically agreed to install a ceiling fan and a light kit in the living room; install a sink and faucet for the sink and a ceiling light fixture and vented range hood in the kitchen; install a ceiling light fixture in a hallway; remove floor mounted with tank commode and reinstall a floor mounted with tank commode; replace commode sink, remove and reinstall sink, install new faucet for the sink, install shower head and faucet set for bathtub, install bathroom exhaust fan and light kit for ceiling fan in the bathroom; install ceiling fan and light kit in bedrooms; replace faucet for sink and provide a shower head, faucet set and install a ceiling light fixture in the second bathroom; install a ceiling fan and light kit in the third and fourth bedrooms and dining room and hallway; install 960 square foot electrical and provide temporary utilities for dimensions of 40 feet by 24 feet by eight feet. These types of activities require electrical and plumbing licensure. On or about April 15, 1997, Respondent received and endorsed the first draw check of $22,245.23 from the Adamses. In May 1997, Respondent's site supervisor, Aaron Mitchell, requested that Mr. Adams give him $1500.00, cash to buy materials because Respondent was out of town and Mitchell could not perform the work without the materials. Mr. Adams paid this amount in cash to Mr. Mitchell but was never reimbursed by either Mr. Mitchell or Respondent. In early June 1997, the Adamses became concerned because little work had been completed on the restoration of their home. The house had been cleaned out and gutted and the slab for the room addition had been poured. Mr. Adams contacted Respondent several times about the lack of work being performed on the home. Between mid-June and early July 1997, Respondent completed the framing and installed the roof. On or about July 24, 1997, the Adamses released the second draw of $11,122.62 to Respondent, and Respondent deposited the money into his bank account. In approximately August 1997, Respondent ran electrical wire in the roof, installed electrical outlets in the walls, and completed the electrical work, including installing electrical outlets in the walls. Mr. Adams personally observed Respondent and his workers performing electrical wiring. The electrical work performed by Respondent required licensure as an electrical contractor, that a permit be obtained prior to the electrical work being performed, and that inspections of the electrical work be made before the walls were sealed up over the electrical work. Respondent failed to obtain a permit or to have an electrical inspection performed. Respondent completed the electrical work and covered up the electrical work with the walls without an inspection being performed. Respondent performed plumbing work on the Adamses' home, although he held no plumbing license. Respondent failed to pull a permit for the plumbing work and failed to call for the required inspections. Ultimately, he covered up the plumbing work with the walls without an inspection having been performed. The City of Jacksonville "red-tagged" the home for this reason. The effect of "red-tagging" was to prevent occupancy until compliance with the building code was assured. Such assurance required inspection, which in turn, ultimately required that at least the interior walls be taken down. Respondent also never obtained a framing, insulation or final inspection on the project. In October 1997, the Adamses filed complaints against the Respondent with the State Attorney's Office and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Case No. 97-18544). On or about October 31, 1997, Respondent signed a Letter of Intent with Mr. and Mrs. Adams agreeing to have their home ready for occupancy no later than December 1, 1997, and promising that Respondent would be responsible for all permits and inspections necessary for the project to be considered complete. At that time, Respondent apologized for all of the delays, the decline in their relationship, and the stress he had caused. Respondent and Mrs. Adams prayed together, and Respondent promised that from that day forward, the Adamses would see progress on their home every day until it was finished. Respondent did not abide by the requirements set forth in the Letter of Intent. Specifically, he never obtained the required permits and inspections. Mr. Adams confronted Respondent about the permits and the inspections, and the Respondent indicated that he had the permits at his office. He assured Mr. Adams that he was taking care of the electrical permit. In December 1997, Respondent requested that Mr. and Mrs. Adams drop their complaint with Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation because he had applied for his roofing license and the complaint was holding up that roofing license being granted. Respondent told the Adamses that if they would drop their complaint, he could obtain his roofing license, which would allow him to generate money to complete their project. Around mid-January 1998, Respondent requested that the Adamses release the final construction draw and drop their complaints with Petitioner and the State Attorney. Respondent stated that if they paid him the final draw of $5,682.55, he would work every day on their project and have it ready for them to move in no later than February 4, 1998. The Adamses paid Respondent the remaining construction draw of $5,682.55, and withdrew their complaint with Petitioner. Respondent accepted the final draw on or about January 27, 1998. Respondent obtained his roofing license after the Adamses withdrew their complaint with Petitioner. After receiving the final construction draw, Respondent did minimal work on the project in January. On or about February 23, 1998, the Adamses reinstated their complaint with Petitioner against Respondent, resulting in the instant case. Respondent has not returned to work on the Adamses' project since March 1998. As of March 1998, Respondent had been paid the full contract price, but the home remained uninhabitable. The workmanship was substandard and the project was less than 100 percent complete. As a result of Respondent's unlicensed electrical and plumbing work on the Adamses' home and his covering-up his work with the walls, the Adamses were unable to obtain an inspection without the walls being taken down. This in turn, required that the walls be rebuilt. In addition to the money paid to Respondent for work improperly done or not done at all, the Adamses had to pay another builder $14,900.00, to remove the walls, re-install the electrical wiring and plumbing which had been completed or partially completed by the Respondent, and complete the renovation. Testimony of Roy Brand, Raymond Smith, and Douglas Arnold supports a finding that Respondent committed repeated negligence and created a dangerous condition when he performed electrical and plumbing work which he was not licensed to do and which he did not have the knowledge to perform. Particularly upon the testimony of Mr. Brand, it is clear that three types of very serious electrical installation errors or omissions had been performed once or more than once by Respondent. At least one of these would have been sufficient, under certain circumstances, to burn down the entire house. By installing electrical universal polyethylene boxes and using them as junction boxes, a purpose for which they were not designed, Respondent created what Mr. Brand described as "short of a 'Molotov Cocktail' that would burn your house down just about as quick." Likewise, one serious error occurred in the type of glue Respondent used on plumbing pipe throughout the home. Mr. Brand gave credible expert evidence that the construction undertaken by Respondent was undertaken for a reasonable amount of $39,050.40, and that a reasonable time to construct the entire contract would have been two and one half to three months after permitting. In addition to the money Mr. and Mrs. Adams paid to Respondent and the substitute contractor, Douglas Arnold, they incurred additional expenses and spent additional time out of their home as a result of Respondent's shoddy workmanship and unlicensed electrical and plumbing work. The Adamses also had to take out a second mortgage of $18,800.00 at 16.3 percent interest for 15 years in order to finance the repairs necessitated by Respondent's substandard and incompetent work, so that they could move back into their home. Mr. and Mrs. Adams and their child had to live somewhere during construction. Their insurance company paid them $750.00, for each of three months. However, they were unable to move back into their home from August 1997 until November 1998, as a direct result of Respondent's incompetence and misconduct.3 During this fifteen-month period, the Adamses paid $300.00 rent per month to Mrs. Adams' mother, plus an additional $100.00 per month for water and utilities, and storage fees of $119.00 per month to a storage facility for keeping their items which had not been destroyed by the fire The Adamses also incurred an additional expense of $1,500.00, for an air conditioning unit which Respondent was to have purchased under their contract with him.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of one violation of each of the following: Sections 489.129(1)(h)(2); (1)(k); (1)(m); (1)(n); (1)(p); (1)(o); and (1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995); Revokes Respondent's General Contractor's and Roofing Contractor's licenses; Imposes a total fine for all violations, in the amount of $30,000.00; and Requires Respondent to pay restitution to Mr. and Mrs. Adams in the amount of $49,835.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 1st day of May, 2000.
