Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Ary, was a licensed air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CA CO36888. On October 20, 1987, a company named Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Lauderhill Mall, Lauderhill, Florida, to install three 3 1/2 ton air conditioning units for the sum of $7,875. Jenni Temp was to provide the three separate permits required by the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the installation. Joseph Roturra, the owner of Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., and Respondent had, prior to October 20, 1987, entered into negotiations whereby Respondent would become employed by Jenni Temp as its qualifying agent so that Jenni Temp could engage in air conditioning contracting. Those negotiations ended before any formal efforts were made to have Jenni Temp licensed with Respondent as the qualifying agent. In late 1987, before his negotiations with Jenni Temp broke down, Respondent signed three blank application forms for electrical and air conditioning permits. Respondent then gave the three signed application forms to Joseph Roturra. Respondent knew that neither Joseph Roturra nor his company was licensed for air conditioning work. Joseph Roturra completed the signed blank application forms he received from Respondent and made application with the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the three permits required for the job at Lauderhill Mall. The name of the applicant on the applications as completed by Joseph Roturra was All Star Service, Inc. Respondent served as the qualifying agent for All Star Service, Inc. The City of Lauderhill did not issue the permits for which Roturra applied using the forms signed by Respondent because permits had been previously issued to another company for the same job. Jenni Temp completed the Lauderhill Mall job without the permits required by local law and without further assistance from Respondent. Respondent did not supervise the job at Lauderhill Mall. There was no final inspection of the work as required by local law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes and which imposes an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that there not be a separate fine for the violation of Section 489.129(1) (m), Florida Statutes, because the conduct that establishes that violation is the same conduct which constitutes the violation for which the administrative fine is recommended. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Steven Ary 1217 N. E 4th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33306
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact By his answers to Petitioner's Request for Admissions, Respondent indicates, and it is so found, that he is currently licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under license CA C010372 as a certified air conditioning contractor; that his license was in effect at all times material to the allegations involved in this hearing; and that his license was in effect as of the date of the hearing. The Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for licensing construction trades professionals in this state. Sometime prior to August 18, 1987, Respondent's firm contracted with Ralph Worthington to replace the air conditioning system at Mr. Worthington's home in Pinellas County, Florida. The contract price was $3,075.00. The work was completed. On August 19, 1987, Dale J. Parker, a mechanical inspector for the City of St. Petersburg, which utilizes the Standard Mechanical Code as a guideline for construction in the city, inspected the unit in question installed by Respondent's concern, Residential Air Conditioning. A permit to complete the work had been issued on June 25, 1987 for the work. No explanation was given for why the inspection was not done until approximately two months after the permit was issued, but that delay is not relevant to the issues here. During his inspection, Mr. Parker found that the provisions of Sections 303.2 and 303.3 of the Standard Mechanical Code had not been followed by the Respondent's firm in that no light was available in front of the unit, no electrical disconnect was furnished for the unit, and there was no clear access to the unit. Access is required to be through an unencumbered space no less than 22 by 36 inches. When he went up into the attic to examine the unit, he found the area to be tight and dark. At the time, he was unable to see any defects other than those he listed, but his general opinion of the installation was that it was "not a good job" and was somewhat "sloppy". As a result of the defects he saw, he rejected the work and "red tagged" it. Issuance of a red tag requires correction of the defect and reinspection of the work. Evidence indicates that the required light had not been there prior to Respondent's installation and the access to the unit, which required stepping over an air duct, was the same as it had been before the installation of the new unit. The Code requirement to correct these defects existed when the house was built. It is clear the initial installation, not done by Respondent, was also deficient. Respondent admits that when he installed the new unit, he assumed the responsibility for correcting the existing deficiencies and bringing the installation up to Code requirements. However, Mr. Worthington, the homeowner, would not allow Respondent's personnel back into his residence to correct the problems. This does not excuse the improper installation but would have resulted in a waiver of the reinspection fee. On October 1, 1987, William Rinehart, owner of Johnson's Air Conditioning, who had been contacted by Mr. Worthington, sent his technician, Mr. Aleshire out to the property to make the repairs. Mr. Aleshire discovered a lot of water in the insulation in the attic in the area around the air conditioning unit. He also noticed that duct work had come loose from the unit, that the unit was tilted, and that both the primary and secondary drain pipes were clogged with sand at the outside outlet. When he moved the insulation, he found the attic floor had rotted as a result of water condensation which had spilled out of the drain pans surrounding the unit onto the floor. As a result, the attic floor fell through into the room below. Mr. Aleshire found that the air handling unit was improperly tilted. So was the primary drain pan which was improperly tilted away from the drain. Since the drain was clogged, when the condensation collected in the pan, instead of draining out, it ran over the opposite side of the pan into the secondary pan from which it could not drain because that plug was clogged as well. As a result, the condensation water ran over out onto the attic floor. Aleshire also noticed that some of the wiring had to be replaced because of a lack of sealing and failure to use Romex connectors, both of which are required by the Code. In his opinion, however, except for the electrical problems and the tilted air handling unit and drain pans, the installation was up to Code. Had it not been for the clogged drains, the unit would probably have worked satisfactorily for a long period without problems. There is no evidence to connect the clogged outside drains with the Respondent. He is, however, responsible for the other defects noted. Both Aleshire and Rinehart consider the tilted installation of the air handling unit improper. Mr. Rinehart would have used adjustable bolts to affix the unit and a carpenter's level to insure the drainage was proper. The failure to level the unit is negligence and the failure to utilize proper sealant and Romex connectors constituted misconduct since both are required by the Code. Respondent does not deny either of these defects. He contends his firm did what it agreed to do. When Mr. Worthington complained, he initially responded and attempted to correct the problems but was unable to do so to Mr. Worthington's satisfaction. The problems were not corrected by Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent contends his firm tried to do a proper job and feels Worthington overreacted, frequently complaining when a workman was only a few minutes late for a scheduled appointment. Respondent was not personally aware of the details of the installation in question, did not do any of the work himself; nor did he inspect the job when it was completed. When this work was being done, Respondent, who is in partnership with Mr. Neidrich was in Tampa opening another office for the firm. He first found out about it after a complaint was filed and, in an effort to work out their differences, attempted to contact Worthington up until the time the Department of Professional Regulation got into the picture. Respondent, who qualified the company under his license, is an engineer and his primary function with the company is to design complicated systems. He visits jobs of "difficult installation" but acts merely as a consultant on the company's routine business. He performs quality checks from time to time on routine as well as major jobs to insure the work is being done properly. Though he testified he does this on a weekly basis, he admitted his last inspection was four weeks before the hearing. The correction of the defects identified herein was subsequently accomplished by another contractor hired by Mr. Worthington at additional cost. He also paid $422.80 to replace floor covering damaged as a result of the tilted air conditioning unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Neal A. O'Connor be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth A. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Neal A, O'Connor 1925 Hastings Drive Clearwater, Florida 34623 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs CASE NO.: 89308 DOAH CASE NO.: 89-0186 NEAL A. O'CONNOR, LICENSE NO.: CA C010372, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's license should be disciplined pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statues. At the hearing, Petitioner presented five witnesses and offered five exhibits into evidence. Respondent did not appear at the hearing held on March 26, 1990. However, after the March 26 hearing, Respondent informed the hearing officer that he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing. Based on Respondent's representations the hearing was re-opened to allow Respondent to present evidence on his behalf. The re-opened hearing was held on June 15, 1990. All parties were present. Respondent testified in his own behalf. Respondent did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Petitioner filed a Proposed Recommended Order on June 15, 1990. Respondent did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been considered and utilized in the preparation of this Recommended Order except where such proposals were not supported by the weight of the evidence or were immaterial, cumulative or subordinate. Specific rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are contained in the appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Sometime around July, 1987, Respondent inquired of Leon County, Florida, officials on the requirements for obtaining a heating and air- conditioning contractor's license. At that time, Respondent was advised that he would have to take an exam for the license and was given the necessary application forms. Respondent never took the examination. However, on September 28, 1987, a new employee in the County's Office responsible for issuing such licenses erroneously issued Respondent a heating and air-conditioning contractor's license. The employee's error was caught around May, 1988. Respondent was notified of the error and the invalidity of his license by letter dated May 3, 1988. Respondent, on two separate occasions, was also verbally notified of the invalidity of his license by two other employees of the County's Building Department. After the County had erroneously issued the Respondent his license and after he was notified that the license had been issued in error and was invalid, Respondent, by application dated September 1, 1988, applied for state-wide registration based on his County licensure. The erroneous letter of licensure from the county was attached to the application. Respondent claimed that he attached the county's letter of licensure to his application on the advice of an unknown employee of the Board in its Jacksonville office. However, Respondent did not present any evidence corroborating his hearsay testimony regarding his telephone conversation on this matter. Without such corroboration such evidence is unreliable and cannot formulate the basis of a factual finding that such a conversation took place and or the content of that conversation. The reason Respondent attempted to obtain his state licensure was that by the time he was notified of the county's error he had incurred about $30,000 worth of debt to his business suppliers. Additionally, Respondent's business had financed his wife's business and supported their four children. Respondent did not believe he was in a position to simply go out of business. Respondent's priorities were simply different than those of the State. He did not perceive that his actions were wrong since he had been doing air conditioning and heating work for the past 15 years and was otherwise qualified to engage in the contracting business. State registration may be obtained from the Board once a local government issues a license to an individual. On September 22, 1988, based on Respondent's representation that he held a valid County heating and air-conditioning contractor's license, the Board issued Respondent a state license, License #RA0057606. After issuance of the license, the Board was notified by the City that Respondent did not have a valid license. Based on that information, the Board, through its investigator, contacted the Respondent on several occasions in order to rectify the situation. During several of these contacts, Respondent admitted that he knew his County and State licenses were invalid. The best evidence of Respondent's knowledge was that he signed a cease and desist order stating that he would no longer conduct a heating and air-conditioning contracting business until such time as he was lawfully licensed. Respondent continued to engage in the heating and air-conditioning business. Respondent, also, plead to criminal changes of perjury and conducting a business without a license as a result of the above facts. On November 2, 1988, the board issued an emergency suspension of Respondent's license based upon the foregoing facts. The evidence was clear that Respondent was given several opportunities to obtain both his County and State licenses. However, for unknown reasons, Respondent failed to follow up on any of these opportunities even though he had indicated to the respective officials that he would take such a course of action. On these facts, there is no question that Respondent's license should be revoked since it was issued based on an invalid County license. Further, there is no question that Respondent knew his County license was invalid and misrepresented that material fact to Petitioner. The County license is a mandatory precondition to the issuance of the state license. Given Respondent's willful misrepresentation in conjunction with the business position he was placed in due to the County's error, Respondent should be assessed a fine of $1,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board should enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's heating and air-conditioning license and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 27th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0494 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. Copies furnished: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Nolan 829 West Tharpe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented, Respondent's admissions and matters deemed admitted due to Respondent's failure to timely respond to Petitioner's Second Request for Admissions: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered air conditioning contractor with license number RA-0035721. He was the qualifying agent for Wallace's Air Conditioning and Heating. Respondent's address of record is 4710 Cypress Ridge Place, Tampa, Florida 33624, and it was to this address that notice of the hearing was sent. At no time prior to the hearing did Respondent contact counsel for Petitioner or the undersigned regarding any problem he had with the date scheduled for this hearing. Respondent did not appear, and was not represented at the hearing which commenced at 9:00 a.m. on May 11, 1988. However, at 1:56 p.m. on the day of hearing, a letter from Respondent addressed to Petitioner's counsel was filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, Florida. This letter was postmarked on May 9, 1988 and requests rescheduling of the hearing due to his being out of town on "urgent business." By Order entered on May 13, 1988, Respondent's untimely and insufficient motion for continuance was denied for failure to comply with Rule 22I-6.017, Florida Administrative Code, and this case has proceeded to the issuance of this Recommended Order in accordance with the procedures established at hearing. On or about March 18, 1986, Respondent, as qualifying agent for Wallace's Air Conditioning and Heating, entered into a contract with General Engineering and Machine Company for the installation of heating, ventilation and cooling services (HVAC) at the Sebring Square Plaza shopping mall in Sebring, Florida. The work to be performed included the installation of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and temperature control systems for stores in the mall, which included Zayre's Department Store and thirty "strip stores." The contract price for this work was $275,460. Respondent thereafter began work on the mall under this contract. However, he has never held any certificate of competency, occupational license, or registration in the City of Sebring, as required by local ordinance sections 5-18 and 5-19. On or about May, 1986 Respondent entered into a subcontract agreement with Long's Air Conditioning and Heating for sheetmetal duct work, venting of exhaust fans and installation of flex duct and grilles at the Sebring Square Plaza. The original amount of Respondent's contract with Long's Air Conditioning was $69,200, but this was increased by agreement to $72,200. On or about June 19, 1986, work on the thirty "strip stores" was deleted from this subcontract agreement, and the contract price was then reduced by $3,760, making a final contract price of $68,440. Respondent received draw requests totaling $68,440 from Long's Air Conditioning for work performed under this subcontract. Although all contracted work was performed by Long's Air Conditioning, Respondent has only made payments totaling $66,500, leaving an unpaid amount of $1,940. In connection with his work on the Sebring Square Plaza, Respondent purchased equipment and supplies from Florida Air Conditioners, Inc., in the total amount of $122,019.80, but made no payments on this account. On October 6, 1986, Respondent's account with Florida Air Conditioners was paid in full by Highway 27 Associates, the owners of the Sebring Square Plaza, who in turn charged this amount to the general contractor, General Engineering and Machine Company, by reducing the amount they paid to said general contractor on the Sebring Square Plaza. Charles R. Baldwin was the general administrator on this shopping mall job for the general contractor, General Engineering and Machine Company. In accordance with his subcontract agreement with Respondent, if Respondent did not pay his materialmen, the general contractor was responsible, and, in fact, in this case the general contractor was charged for payments made by the mall owner on Respondent's account at Florida Air Conditioners. Respondent failed to regularly attend weekly job site status meetings with Baldwin. When schedules were established, Respondent voiced no objection, but he then frequently failed to complete work in accordance with those schedules. Respondent made little effort to complete his work on time, or to make up for delays. He failed to supervise the work he was performing at the Sebring Square Plaza. On or about June 24, 1986 Respondent walked off the job without completing the work which he had contracted to perform, and this caused further delay in the mall's completion since Baldwin had to find another contractor to complete Respondent's job. Baldwin paid Respondent $174,467.70 on June 18, 1986 in connection with this job after Respondent signed an affidavit certifying that he had paid all his materialmen and subcontractors. The record establishes that said affidavit was false. With the amount Baldwin was charged for Respondent's unpaid account with Florida Air Conditioners, and the amount paid on June 18, 1986, General Engineering and Machine Company paid or was charged approximately $296,000 for work performed by Respondent, although their contract with Respondent was only $275,460. According to Bernard Verse, who was accepted as an expert in commercial construction, Respondent's failure to pay for supplies and equipment, and his failure to complete his contract with General Engineering and Machine Company constitute misconduct in contracting. In addition, Respondent failed to properly supervise the work he was performing, and for which he contracted, on this job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's license number RA- 0035721 for one (1) year and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000; provided that after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Final Order if Respondent pays said administrative fine in full, his license shall be immediately reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 23rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5050 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 6 Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8 Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8. 9-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Frank W. Wallace 4710 Cypress Ridge Place Tampa, Florida 33624 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
