The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether W.R. “Buddy” Braren, III, (Respondent) engaged in the unlicensed practice of architecture contrary to the proscription contained in Section 481.223(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of architecture pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been certified or licensed as an architect pursuant to Chapter 481, Part I, Florida Statutes, and has not represented himself as such, at any time material to these proceedings. Respondent is a self-employed residential designer with over 28 years’ experience, but no formal education beyond graduation from high school. Sometime in 2002, while on an errand to the Health Department of Jefferson County, Florida, Respondent met Carrie Howard, who was waiting there to get minnows for her small fish pond to combat a mosquito problem. Howard struck up a conversation with Respondent, learned that Respondent was a draftsman, and asked him for assistance in drafting a set of plans for an addition to her church, as well as a renovation of that building. As Howard explained at the final hearing, she had obtained the concept for the plans, for which she sought Respondent’s assistance, in a vision. She had a sketch of what she envisioned and showed the sketch to Respondent. Respondent agreed to assist Howard and her church by preparing plans which the church could then use to obtain cost figures and contractor bids to aid the membership of the church in determining whether the proposed addition and renovation to the church building (the project) was financially feasible. At no time did Respondent presume to act as an architect in violation of Florida Statutes. Howard’s church is the Mount Pleasant Baptist Church. The proposed addition and renovation of the church (the project) per plans drawn by Respondent consisted of 3,247 square feet of heated area, 121 feet of covered entry foyer, and 68 square feet of covered landing. Respondent’s drawings consisted of eight pages; two pages of elevations, a third page of floor plan, a fourth plan with basic construction details, a fifth page with electrical layouts, a sixth floor dealing with the finish flooring, a seventh page exhibiting typical cross sections and a partial left side, and the eighth page depicting the foundation plan. Each page of the project plans sets forth Respondent’s name and also the cautionary warning or caveat that the builder is to supply all required engineering, comply with all local and state codes, and verify all dimensions and details prior to commencing construction. Respondent, operating as an employee of the church in his capacity as a draftsman, delivered the project plans to the church representatives. They, in turn, used the plans in the formulation of the church’s financial decision and discussions with building contractors. A contractor was selected. Upon the filing of the project plans with the county building department by someone unconnected with Respondent, a permit was issued for construction. Respondent received a “donation” according to Howard of $1,000 for his efforts on behalf of the church. Respondent’s candid testimony is that he expended 90 hours on the project and would normally have received in excess of $3,000 for his efforts. He accepted the lesser amount in an effort to assist the church. Barry Wilson, a Florida licensed architect and the complainant that initiated the chain of events leading to this proceeding, specializes in church design. Observing activity at the church construction site, he went to the county building department on August 23, 2004, and requested to see the plans. Observing no imprimatur of a licensed architect on the plans, Wilson proceeded to file his complaint. In view of his conflicting dual role as complainant and as expert witness for Petitioner, Wilson's testimony relating to matters of expertise is not credited. Respondent was very creditable at the final hearing. He was not aware that his activity on behalf of the church would be construed as the practice of architecture, and maintains that he did not knowingly violate any law prohibiting the unlicensed practice of architecture. In an appropriate exhibition of remorse, Respondent stated that he had only provided design services in connection with one other church and certainly would not have provided such services in this instance if he had known that such action was considered illegal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. 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 13th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2005), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, New Look Contracting, Inc. did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor qualified business. Respondent was a part owner/operator of New Look Contracting, Inc. On or about July 9, 2005, Respondent contracted with Lynnda Davis to, inter alia, raise the ceiling on the front porch and install French doors on Ms. Davis's office in Lake City, Florida, for $950. Ms. Davis paid Respondent $1,275 for the construction project of which Respondent admits to receiving at least $475. Respondent broke tiles at Ms. Davis's office and took contractually unrelated materials from her property. All of the items listed in the contract between Respondent and Ms. Davis required a Lake City, Florida, building permit. The total investigative cost to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $311.21.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2005), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000, and assessing costs in the amount of $311.21. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 13th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Domenick Spallina 159 Southwest Pleasant Hill Glen Fort White, Florida 32038 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the business of contracting without being registered or certified, in violation of Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004),1 as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against unlicensed persons or business organizations, who engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being registered or certified. At all times material hereto, Respondent, personally, was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Rentaman or Rentaman Construction/Remodeling did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor qualified to do business in Florida. At all times material hereto, Timothy Lee Allen was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. Beginning sometime in 2003 until September 30, 2005, Petitioner, doing business as Rentaman, operated as a sole proprietor under an occupation license in Seminole County. In October 2004, Timothy L. Allen entered into an agreement with Respondent to purchase her trailer, tools, and the right to use her business name in Polk County. Respondent was to receive a five percent commission on any job in which she assisted Allen, including bookkeeping, preparing invoices, and drafting contracts. Allen set up a business in Polk County, using the name Rentaman Construction and Remodeling in October 2004. In early November 2004, Allen negotiated with James and Diandria Mason to do repair/remodeling work on their home in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Respondent was contacted and brought in to negotiate the contract with the Masons. On or about November 11, 2004, Respondent, doing business as Rentaman Construction/Remodeling, contracted with James and Diandria Mason to, inter alia, frame the back door and replace the subflooring in the Mason's Mulberry, Florida, mobile home for $1,650.00. The entire second page of the contract was handwritten by Respondent. The first page included a handwritten workmanship warranty, written and initialed by Respondent. The contract included the sentence: "I[the owners] have reviewed and accept the terms and conditions of Sale as presented to me by Debi Gold, an agent of Rentaman." Mason paid Respondent $1,100 cash, as a deposit for the construction project. Allen was placed in charge of the work, but failed to complete the contract with the Masons. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor in November 2004, in Polk County, without being registered or certified. The total investigative costs to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $762.43.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution to Respondent, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $762.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 6th day of February, 2007.
The Issue Did Respondent engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor or advertise himself or a business organization as available to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified or without having a certificate of authority as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the Agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to regulate the practice of unlicensed contracting under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent has never been licensed to engage in contracting within the State of Florida. Specifically, at no time material to this proceeding was Respondent licensed to engage in contracting within the State of Florida. At no time material to this proceeding did the business known as Handyman-No Job Too Small ever apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. Some time around November 15, 2000, Respondent and David Arendt entered into an oral agreement wherein Respondent was to do remodeling work on Arendt's home located at 728 Hampstead Avenue, in Orlando, Florida, for the contract price of $7,000.00. This remodeling work included, but was not limited to, repairs to the front porch, remodeling the master bedroom, and removing and replacing the shed roof with a rolled roof. Arendt paid Respondent a total of $3,500.00 for the work completed by Respondent up until December 18, 2000. Subsequent to December 18, 2000, Arendt dismissed Respondent due to disagreement concerning the work to be completed. Respondent subsequently filed a contractor's Claim of Lien in the amount of $3,500.00 against Arendt's home in Orlando, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a contractor as that term is defined in Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes. The total investigative and prosecution costs to the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, is $496.45.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a review of Chapter 61G4-17, Disciplinary Guidelines, Florida Administrative Code, without any consideration for mitigating or aggravating circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent, David C. Marquis guilty of violating Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00 and costs in the amount of $496.45. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Marquis 616 Aldama Court Ocoee, Florida 34761 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined based on conduct set forth in two Administrative Complaints filed herein dated March 14 and July 19, 1984.
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 hereby make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida and has been issued license number CGC 015834. 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, relating to the imposition of licensure standards and standards for the practice of contracting. During times material hereto, Respondent was a full-time employee of the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Authority. At no time during his employment with the authority did Respondent advise the Dade County Aviation Authority that he was performing work outside the scope of his employment while on County time. When confronted with the results of an investigation undertaken by the Dade County Attorney's Office in June of 1983 with regard to his (Respondent's) possible violation of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Respondent resigned from his position with the County. (Tr. pages 101-102) DOAH CASE NO. 84-1298 During late February, 1983, Albert Kairy contracted with an unlicensed contractor for the closure of a carport at his residence located in North Miami, Florida. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, Kairy contacted Respondent with regard to preparing necessary blueprints for the enclosure. Kairy contracted with Respondent to prepare both the blueprints and to supervise the activities of the unlicensed contractor. The contract amount was $400. On February 25, 1983, Kairy received an owner/builder permit for the carport enclosure from the City of North Miami. (Tr. pages 7-10, 93) Subsequently, problems began to develop with work performed by the unlicensed contractor and Respondent persuaded Kairy to dismiss that individual and to retain him as the contractor. On March 7, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Kairy to construct a room addition to the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) The project was to be completed pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the City of North Miami. The contract called for a bedroom addition; an additional bathroom and a utility room. The contract included extending the carport wall approximately 101 feet. The contract price was $14,500 which included an advance of $2,500. On March 12, 1983, Respondent entered into a second construction contract with Kairy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. 19) The contract price was $15,000. Except for the increase in the contract price, Kairy was led to believe that the terms and conditions of the second contract were substantially similar to the contract previously executed by the parties on March 7, 1983. However, Respondent reduced the extension of the carport wall to 10 feet and Respondent did not inform Kairy of this reduction. (Tr. page 48) The contract called for draw payments as follows: $4,000 as a downpayment/advance; $3,000 upon completion of slab and block walls; $1,500 upon completion of piping and tie-columns; $2,500 upon completion of partition and drywall; $3,000 upon completion of the roof, and $1,000 upon completion of the job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent subsequently applied for a permit from the City of North Miami. The City of North Miami denied Respondent's application because Respondent failed to comply with the Dade County licensing requirements. (Tr. pages 21-22) Although Respondent acted in the capacity of a general contractor, he (Respondent) requested that Kairy obtain a owner/builder permit. Upon applying for the owner/builder permit, the City cancelled the original permit for the carport enclosure. (Tr. page 94) Kairy obtained the owner/builder permit pursuant to Respondent's assurances the permit would be properly transferred to Respondent's contracting license. The City provided Kairy with a "hold harmless letter" for Respondent to execute. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Upon presentation of that letter by Kairy to Respondent, Respondent refused to execute the "hold harmless letter." (Tr. pages 22-24) Subsequently, Kairy and Respondent executed an addendum to the construction contract. The addendum involved changing the enclosures roof structure from shingle to barrel tile. This change involved a price difference of $1,950 and increased the total contract price to $16,950. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, Tr. pages 31-32) The addendum was executed after completion of the tie-beam and tie- column portion of the construction project. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the March 12, 1983 construction contract, Kairy provided Respondent with the following amounts: $4,000 as an advance/downpayment on March 21, 1983; ($2,500 under the March 7 contract plus an additional $1,500); $3,000 upon completion of the slab and block work; $400 for preparation of the original set of plans; $500 toward tinted windows; $1,500 upon completion of the tie-beam and tie- column; $1,500 as an advance on the barrel tile roof; and $1,500 as an advance upon the completion of the roofs. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Kairy paid Respondent a total of $12,400 on the total contract price of $16,950 or approximately 73 percent of the contract price. Kairy timely remitted to Respondent installment payments for the slab and block work, tie- beam and tie-columns and advanced Respondent $3,000 towards completion of the roof. During April, 1983, Respondent commenced construction for enclosing the roof structure. Respondent ceased all construction activity upon being informed (by Kairy) that he would no longer pay Respondent in cash. (Tr. page 44) Respondent refused to accept payment in any form other than cash and offered no explanation, reason or excuse to Kairy for the cessation of work on this project. Kairy offered several reasons for his refusal to pay contract installments in cash. First, Respondent refused to execute the hold harmless letter provided by the City of North Miami and Respondent failed to properly supervise the construction activities by, among other things, disappearing from the project for a period of approximately three weeks. Finally, Respondent requested additional advances on the contract while the project was not progressing as scheduled. (Tr. pages 28, 44-46) Respondent did not return to the construction site after Kairy refused cash payments. On July 20, 1983, Respondent's roofing subcontractor filed a claim of lien against Kairy's property in the amount of $1,210. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Respondent has failed to satisfy the claim of lien and Kairy is in the process of satisfying that claim. (.Tr. page 54) Respondent also failed to pay an electrical subcontractor for services provided in the amount of $965. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) Again, Kairy is currently in the process of satisfying that debt and Respondent refuses to honor that obligation. (Tr. 57) Kairy reimbursed the plumbing subcontractor in the amount of $675 after Respondent's personal check was returned due to insufficient funds. (Tr. page 62 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9) On April 1, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department inspected the foundation and slab. On April 18, 1983, the Building Department inspected the tie-beam and columns. On May 6, 1983, the City of North Miami Building Department performed a tin-cap inspection on the enclosure roof. The City of North Miami Building Department estimated the actual construction completed when Respondent left the project and determined that it was approximately 70 percent complete. Completed construction included the slab, foundation, walls and tie-beam. Little interior construction work had been performed and drywall and partition walls were only partially complete. Kairy has either expended or will be required to expend the following sums in connection with the contract with Respondent: $12,400 - the amount paid directly to Respondent; $1,210 - the amount of the roofer's lien; $965 representing the amount owed to the electrician; and $675 representing the amount Kairy paid the plumbing subcontractor for a total of $15,250. 4/ Although Respondent completed approximately 70 percent of the actual construction, Kairy will correspondingly be required to expend approximately 90 percent of the contract price over and above monies paid to Respondent to complete this project. DOAH CASE NO. 84-3202 On May 12, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit for the construction of a four-bedroom, three-bath home to be located in Miramar, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Between May and October, 1983, the Bordens performed the site preparation necessary for pouring the building's foundation and slab. After observing Respondent's classified advertisement in a local flier, the Bordens contacted Respondent with regard to the construction of their home. (Tr. page 16) On November 11, 1983, Respondent contracted with the Bordens to provide certain contracting services relative to the construction of their home. The Bordens contracted Respondent to pour the foundation and slab, perform the block work, frame and pour the tie-beam and tie-columns. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Tr. pages 18-20) The Bordens were to complete all of remaining construction of their home) The contract price was approximately $16,810. On October 17, 1983, the City of Miramar issued William Borden an owner/builder permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) William Borden was to install the rough plumbing prior to Respondent pouring the foundation and slab. (Tr. 33) Due to certain time constraints, Respondent offered to install the rough plumbing. On October 25, 1983, Respondent received $475 from the Bordens toward installation of the rough plumbing. Respondent failed to subcontract the installation of the rough plumbing and failed to obtain the necessary building permit. On November 8, 1983, the Bordens provided Respondent an additional $470 representing final payment for installation of the rough plumbing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) On November 1, 1983, Mr. Bill Lafferty, chief building and mechanical inspector for the City of Miramar, performed an inspection of the rough plumbing work performed for the Bordens by Respondent. Lafferty determined that Respondent had failed to install the rough plumbing in accordance with provisions of the South Florida Building Code as adopted by the Broward County Code. As a consequence, Lafferty required Respondent to remove and reinstall the rough plumbing in accordance with applicable building code provisions. On November 7, 1983, Lafferty reinspected and approved the rough plumbing as reinstalled by Respondent. (Tr. pages 51-55) Respondent reinstalled rough plumbing at the Borden residence during the first week of November, 1983. Respondent did not obtain a building permit prior to reinstalling the rough plumbing. On November 16, 1983, the City of Miramar levied against Respondent a fee totalling $163.45. Part of that levy included $63.45 for renewal of the building permit and reinspection fee, and the remaining $100 represented a fine against Respondent for failing to properly obtain a building permit. (Tr. pages 58, 64 and Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On November 10, 1983, Salvatore Jenco, structural building inspector for the City of Miramar Building Department, inspected and approved the footing slab for the Borden residence. Subsequently, Respondent poured the concrete slab and foundation. Respondent did not obtain the requisite building permit prior to proceeding with construction. Respondent could not properly proceed with construction pursuant to William Borden's owner/builder permit. On November 11, 1983, inspector Jenco reinspected the concrete slab and foundation as poured by Respondent. As a result of that inspection, Jenco ordered all construction activities to be stopped at the Borden project. Specifically, Respondent materially deviated from the architect's plans and specifications by failing to pour a monolithic (continuous) slab and foundation for the Borden residence. As result of that deviation, the structural integrity of the building was compromised. (Tr. pages 71-73) Construction activity at the Borden residence was halted approximately three weeks while the Borden's architect developed a new set of blueprints. After the City approved the revised blueprints, Respondent began laying blocks and framing the tie-beam. Subsequently, Respondent requested Sunshine Concrete Company to commence pouring the tie-beam. The concrete company requested payment in cash due to the fact that Respondent had previously tendered a check to Sunshine Concrete Company which was returned due to insufficient funds. When informed of the concrete company's demands, the Respondent ordered the company to cease pouring the tie-beam. Upon being informed the tie-beam required a continuous pour, Respondent left the construction site and the Bordens were required to directly reimburse the concrete company. Respondent abandoned the project and has not returned to the construction site. Respondent owes the Bordens approximately $4,696 in reimbursed expenses. (Tr. pages 40-42) Respondent's Defense In DOAH Case No. 84-1298, Respondent did not offer any testimony to refute or otherwise rebut the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent refused to be placed under oath when he made statements as to his position in Case No. 84-3202.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, Respondent shall pay to the Construction Industry Licensing Board an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. However, if Respondent provides the Construction Industry Licensing Board with sufficient evidence indicating settlement and satisfaction of the existing disputes between Mr. Albert Kairy and Mr. and Mrs. William Borden, the suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year after which time it is recommended that his license be reinstated. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 9th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Gerald Bartlett was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a Registered General Contractor, having been first licensed in 1973. This license has been periodically renewed through June 30, 1989 (Exhibit 1). It was not valid for Pinellas County. Melvin Jones, an unlicensed contractor, had performed several jobs in Hillsborough County, the permits for which were pulled by Lee Grimes, a Registered General Contractor, authorized to pull permits in Hillsborough County. For this service Jones paid Grimes 5% of the contract price. Grimes learned that Jones was trying to acquire contracts to build or remodel churches, Haines City and Wauchula. At one time, Grimes spoke to Respondent about forming a company to construct those projects for which Jones could get contracts, but this was not pursued. On June 12, 1987, Jones, acting as Christian Builders, negotiated a contract with St. John's Missionary Baptist Church of Clearwater to construct an addition to the church for a contract price of $200,000 (Exhibit 2). He approached Grimes to get the permits pulled. Grimes contacted Respondent who was then working as a superintendent for EER Corporation, a construction firm. Respondent spoke to Thomas Hebert, Vice-President of EER, who had a statewide general contractor's license, about pulling the permit for the Clearwater church. Both Hebert and Respondent claim they understood Jones was the church representative, and they thought the church intended to perform a lot of the work using members of the church and only wanted someone to inspect the work as it progressed. Hebert agreed that his license be used to pull the permit to help the church, but Respondent would conduct periodic inspection to insure the work was properly performed. Respondent had agreed to inspect the construction for $100 per inspection. Jones paid Respondent $500 for this service. Unbeknownst to Hebert, Grimes acquired Hebert's permit card and prepared an authorization form to pull the permit for the church. Hebert's signature authorizing the pulling of the permit was forged, and Respondent notarized the document. Respondent contends that Grimes "plopped" the documents relating to the church permit down in front of him, and without requiring any signature in his presence or even looking over the documents carefully Respondent put his notary stamp and signature on the document. Thus armed, Jones and Grimes went to the Clearwater City Hall and obtained the building permit for the church addition. Grimes testified he intended to pull permits for the church jobs in Wauchula and Haines City the same day, but Jones didn't have enough money for the other two jobs. When the permit was issued, Jones gave Grimes $9000, mostly in $100 bills purportedly as 5% of the contract price which Grimes thought was $180,000. Grimes further testified that he gave $4500 to a then restaurant employee of Respondent, John McCartney, to give to Respondent. McCartney denies ever receiving any cash from Grimes, and Respondent denies receiving anything from Grimes or Jones except the $500 he received to cover the inspections he had agreed to do. McCartney has known Grimes for many years, and had Grimes given him any money at the restaurant he would have put it in the safe and not in his pocket as Grimes testified, and to McCartney's knowledge, Grimes would never give money to anybody. Grimes further testified that he had loaned some $12,000 to Jones to meet his payroll after Jones had given him the money. It is found that Respondent never received any money from Grimes as the latter claims. After visiting the construction site a few times, Respondent found the work was not being done in accordance with the plans. He discussed these problems with Jones, but when they were not corrected, he advised the church deacons that Jones was incompetent to complete the contract. The church board didn't want to remove Jones at this time, but a few weeks later when the architect and/or city inspectors threatened to stop the project, the church fired Jones and asked EER to supervise construction to completion with the church paying all labor and material costs. EER and Respondent agreed that Respondent would supervise the construction, and the church agreed to pay him $100 per day he was on the job site. Thereafter, the project was completed with no further problems. When Jones was called as a witness, he stated criminal charges were pending against him and invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination. At the time Hebert agreed to use his license to pull the church permit, he required the church and Jones to submit a letter (Exhibit 4) stating EER had agreed to pull the permit without fee to the church and to act as consulting and inspection agent.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Gerald Bartlett not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1,2,3 Included in H.O. 1, 2 and 4. 4,5,6 Accepted. Included in H.O. 5 and 6. Included in H.O. 4. 9,10 Included in H.O. 10. 11,12 Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Accepted insofar as included in H.O. 3. First part accepted. Not aware of Grime's thoughts. 15,16 Accepted insofar as included in H.O. 5. 17,18 Accepted. Accepted insofar as the initial inspections are concerned. Rejected as unsupported by evidence in this record. Rejected as unsupported by credible evidence. See H.O. 6. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Accept that Respondent was so told by Grimes. Rejected. Accepted only insofar as included in H.O. 7 and 9. Accepted as Grimes' unrebutted testimony. Rejected. Same as 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, FL 33602 Christy L. Hessler, Esquire 5265 Village Market Wesley Chapel, FL 33543 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
