Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Ruben S. Ares was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number CG CO 14769. Sentinel Building Company of Central Florida, Inc. was engaged in the business of building residential homes for sale. It was the practice of Sentinel Building to buy the land, engage the services of a general contractor to obtain a building permit and help in the supervision and consultation on construction and sell the hones built to others. The contractors were paid a fee of between $250 and $500 per residence for obtaining permits and providing consultation and services. The Vice-President of Sentinel Building was responsible for hiring and paying subcontractors and suppliers. Sentinel Building was not a Florida licensed general contractor, nor was it qualified by respondent or other Florida registered or certified licensee to engage in the business or contracting in Florida. Respondent Ares was not an officer, stockholder, member of the board of directors or employee of Sentinel Building Company. In 1980, respondent entered into an agreement with Sentinel Building to act as the general contractor for the con- struction of at least four residences. His responsibilities were to supervise the construction of the hones and obtain all necessary permits, including the original building permit and the final certificate of occupancy. The responsibility for engaging subcontractors and ordering and purchasing materials and supplies remained with Sentinel Building Company. Respondent was paid a fixed fee of $350 per house. During the period of time in which four residences in Seminole County were constructed, respondent held another full time job with a building company for which he worked 43 to 44 hours per week. His activity with Sentinel Building consisted of obtaining permits and periodic checks on the construction work. According to respondent, his inspections on construction activity occurred once every three to ten days and consumed approximately too to four hours of respondent's time per week. In 1980 and 1981, respondent applied for and obtained building permits for four single-family residences in Delmar Estates, Seminole County. The applications and permits listed Sentinel Building as the owner of the property and respondent Ruben S. Ares as the contractor. At least one of the four homes was under a contract of sale prior to construction. Three of the four purchasers were under the impression that the homes were built by Sentinel Building. None of the three had ever met respondent Ares, nor were they aware that he was the general contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes, that an administrative fine in the amount of $1500 be imposed against respondent and that the remaining charges of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 22nd day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Aldo Icardi, Esquire P.O. Box 879 990 Lewis Drive Winter Park, Florida 32790 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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
Findings Of Fact Robert Queen, Respondent, was during all times material herein a registered general contractor and is the holder of license no. RG0011043. On May 5, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Paul B. Stuewe, of Delray Beach, Florida, a 100 percent disabled veteran-service connected, entered into a contract with Robert Queen then d/b/a Queen Construction Company for construction of a home. The home was to be completed within 45 days. Construction commenced as scheduled, however within 60 days following commencement of construction, the Stuewes became concerned about the progress of construction and notified the Respondent of their concern. During this period, the Stuewes had received liens and notices of intent to file liens from various suppliers and materialmen. To finance the project, the Stuewes obtained a $55,000.00 construction loan commitment from First Federal Savings and Loan Association. As of August, 1975, approximately $41,000.00 of the available $55,000.00 construction loan commitment had been withdrawn by the Respondent. The remaining balance of approximately $14,175.00 was frozen by the lender based on its receipt of liens or notices of intent to file liens in the amount of $23,243.84 from various suppliers and mechanics. Based on the monies available in the construction loan, it is apparent that when all liens are satisfied, a deficit of approximately $9,000.00 will be created. The Stuewes took possession of their home on December 9, 1975, at which point the construction had not been completed as per the plans. When they took possession, Respondent advised that he had monies due from other projects and that upon receipt thereof, the construction for the Stuewe residence would be completed. Mr. Stuewe testified that when he took possession, the home was not carpeted nor did the Respondent install special railings in hallways and baths that were required by the contract and which the Stuewes requested based on his disability. Maynard Hamlin, the construction loan supervisor for First Federal Savings and Loan Association, testified and was in all respects corroborative of the testimony given by Mr. Stuewe. Edward Flynn, Director of the Construction Industry Licensing Board for Palm Beach County testified that he Investigated various complaints that he had received against Respondent during late 1975 and early 1976. During that board's public meeting of February, 1976, the board considered Mr. Flynn's investigation of various complaints received by Respondent. Respondent was noticed but failed to appear at the hearing. The board did however receive a letter from the Respondent's attorney advising that he felt that his presence was unnecessary at the February meeting inasmuch as he was no longer the qualifying agent for Queen Construction Company, a Florida corporation. Minutes of the board's February meeting revealed that there were outstanding liens on two homes under construction by Respondent in excess of approximately $33,000.00. At that meeting, the board suspended Respondent's certificate of competency for an indefinite period of time. Terry Verner, an investigator for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, investigated the instant complaint filed against the Respondent. Mr. Verner was shown an application for the building permit obtained by Respondent for the Stuewe residence and noted that the permit was obtained by Respondent who qualified Johnson Builders as the qualifying contractor. Investigation of Petitioner's files reveals that Respondent qualified Johnson Builders as the qualifying entity under which he would pull all construction contracts but failed to register the Queen Construction Company, Inc. as required by the Board's rules and regulations. (See Petitioner's Exhibit #4). Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The action of the Respondent in abandoning a construction project for which he contracted leaving a lien balance in excess of $9,000.00 which monies were received by him for completion of a specified construction project and his failure to fulfill the terms of his obligations pursuant to the contract he entered with the Stuewes amount to conduct violative of Chapter 468.112(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Evidence adduced at the hearing established that the Respondent had been disciplined by the County's construction industry licensing board which action is reviewable pursuant to Chapter 468.112 (2)(f), Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby issue the following:
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Certified Building Contractor or Residential Contractor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 44-year-old male. He was born and raised in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a high school graduate. Petitioner passed the examination for licensure as a certified building contractor. This is a comprehensive examination that is designed to test knowledge in all aspects of the construction industry. Passing it is a mandatory prerequisite before an application can be considered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB). However, passing the examination does not eliminate or modify the statutory or rule experience requirements. Petitioner submitted his application for a certified building contractor license on or about March 24, 2008. By letter of May 2, 2008, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation requested additional information. Petitioner then provided a revised affidavit from Chad Banks, a certified building contractor, and a letter from the Maintenance Construction Chief of the City of Tallahassee’s Gas Utility Department, each containing more detailed information about Petitioner’s experience. These items were received by Respondent on May 23, 2008. It is not clear whether Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance of his appearance with regard to the instant license application at an earlier FCILB meeting, but on January 15, 2009, the full Board considered Petitioner’s application at a duly-noticed public meeting in Altamonte Springs, Florida. At that time, Petitioner was present. During his appearance before the full Board on January 15, 2009, Petitioner was very nervous, but he believes that one of the Board members offered him, or at least asked him if he would accept, a residential contractor’s license in place of a certified building contractor’s license, and that he answered that he would accept such a license, only to have that “offer and acceptance” voted down by the full Board. However, Petitioner does not rule out the possibility that the vote taken at the meeting was actually with regard to denying the certified building contractor license for which he had applied. There is no evidence that Petitioner has ever submitted an application for a residential contractor’s license. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated March 16, 2009, and mailed March 24, 2009, the FCILB formally denied Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor License stating: The applicant failed to demonstrate the required experience, pursuant to Section 489.111, Florida Statutes and Rule 61G4- 15.001, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner seeks licensure as one who has four years of active experience and who has learned the trade by serving an apprenticeship as a skilled worker or as a foreman, at least one year of which experience is as a foreman. Petitioner has never worked as a full-time employee of a commercial or residential contractor. Petitioner got early experience in construction working around eight rental properties owned by his father. He performed light carpentry, deck construction, general handyman repairs, and some plumbing and roofing when he was approximately 16 to 21 years of age. However, Petitioner essentially relies on a work history that includes working as a plumber for Jim Bennett Plumbing from 1987 to 1993; as a foreman for the City of Tallahassee Gas Department from 1995 to 2005; as a “contractor trainee” for Chad Banks from 1999 to 2002; as having volunteered as superintendent for Gulf Coast Painting from 2003 to 2007; and as a maintenance man for the City of Tallahassee Parks Department from 2006 to 2007. Petitioner’s dates of employment overlap, because his volunteer experience was acquired mostly on weekends, holidays, in hours after he had already completed a full work day for the City of Tallahassee, or on “time off” from his regular employments with the City. Petitioner is a hard worker and wanted to learn the construction trade, but his volunteer construction jobs were intermittent, and he provided no clear assessment of the number of hours per week or month that he put in for any of them. From 1987 to 1993, Petitioner worked for Jim Bennett Plumbing. He started as a plumber’s helper and progressed to greater responsibility. In that position, he acquired a wide range of experience in plumbing for some residential, but mostly commercial, buildings. During this period, he also did some light cosmetic carpentry and tile work to restore building parts damaged by the installation of plumbing apparatus. Much of Petitioner’s construction experience relates to his association with Chad Banks, who testified that at all times material, Petitioner had “hands on” experience, working for him and that Petitioner was a competent worker. Petitioner has never been a “W-2 employee” of Mr. Banks, but there is no specific statutory or rule requirement that the experience necessary to qualify for the certified building contractor or the residential contractor license must be as a “W-2 employee.” Cf. Conclusions of Law. Mr. Banks was not licensed as a certified building contractor until 1999. Petitioner did some work for Mr. Banks when Mr. Banks was working as a sub-contractor on commercial projects (specifically one or more Super-Lube buildings) prior to Mr. Banks obtaining his certified building contractor’s license in 1999. Most of this employment involved pouring concrete slabs. Petitioner claims experience in “elevated slabs,” limited to the construction of a single Super-Lube building, which Petitioner described as laying a slab below ground level for mechanics to stand on and an at-ground level slab for cars to drive onto the lift for an oil change. He described no truly “elevated” slabs or floors above ground level on this project, and Petitioner’s and Mr. Banks’ testimony was vague as to Petitioner’s responsibilities on this project and as to the project’s duration. The general contractor on this project for whom Mr. Banks “subbed” did not testify. From this, and other employments, Petitioner has experience pouring foundation slabs, but he has never worked on a foundation slab in excess of 20,000 square feet. Petitioner also assisted in Mr. Banks’ construction of some rental sheds, but it is unclear if this was before or after Mr. Banks was licensed. Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks d/b/a C. B. Construction, Inc., in a volunteer capacity on exclusively residential construction from 1999 to 2002, and again from February 2004 to March 2008. During these periods, Petitioner and Mr. Banks considered Petitioner a “contractor trainee,” but Petitioner’s work for Mr. Banks was neither exclusive nor continuous; both men described it as “volunteer” work; and some of it seems to have amounted to Petitioner's looking over work done personally by Mr. Banks and having Mr. Banks explain to him, via a plan sheet, what Mr. Banks had already done personally. There is no evidence that during this time frame Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks as a foreman. Petitioner has the ability to “read” many types of construction “plans.” Petitioner has experience with slab footers, but he has not constructed red iron structural steel qualified for framing a building. Petitioner has experience in decorative masonry walls, but he has not constructed structural masonry walls of a type that would support framing members of a building or other vertical construction. Petitioner also worked for the City of Tallahassee as a “W-2” employee, mostly as a foreman overseeing a crew of four workers, from 1995 to 2005. In that capacity, he worked on a church, but the church itself had been constructed several years previously, and Petitioner’s crew’s contribution was tying-in several gas lines during a roadway development project and keeping all the utilities up and running during the project, while a private contractor worked on the church. With regard to the foregoing project and many others for the City Utilities Department, Petitioner directed a crew that built sidewalks and gutters or that tied these features into existing roadways and driveways. In that capacity, he often coordinated activities with residential contractors. Over his ten years’ employment with the City Utilities, Petitioner also directed a crew that exclusively created underground vaults for the housing and shelter of utility apparatus. However, none of his endeavors for the City Utilities involved vertical structural construction for floors above ground. Petitioner has also built new gas stations for the City’s natural gas vehicles, and has erected pre-fab utility buildings, including much slab work, but the nature and duration of these endeavors is not sufficiently clear to categorize them as qualifying him for the certified building contractor license. Most of Petitioner’s experience with the City, as substantiated by the letter of the City Utilities Maintenance Construction Chief, Mr. Lavine, has been in the construction of driveways, roads, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, culverts, underground utility structures, plumbing and gas lines. While it is accepted that Petitioner has worked on such projects, this type of work more properly falls in the categories of “plumbing contractor” or “underground utility contractor” and Mr. Lavine was not demonstrated to have any certification/licensure in a category appropriate to Petitioner’s application. (See Conclusions of Law.) Sometime after 2005, for approximately a year, Petitioner was employed by the City of Tallahassee Parks and Recreation Department and in that capacity participated in at least one construction of a dugout and a concession stand at one of its playgrounds. He also did repairs on several dugouts and concession stands, but this latter work would not be classified as “structural” construction. Petitioner’s experience in precast concrete structures is limited to his work with gas utility structures, but does not include work on precast tilt walls, which are the type of walls that are constructed off-site, delivered to the job site, placed on the slab foundation, and raised in place as part of an on- going commercial building project. Petitioner has no experience in column erection. “Columns” in this context within the construction trade refers to supports for upper level structural members, which would entail vertical construction. Petitioner’s experience in concrete formwork does not include experience in the structurally reinforced concrete formwork that would be used in vertical buildings, such as all floors above ground level. FCILB’s Chairman testified that the Board interprets the type of experience necessary to comply with the statutes and rules, more particularly Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.001(2), to be “structural experience.” There is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner has ever notified the Clerk of the Agency that he was relying on a right to a default license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Certified Building Contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Hamilton held registered residential contractors license number RR0015037. Hamilton agreed to construct a house in Clearmont, Florida, with a completion date no later than May 1, 1977, for Robert J. and Margaret M. Phlepsen. The construction price was $75,000.00. After construction of the house it was discovered that there existed two violations of the Southern Building Code. First, the "step-down" from the kitchen to the garage was an eleven inch riser contrary to the code requirement that the height of a riser shall not exceed seven and three quarters inches. The second violation occurred through the use of 2 X 8 joists where the code would require 2 X 10 joists. The extra high riser between the kitchen and the garage was apparently caused by an oversight. Hamilton merely failed to install an intermediate step at that location. The second violation occurred because the owner and Hamilton agreed to use the smaller joists in order to save money on the contract price. In neither case is there sufficient evidence to establish that Hamilton's violations were willful or deliberate as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On June 6, 1978, the Lake County Board of Examiners suspended Hamilton's Lake County Certificate of Competency because of violations of building code requirements in the construction of Phlepsen's house.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated June 7, 1989, alleges that Respondent violated Chapter 489, F.S., governing the construction industry, by completing a contracting job without having obtained a local building permit. The issue in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate. An ancillary issue is what effect, if any, Respondent's discharge in bankruptcy dated January 9, 1989, would have on any penalty in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, and between July 1985 and July 1989, Robert Lambert was licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a Registered Aluminum Specialty Contractor, with license number RX-0048976. Robert Lambert was the sole qualifying agent for The Screenbuilders Aluminum Trim, 1410 Elk Court, Apopka, Florida, a partnership business in which Lambert was a partner. In June 1987, the Screenbuilders entered into a written contract with Cecil Floyd to construct a carport and screened-in porch and new roof over Mr. Floyd's home at 741 Baron Road, Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The entire job was completed without Lambert's having obtained a building permit from the Orange County Building Department. Section 103 of the Standard Building Code of 1985, as adopted in the Orange County Building Code, requires that a building permit be obtained prior to altering, repairing, improving, converting, constructing, or demolishing any building or structure in the jurisdiction. (Petitioner's exhibits #2 and #3) Respondent and his agents knew that they needed a permit from the Orange County Building Department. For other jobs they had routinely obtained permits. After the work commenced, Lambert attempted to obtain a permit for the job. The building department would not accept the paperwork he offered and Cecil Floyd refused to pay for another plat as he had already paid out the entire contracted for monies for the job. To date, no permit for the Floyd job has been obtained. Robert Lambert's licensure file reveals several prior disciplinary actions, including revocation on January 11, 1990. As of the date of hearing, no final order on that action had been issued. On January 9, 1989, George L. Proctor, Bankruptcy Judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, entered a "Discharge of Debtor", providing as follows: DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR It appears that the person named above filed a petition commencing a case under title 11, United States Code on August 29, 1988 , that an order for relief was entered under chapter 7, and that no complaint objecting to the discharge of the debtor was filed within the time fixed by the court [or that a complaint objecting to discharge of the debtor was filed and, after due notice and hearing, was not sustained]. IT IS ORDERED THAT: The above-named debtor is released from all dischargeable debts. Any judgement heretofore or hereafter obtained in any court other than this court is null and void as a determination of the personal liability of the debtor with respect to any of the following: debts dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. Section 523; unless heretofore or hereafter determined by order of this court to be nondischargeable, debts alleged to be excepted from the discharge under clauses (2), (4) and (6) of 11 U.S.C. Section 523 (a); debts determined by this court to be discharged. All creditors whose debts are discharged by this order and all creditors whose are declared null and void by paragraph 2 above are enjoined from instituting or continuing any action or employing any process or engaging in any act to collect such debts as personal liabilities of the above-named debtor. Respondent Exhibit #1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That Respondent, Robert Lambert, be found guilty of violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S. and fined $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert Lambert 1410 Elk Court Apopka, FL 32712-3026 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., (g)3., (j), (o) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Spencer holds a current, active Florida State Certified Building Contractor License, having been issued license number CBC 1252039. He is certified with the Department as doing business as KCLS Spencer, Inc. (KCLS), and is the primary qualifying agent thereof. Mr. Spencer submitted a Proposal, bearing the letterhead of KCLS and dated September, 14, 2004, to Jesse J. Ross, Sr. (Mr. Ross), which pertained to the exterior remodeling of Mr. Ross' jewelry store located at 6290 North Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Initially, the Proposal put the cost for the remodeling at $48,762.86. After some negotiating, the Proposal that ultimately formed the basis of their contract set the cost at $45,000.00 and relieved Mr. Spencer of the obligation of constructing walkways. The Proposal's explicit terms provide: As per specifications and blueprints pricing is as follows; labor and material to renovate existing exterior building. Prices to include all demolition of all exist [sic] structures, installation of siding, columns, dormers, cupolas, two (2) French doors, windows, front gutters and down spouts, electrical, and final painting. Notes: Signs by owner. Paint colors by owner. Power and water supplied by owner. Color of pre-painted metal roof determined by owner. Material storage space to be provided by owner. Quotes good for 10 days (after 10 days, please reconfirm material pricing). 20% deposit $9752.57 due to start project, invoicing to [sic] made weekly per actual costs. Essentially, much of the exterior remodeling to be performed is simply stated as being based on the specifications and blueprints, which Mr. Ross provided to Mr. Spencer. These specifications and blueprints have not been received in evidence, but there appears to be no dispute among the parties regarding the scope of the work. The terms of payment were for an initial 20 percent deposit of $9,752.57, with weekly invoices to follow based on actual, ongoing costs. On October 25, 2004, Mr. Ross' lender, Coastal Bank, drafted a loan check for $9,752.57 made payable to KCLS. Sometime shortly thereafter, KCLS began the work of remodeling the exterior of Mr. Ross' store. As work progressed, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with an invoice, dated November 11, 2004, requesting payment for costs incurred. Despite listing on the invoice an "off set balance" of $2,515.32 that applied costs to date against the initial deposit, the total amount due was nevertheless listed as $12,268.04. On November 23, 2004, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $12,268.04 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. Later, Mr. Spencer provided Mr. Ross with another invoice, dated December 23, 2004, requesting payment for further costs incurred. The total amount due was $8,475.24. By check dated that same day, Mr. Ross wrote a check for $8,475.24 made payable to Mr. Spencer personally. At this time, Mr. Ross received assurance from Mr. Spencer that no further money would be due, until the work was entirely completed. Sometime between Christmas 2004 and New Year's 2005, Mr. Spencer returned again to Mr. Ross' store and requested from him an additional $3,000.00. At this point, Mr. Ross refused, because of Mr. Spencer's earlier assurance that no further ongoing payments would be demanded and because of the lack of any work performed since the last payment. Mr. Spencer insisted that he had all of the necessary materials in his warehouse and that he would be back on the Monday following the New Year's holiday to work on the store. He never returned and could not be contacted by Mr. Ross. As the storefront remained in disrepair, Mr. Ross was compelled to contract with other parties to complete the work. Sunland General Contractors, Inc. (Sunland); Baker Roofing (Baker); and D.A.B. Painting, Inc. (DAB), completed the work that Mr. Spencer had previously been contracted with to perform. According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, they based their work upon the same specifications and blueprints that Mr. Ross had previously provided to Mr. Spencer. Sunland, except for the roofing and painting, performed what work that remained. Based on a payment history dated December 16, 2005, the total cost of Sunland's work for Mr. Ross was $23,770.00. However, this cost includes $3,990.00 for walkway decking, which Mr. Ross and Mr. Spencer, in their previous negotiations, had agreed would not be part of their final agreement. As such, the relevant cost in the instant case for Sunland's work is $19,780.00. According to a Baker invoice, dated November 10, 2005, the cost to Mr. Ross for the new roof was $14,935.00. According to a letter from DAB, dated April 23, 2005, Mr. Ross paid $6,500.00 for the painting of his store. In sum, the relevant costs to Mr. Ross for this subsequent work total $41,215.00. Sometime in October of 2005, Mr. Ross provided Mr. Frank A. Wisniski (Mr. Wisniski), a general contractor and owner of Sunland, with a set of blueprints and asked him to takeover the job that Mr. Spencer had not completed. Mr. Wisniski further testified on the condition of the building, as Mr. Spencer had left it. According to his testimony, some of the siding was not nailed properly, and the columns in the front of the store were not well secured, a potentially hazardous situation. Overall, in his opinion, he felt that Mr. Spencer had completed approximately 25 percent of the total scope of the job. Mr. Robert T. Shindo (Mr. Shindo) is an investigator for the Department. He responded to Mr. Ross' complaint to the Department regarding Mr. Spencer's work on the store. He found, "basically, a building that was not in repair." Some siding work had been done on the north face of the building, as well as some column work. However, the columns appeared damaged or incomplete, and the siding appeared incomplete as well. Besides the siding and columns, Mr. Shindo testified that "[t]here did not appear to be any other work." Overall, Mr. Shindo had familiarized himself with the Proposal and estimated that between ten and 15 percent of the job appeared to be complete. Mr. Michael McCaughin (Mr. McCaughin) is employed at the Building Code Division of Brevard County and is the chief building official for the county. Mr. McCaughin concluded that based on the work specified in the Proposal of Mr. Spencer, the only item which would not have required permitting is the gutters. Mr. McCaughin personally searched the county permit database, and no permits were ever pulled by Mr. Spencer for the remodeling of Mr. Ross' store. Petitioner's Exhibit 14, a printout of the permits that have been pulled for Mr. Ross' store, confirms Mr. McCaughin's testimony. Moreover, Mr. McCaughin "performed a search of Mr. Spencer under his name, under his state license number, and also under the company name, KCLS and, could not find any record of any permits being pulled, nor was he registered with Brevard County contractor licensing." Mr. Spencer, in testifying in his own behalf, mainly confirmed the testimony of the other witnesses and the other facts in evidence. Among other things, he confirmed that he and Mr. Ross had an agreement for KCLS to remodel the exterior of the store and that the agreement was based on the Proposal he had submitted to Mr. Ross. He agreed that he received the payments that Mr. Ross testified to having paid and testified that he never pulled the permits for the job, because he "[j]ust didn't take the time to do it." Mr. Spencer's recollection of his final conversation with Mr. Ross was substantially the same as Mr. Ross' testimony, with Mr. Spencer testifying that he had told Mr. Ross he would be back to work on the job and that there was an understanding that final payment would be made at the end of the project. He goes on to testify that he did actually go back after this final conversation to finish up the siding on the south side of the store and that the siding was completed. This last testimony is not credible. In Mr. Spencer's defense, some of the work was farmed out to subcontractors, and they were paid in full. He then testified that he was planning on continuing the work but that he was waiting on a roofer. While he was waiting for the roofer, he testified that there was some dispute between himself and Mr. Ross regarding a ring he had received from Mr. Ross. He testified that the ring fell apart and that the dispute ended their working relationship. But for "$8200 - Ring" being handwritten on the Proposal alongside the other payments made by Mr. Ross, no mention of this ring was made by the Petitioner. Presumably, this ring was given as in-kind payment to Mr. Spencer, but without anything more to go on, the insufficiency of the relevant evidence precludes any recognition of the ring as payment. Therefore, the three previously described checks, furnished by Mr. Ross and made payable to Mr. Spencer or KCLS, are found to represent the entirety of the consideration furnished. To refresh, these checks are dated October 25, 2004; November 23, 2004; and December 23, 2004, and amount to $9,752.57; $12,268.04; and $8,475.24, respectively. In sum, they total $30,495.85. Mr. Spencer also testified about the installation of French doors at Mr. Ross' store. Mr. Ross earlier testified that he had refused delivery of two French doors, when a subcontractor arrived to install them, because they were not the style, size or number he desired. He further testified that Mr. Spencer was aware that he desired six doors with plastic slats (not two as listed in the Proposal), because he had directed Mr. Spencer to examine the doors of a nearby storefront, whose style he wished to replicate. Mr. Spencer was questioned about these doors by opposing counsel. Opposing counsel asked, "Were the French doors ever installed into the building?" Mr. Spencer responded, "Not that I know of, by Bill, no." Several questions later, opposing counsel asked, "Okay. My point is, the doors were never installed in the project; is that your understanding?" Mr. Spencer responded, "My understanding from Bill was that, yes, they were installed." On this issue, Mr. Spencer could only speculate, because he never returned to the job site to check whether the doors had been installed. Mr. Spencer's testimony on this topic is not credible. Despite never being installed, Mr. Ross paid a $4,700.00 deposit for the French doors that was never refunded. When asked why this money was never refunded to Mr. Ross, Mr. Spencer goes on to testify that he trusted the subcontractor delivering the doors, that he assumed they were delivered, and that that's why he never attempted to receive a refund of the doors' cost from the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)2., 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(m), and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; finding that Respondent did not violate Subsection 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $2,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for the violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes; requiring Respondent to make restitution to Mr. Ross in the amount of $26,710.85; placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years; and requiring Mr. Spencer to attend a minimum of seven additional hours of continuing education classes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of April, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaints filed against him? If so, what discipline should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: General Information Edward Ryan is now, and has been since October, 1973, licensed as a Building Contractor by the State of Florida. He holds license number CB 0006481. Ryan has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). In July, 1987, prior to the issuance of the instant administrative complaints, he received a letter of reprimand from the Board. The Department of Professional Regulation has recently received additional complaints concerning Ryan. These complaints are currently under investigation. Ryan has been the qualifying agent for Gulf Chemical Contractors, Inc. (Gulf) since August, 1982. All ten of the instant administrative complaints involve projects undertaken by Gulf in Dade County, Florida. The South Florida Building Code (Code) has been adopted as the building code for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Dade County. The Code provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the requirement of permits: It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof; or any equipment, device or facility therein or thereon; or to change the Occupancy of a building from one use Group to another requiring greater strength, means of egress, fire and sanitary provisions; or to install or alter any equipment for which provision is made or the installation of which is regulated by this Code; without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building Official, validated by payment there for. EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following Sections, for general maintenance or repairs which do not change the Occupancy and the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building Official. The Code further requires that the permit holder or his agent notify the Building Official of the completion of the project and call for an inspection of the work completed. Another requirement of the Code is that products such as air vent systems receive official approval from the appropriate Building Official prior to their installation. An experienced building contractor like Ryan doing business in Dade County should be aware of these requirements and should know that it is the responsibility of the general contractor of a project to make sure that these requirements are met. Case No. 89-2204 On May 2, 1987, Helana Lau and her husband entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to perform work on the Lau residence located at 2400 S.W. 15th Street in Miami, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $11,450.00 by the Laus. The work that was to be performed on the structure included, among other things, the replacement of the roof and "any rotted wood on facia and soffits" and the installation of a "filter vent system." Gulf installed an aluminum air vent system for the Laus. The product used by Gulf had not received official approval prior to its installation as required by the South Florida Building Code. Furthermore, it posed a potential safety hazard. No official inspection of the contract work performed by Gulf on the Lau residence has ever been requested, notwithstanding that Gulf has long since terminated its work in connection with the project and vacated the jobsite. Case No. 89-2205 On December 29, 1986, Marvin Lichtenstein entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Lichtenstein's home located at 2080 N.E. 171st Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $4,000.00 by Lichtenstein for performing this work. The contract contained a handwritten notation that "finances will be appr 10-11%" and that therefore Lichtenstein would have "a monthly payment of appr $71 or less" on the unpaid balance, which was $3,900.00. The contract also contained the following provision, which unlike the aforementioned notation was printed: This is an agreement by the parties mentioned herein to enter into an installment loan contract. The Purchaser requests that the Seller and the Seller's agents make the appropriate inquiries into the Purchaser's credit history and into the condition of the Title of the Property to be encumbered. The purpose of these inquiries is to see if the Seller may be able to arrange financing of the unpaid cash balance and what the terms of that financing may be. The purchaser agrees to accept any Home Improvement Contract presented by or thru the Seller, that has an interest rate less than the maximum current interest mentioned in the Florida Retail Installment & Sales Acts. The Purchaser agrees that all cost incurred by the Seller in connection with the payment plan will be paid by the Purchaser if the Purchaser refuses to accept that Home Improvement Contract. The work was performed by Gulf on the Lichtenstein home during the second week of January, 1987. Although a permit was required under the Code, it was not obtained prior to the commencement of the project or at any time thereafter. Furthermore, no official inspection of the work completed by Gulf has been requested. Following the completion of the work, Lichtenstein received from AmSav Financial, Inc., an Advance Notice of Acceptance and Intent to Purchase an FHA Title I Note. The document, which was dated January 14, 1987, provided Lichtenstein with the following information: We have found your credit to be satisfactory for a loan in the amount of $3,900.00 for a period of 60 months. Interest at a rate of 14.50% will be charged on the unpaid principal balance. Monthly payments will be $92.82. It is our intention to disburse the funds to the above mentioned dealer [Gulf] when all necessary documents, including a completion certificate indicating the work has been satisfactorily completed are received in proper order; but not earlier than six days from this date. It is not our policy to inspect all improvement projects we finance, so we want you to know that the selection of the contractor and the acceptance of workmanship and materials is your responsibility. You should insist on a copy of all instruments you sign and you should not sign the completion certificate until the contract has been fulfilled to your satisfaction. Contractors are not permitted to give cash rebates from the proceeds of this transaction nor are they permitted to make any payments for you nor any other type of incentive to buy. This commitment is good for 60 days only. If you have any questions regarding this transaction, or if we can be helpful in any way, please let us hear from you within six days from this date. Lichtenstein refused to accept this financing arrangement and, because he was dissatisfied with the work Gulf had done, withheld payment. He eventually settled this dispute with Gulf and paid the company $2,500 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Case No. 89-2206 On or about July 11, 1987, Al Childress, the supervisor of the Code Enforcement Section of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, received a complaint regarding work purportedly done by Gulf on the Rojas residence located at 18105 N.W. 5th Court in Dade County, Florida. Childress thereafter inspected the premises and discovered that a three-ton air conditioning unit had been installed without a permit first having been obtained. He further ascertained that no formal inspection of the installed unit had been requested. Childress subsequently issued Gulf citations for "unlawfully commencing work on a[n] air conditioning installation without a permit" and "unlawfully contracting for work outside the scope of the certificate of competency." Case No. 89-2207 On January 12, 1987, Bryan Bitner entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to remodel and renovate the kitchen and other parts of the Bitner residence located 571 N.E. 175th Terrace in North Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $10,216 by Bitner. Work on the project began on February 14, 1987, and ended on April 20, 1987. Although given the opportunity to do so by Bitner, Gulf failed to finish the work it had agreed to perform and, without justification or notice, abandoned the project after having completed only 70% of the kitchen cabinetry work specified in the contract. Neither before nor after the commencement of work on the project were the required building, electrical and plumbing permits obtained. No official inspections of the work done in connection with the project have been requested. Case No. 89-2208 On December 19, 1985, Anthony and Anna Rabeck entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to perform roofing work on the Rabeck's home located at 447 East 7th Street in Hialeah, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $2,792.00 by the Rabecks. Gulf thereafter subcontracted with Louis Rusty Gordon of Rusty's Roofing to perform work on the project. Gordon performed the work, but was not paid the $600.00 Gulf had agreed to pay him. He therefore filed a lien on the Rabeck's residence in the amount of $600.00 and filed a complaint against Gulf and the Rabecks in Dade County Circuit Court seeking a $600.00 judgment against them. Gordon was ultimately paid the $600.00 by the Rabecks. A roofing permit was never obtained for the work that was done on the Rabeck residence. Furthermore, no official inspection of the work has ever been requested. Case No. 89-2209 On February 21, 1987, James Cox entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat and to add a screened porch to the Cox residence located at 11621 S.W. 183rd Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $5,700.00 by Cox. The texture coating was completed in late March, 1987. The screened porch was finished in early April, 1987. Upon completion of the entire project, Cox paid Gulf in full in accordance with their contractual agreement. Although a permit was necessary to commence the work on the Cox residence, it was never obtained. In addition, no one requested that the completed work be officially inspected. The screened porch was constructed by a subcontractor, Steve Buzzella. Prior to his undertaking this project, Gulf had agreed to pay him $2,200.00 for such work. Although he satisfactorily completed the project, Gulf did not pay him for his work. Consequently, he filed a lien on the Cox residence in the amount of $2,200.00. Buzzella has yet to be paid the money he is owed by Gulf and the lien remains in effect. Cox has retained legal counsel to assist him in connection with this matter and has already paid $175.00 in legal fees. Case No. 89-2210 On June 30, 1986, Adele Spiegel and her husband David entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed in the contract to, among other things, texture coat the Spiegels' residence located at 7380 S.W. 116th Terrace in Dade County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $4,500.00 by the Spiegels. The contract further provided that the Spiegels were to receive a "15 year warr[anty] on [the] tex[ture] coat[ing]" work. It also contained the following provision: Contractor guarantees that all materials furnished by it will be of standard quality, type and condition, free from defects, and will be installed, built or applied in a good workmanlike manner; said labor and materials guaranteed against structural and material defects. Gulf completed the project without obtaining the required permit. Furthermore, no official inspection of the completed project was ever requested. The Spiegels paid Gulf in full for the work it had done. The last of their payments was made on July 10, 1986, following the completion of the project. After this final payment was made, "dark stains" appeared on portions of the texture coating that had been applied to the gable end of the Spiegels' roof. In addition, some of the texture coating started to peel and crack. These problems were caused by the improper application of the texture coating. The Spiegels have advised Gulf of these problems. They have made numerous efforts to have Gulf honor its fifteen-year warranty and correct these problems. These efforts have been to no avail. Gulf has yet to take any corrective action, notwithstanding its obligation to do so under the warranty it gave the Spiegels. Case No. 89-2211 On February 18, 1985, Angelo Bertolino entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Bertolino's residence located at 11730 S.W. 175th Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $3,000.00 by Bertolino. Bertolino received from Gulf, as part of their agreement, a fifteen-year warranty on the texture coating similar to the one that the Spiegels were given. Assurances were given to Bertolino that any warranty work that was necessary would be done by Gulf. The Bertolino home was texture coated shortly after the contract was signed. In July, 1987, the texture coating began to crack and peel. Bertolino immediately contacted Gulf to apprise it of the situation and to request that it perform the necessary repairs in accordance with the terms of the warranty it had given him. Receiving no response from Gulf to this initial request, he telephoned the company's offices on almost a daily basis until September, 1987, when a Gulf representative came to his home and did some corrective work. A month later, the area that had purportedly been repaired started to again crack and peel. Bertolino has made Gulf aware of the situation and has sought on numerous occasions to have the company perform the warranty work necessary to correct these problems. Gulf has ignored these requests and failed to honor the warranty it gave Bertolino. Case No. 89-2212 On January 6, 1988, Edward Baum entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Baum's residence located at 10921 S.W. 120th Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $3,200 by Baum. The project was completed on January 13, 1988. Upon completion of the work, Baum paid Gulf in full. Textured Coatings of America, Inc. (TCA) supplied Gulf with $583.28 of materials that were used to complete the project. The materials were supplied on credit. Because it had not received payment for these materials, TCA, on March 4, 1988, after giving due notice to Gulf and Baum, filed a lien on Baum's residence in the amount of $583.28. TCA has yet to be paid for these materials and the lien is still in effect. Case No. 89-2213 On February 17, 1987, James Harris entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to install new windows in Harris' residence located at 9730 S.W. 167th Street in Dade County, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $2,503.20 by Harris. The windows were installed in one day. Although one was needed, no permit was obtained prior to the completion of the project. Furthermore, no official inspection of the completed work has ever been requested. The windows were not installed properly. As a result, they do not close and lock as they should. Harris must put cement blocks on the outside ledges in front of some of the windows and then tape these windows shut to prevent them from falling open. Harris has unsuccessfully sought to have Gulf repair the windows.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations described in paragraph 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16-24 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law; (2) revoking his license as punishment for these violations; and (3) dismissing the charges against Respondent discussed in paragraphs 9, 10, 13, and 15 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-2204 THROUGH 89-2213 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Department: 1-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as it suggests that Lichtenstein was obligated to, and did, make monthly payments of $92.82. Rejected for the same reason as 13, second sentence, above. 15-16. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence to the extent that it asserts that Rojas "had hired Gulf to install an air conditioning unit." Insofar as it describes the complaint received by Childress, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as it indicates that the work on the Rojas residence was performed by Respondent. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. First sentence: Rejected for the same reason as 18 above; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected for the same reason as 18 above. 22-28. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges to the extent that it addresses the quality of the work that was completed. In all other respects, this proposed finding has been accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 31-32. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 33-34. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as both of these proposed findings are based upon the premise that the Rabeck's paid Gulf in full. 36-44. Accepted and incorporated by reference. 45. Rejected as unnecessary, except for the last sentence, which has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 46-62. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 63. Rejected as unnecessary except to the extent it references the lien filed against the Baum residence. Insofar as it addresses said lien, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 65-66. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 67. First sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; second and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. 68-71. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Victor, Esquire Jan L. Darlow, Esquire William Burke, Esquire Bayview Executive Plaza 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Edward Ryan 169 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation accusing the Respondent of various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Should the Respondent be found guilty, this action contemplates the imposition of a penalty against Respondent's license as a commercial pool contractor in Florida.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent, at all times relevant to this inquiry, was a registered commercial pool contractor having been issued license number RP0041725. This is a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 2..On November 18, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract under the name Kennedy Pool and Construction Co., an entity for whom Respondent serves as a qualifying agent in the commercial pool contracting business. This contract was with one Marie Robertson; however, the contract was not for the purpose of construction of a pool. It was for construction of a 20' by 24' block garage. This structure was to be free-standing and would be located adjacent to Ms. Robertson's residence, which is also used in her business. Petitioner's exhibit number 2 is a copy of the contract and reflects the $4,800.00 contract price. Robertson has paid the full amount of the contract and the garage construction was completed in January, 1984. Respondent personally built the garage. Respondent built the garage without obtaining a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent also failed to submit plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville, which set forth the design and placement of this garage structure. Having failed to request a permit or to submit plans and specifications, Respondent made no request of the City of Jacksonville Building Department to inspect the construction related to the garage. Finally, Respondent in his licensure with the State of Florida, and license recognition with the City of Jacksonville, was not authorized to serve as a building contractor engaging in the construction of structures such as the garage in question. The project at issue entailed the pouring of a foundation; the erection of block walls the erection of a roof truss system and the installation of a roof covering of shingles. All of these items were beyond the license recognition which respondent held with the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville. When the City of Jacksonville discovered the existence of the garage, it made the owner aware that the structure was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code related to the need for obtaining a building permit, and the fact that the garage structure violated the city's set-back requirement. This later item pertained to the fact that given the commercial utilization of the property, on the part of Ms. Robertson, the garage was too close to the city street. As a consequence, Robertson was put to the inconvenience of obtaining and paying for a building permit and gaining a variance from the set-back requirements mentioned. Had the City of Jacksonville been presented with building plans and specifications, this would have alerted the city to the fact that the placement of the garage was too close to the street. When confronted with her difficulty, Ms. Robertson contacted the Respondent to gain his assistance in obtaining a building permit. The Respondent indicated that it was her problem and said that he could not get a permit because the property was business property and not private property. The Respondent was charged by the City of Jacksonville through a notice of violation of local zoning requirements related to the failure to obtain a building permit and the fact that the Respondent was not licensed by the City of Jacksonville to construct a garage at the Robertson residence. Attempts at serving the violations were not successful in that calls to the Respondent and issuance of notice of violations through certified mail, return receipt requested, were not acknowledged by the Respondent.
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the two Administrative Complaints filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Respondent was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0010134. Michael P. Freeman (a/k/a Dennis Freeman) was at no time material to the allegations considered herein a registered, certified, or otherwise licensed individual on record with CILB in Florida. In July 1983, Respondent and Dennis Freeman agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of home construction in Florida to be known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. (D & S). The officers of this corporation were to be: President S. A. Stone (Respondent) Vice President Dennis Freeman Sec. Treas. Kristina Freeman The letter from Respondent to his attorney, drafted and written by Ms. Via, but signed by Respondent, requesting that the corporation be established, provided that Freeman was to be responsible for all materials, maintenance, labor, bills, etc., and Respondent was to be responsible only for the "quality of work." This letter served as an agreement between Freeman and Stone which was to be separate and apart from the Articles of Incorporation. Respondent was to receive a 7% commission on "all labor done or any type of construction by Mr. Freeman or D & S Homebuilders . . .", and through his Exchange Realty office, was to receive a 5% commission on all sales of property from the corporation or Mr. Freeman. D & S was organized as a corporation until November 21, 1984, when it was involuntarily dissolved for failure to file an annual report. Though the corporation was formed and a Corporate Charter issued, and this action was taken at the request of the Respondent, the corporation was formed in the attorney's name. Neither Respondent nor the Freemans ever officially took over as officers or directors. In short, the corporation while legally born, never breathed. At no time during its life and during the period relative to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint herein, did the Respondent qualify the corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In addition to sending the letter to the attorney requesting that the corporation be established, Mr. Stone, on November 1, 1983, entered into a handwritten agreement with Mr. Freeman, also drawn by Ms. Via, which called for the use of his license: for Freeman to pay Respondent an additional $500.00 for the use of the license on each job over $5,0000.00 and for Freeman to "be solely responsible for anything that might arise against S. A. Stone's license." The first payment was to be made on December 1, 1983, and the agreement was to last through November 1, 1984. Stone never got any financial benefit from his relationship with Freeman. The agreement mentioned above was entered into at the behest of the then Chief of Police in Chiefland, Mr. Underwood, who requested that Respondent do anything he could to keep Freeman, who was then under investigation for other misconduct in the area. Mr. Underwood corroborates this. Pursuant to this request, when Respondent suggested an arrangement with Freeman, Freeman insisted that the agreement be in writing. Stone contends that at no time did he ever intend for the agreement to be permanent nor did he ever intend to make any money out of it. He says he knew it was illegal and he entered it solely because of the request from the police. He contends, and there is no evidence to contradict his contention, that at no time did he ever receive any money from Freeman as a result of this agreement nor from the formation of D & S. On July 26, 1983, Respondent executed an authorization for Dennis Freeman to act as his authorized agent to pull permits on his behalf at the Levy County Building Department. No mention was made on this form of D & S Homebuilders, Inc. The form was prepared by Mrs. Nancy Gilbert, the administrative assistant to Mr. Davis, the Levy County Building Official. At the time in question, Mr. Stone had introduced Mr. Freeman, his agent, to pull permits and Ms. Gilbert prepared the document to do what Mr. Stone wanted. The document is written in plural terms for repeated uses. Mr. Stone contends that his intention at the time was for it to be used for a single operation and that he failed to notice the erroneous pluralism, but other evidence of record disproves this contention. While it is not the policy of the Building Office to prepare these authorizations for contractors, it is a normal practice in Levy County and other counties throughout the State to allow agents to pull permits on the license of their prime contractor or employer as was done here. There is no evidence that the Bell job, which was for the most part accomplished by Respondent, was not satisfactory. Here, the work progressed smoothly and was properly completed, but based on his dissatisfaction with Freeman's performance during this job, he indicated to Freeman that there would be no further relationship between them. Nonetheless, the authorization was not revoked and Stone signed the permit application for the Reagan house as seen below. Without that authorization, the Building Office would not have allowed Freeman to obtain any of the building permits utilized for the other construction projects referenced in the Administrative Complaint. In July 1983, the Fumeas entered into a handwritten contract with Freeman, drafted by Kristina Freeman for the construction of a house for Bertha Reagan, Mrs. Fumea's mother. The contract had a price of $24,000.00. The Fumeas were to receive $10,000.00 for their land on which the house was to be built and Freeman was to receive a $14,000.00 loan from Mrs. Reagan for materials to build the house in question. When the house was sold, the initial $24,000.00 was to be returned to Mrs. Reagan. Any profit was to be divided 40% to Mrs. Reagan, 40% to the Freemans, and 20% to the Fumeas. The contract also called for the construction of a second house upon completion of the first. By check, dated June 9, 1983, Mrs. Reagan provided Freeman with the $14,000.00 to be secured by a second mortgage on the property executed by both Freemans in favor of Bertha Reagan. Thereafter, on August 24, 1983, Respondent, acting for D & S and S. A. Stone and Dennis Freeman, applied for a construction permit to build a residence for Mrs. Reagan as called for. In support of that application, Mr. Stone also furnished an affidavit to the effect that he was the qualifying contractor for residential building for D & S in Levy County. That same day, a building permit was issued to D & S, S. A. Stone, and Dennis Freeman for construction of the house in question. Somewhat later, in August or September, 1983, Freeman began construction of the house. During their negotiations, Freeman had indicated that Respondent was his associate. Nonetheless, it was Freeman who did all the work but in September or October 1983, he quit work on the project. At that point the foundation, the floor, and the 2 x 4 framing was in. No roof, no plumbing, and no electrical work had been installed. Mr. Fumea kept calling Freeman who repeatedly promised to finish work on the property by December 1983, but never did. The house was finally completed by another builder, David Allen, in 1984, for $21,000.00 additional. Allen was unable to complete the work started by Freeman and had to tear it down. Only the original footing was utilized. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Fumea ever dealt with or saw Stone, nor at any time during the period of difficulty with the construction was any attempt made to contact him. The reasoning was that even though Freeman had indicated Stone was the "S" in D & S before the work started, they did not believe Stone had anything to do with the contract. The Fumea's knowledge of Respondent's relationship with D & S was based solely on Freeman's representations. They never dealt with Stone, never saw him at the job, nor did they complain to him when the work was not completed even though Chiefland is a small town and it would be easy to contact him. Somewhat later, on September 7, 1983, Michael (Dennis) and Kristina Freeman entered into a contract with Herman R. and Verenia A. Matthews for the construction of a home in Levy County for a contract price of approximately $21,061.45 which included $17,061.45 which was then owed to the Matthews by Freeman. Freeman was to build them a house on a lot they owned across from their residence for an investment. The $17,641.00 was made up of several loans by the Matthews to Freeman. At this time, the Matthews did not know of D & S. The loans in question had been granted on the basis of a personal friendship between the Matthews and Freeman. At the time, the Matthews were in Michigan and the loans were not secured nor was interest involved. In addition to the $17,061.45 already advanced, the Matthews were to pay an additional $4,000.00 and any sums received from the cutting of timber on the property was to also be paid to Freeman. On or about October 12, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Matthews' house. Attached to the application was an undated, unnotarized affidavit signed by Michael Freeman indicating he was qualifying contractor for D & S. Pursuant to the application, that same day, a building permit for the construction in question, was issued. Actually, construction had started without the benefit of a permit in early September, 1983. On September 9, 1983, the Matthews gave Freeman a $1,000.00 check with second and third payments of $1,000.00 each being paid on September 22, 1983. On October 17, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Freeman a check for $7,000.00 of which $1,000.00 was the remaining amount due on the $4,000.00 balance and $6,000.00 was an unsecured loan. This loan was repaid immediately with an exchange check, post-dated to October 24, 1983, in the amount of $6,000.00 drawn on the account of D & S by Michael Freeman. When the Matthews ultimately deposited the check, however, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds and the $6,000.00 loan was never repaid. The Matthews first found out about D & S Homebuilders, Inc. when the Freemans in late August or September, 1983, indicated they had incorporated. Mrs. Matthews had never met the Respondent nor been aware that Respondent might be involved in the construction. Freeman had represented himself as a licensed contractor and had told the Matthews that he had rented space in Respondent's office. At no time, however, did he say that Respondent was involved in the business. On November 14, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave a check in the amount of $7,000.00 to Kristina Freeman, as a loan to D & S since she had been told that the company was haying trouble paying its bills. This loan was never repaid. By this time, the Matthews knew well that Freeman was in financial difficulties and did not have any money, so they did not ask for their loan back. In addition, on December 2, 1983, Mrs. Matthews gave Michael Freeman a check for $850.00 as a loan for payroll and on December 12, 1983, gave him a check for an additional $200.00 as a loan to assist him to buy property on which he was to build a house for Mr. Piperski. Neither of these latter two loans were ever repaid. The house to be built for the Matthews was never completed by Freeman or D & S. Work stopped sometime in November 1983. After Freeman went to jail in January 1984, Mrs. Matthews had it finished by someone else. The home was completed by this second contractor in April 1984 and the Matthews now live in it. In addition to the amounts set out above, the Matthews also paid an additional $7,034.00 for materials and $6,590.00 for labor to complete the property. On top of this, they also paid $1,200.00 to RocLen Refrigeration for a dishonored check issued by Kris Freeman on the D & S account in January 1984 for the heating and air conditioning system. They also paid off a claim of lien in the amount of approximately $3,600.00 filed by McCoy Building Supply Center for building materials ordered by D & S for the property; approximately $240.00 to Arrington Tru-Value Hardware for miscellaneous building materials ordered by D & S for the property; and approximately $875.00 to satisfy a claim of lien filed by Keller Building Products of Ocala, based on a contract with D & S for miscellaneous building materials on the property. Mrs. Matthews did not contact Respondent about the house because as far as she was concerned, he had nothing to do with it. Freeman had told her that D & S was owned by Freeman and his wife, most of the checks she gave to D & S were made out to Freeman and endorsed by either Freeman or his wife. All cash paid into the D & S account was done through dealings with one or the other of the Freemans, and she never dealt at all with Stone. On November 25, 1983, Michael Freeman, acting for D & S, submitted a proposal to Charles Treis for the construction of a home on property in Chiefland, Florida, for a price of $14,000.00 plus a travel trailer valued at $3,000.00. On the same day, Freeman and Treis entered a standard form agreement for the construction of this home by D & S for the amount stated, payments to be made of $5,000.00 as of signing $5,000.00 upon "rough in," and $4,000.00 plus the travel trailer upon completion of specified work. Construction was to begin on November 28, 1983, and was to be completed within 60 days. The contractor was to complete the house except for painting and staining, heating and air conditioning, floor covering, and appliances. Interior trim and doors were to be supplied by the contractor for, installation by the owner. That same day, Mr. Treis gave a check in the amount of $5,000.00 to Michael Freeman as the first payment on account in accordance with the terms of the contract. This contract was amended on January 10, 1984 when Freeman agreed to install floor covering, build cabinets for the kitchen, install interior trim and doors, and paint and stain. the interior and exterior. He was also to supply wood ceiling in the living room area and kitchen and in return therefor, was to be paid $2,000.00 plus a travel trailer. On December 20, 1983, Michael Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a construction permit to build the Treis house and that same day a building permit was issued to D & S. On January 6, 1984, Mr. Treis gave two checks to Mr. Freeman, one for $1,000.00 and one for $6,000.00 additional draws against the contract price. In mid-January 1984, after the foundation was poured and the interior and exterior walls were partially erected, D & S ceased all construction activity because Freeman had been arrested and jailed in Marion County. At this point, the roof had not been installed nor were doors and windows in place. No one from D & S ever returned to complete his own construction. On January 16, 1984, Mr. Treis paid Suwannee Valley Precast Company in the amount of $540.00 for a 900 gallon septic tank ordered by Mike Freeman at D & S. This bill was supposed to have been paid out of the first draw Treis gave Freeman but was not. To avoid a lien being filed against his property, Mr. Treis paid off the amount in question. Mr. Treis also paid $710.33 to Sunshine Concrete and Building Supply for materials ordered by D & S and $189.00 to Lindsey Brothers Construction for labor for laying the foundation walls, also procured by Freeman for D & S. In addition, Mr. Treis paid Harcan Lumber the amount of $4,500.00 for bad checks that Michael Freeman had written in payment for materials to go into the Treis property. As a result of all these additional debts, Mr. Treis was required to sell the property to pay off the creditors not paid by D & S. Mr. Stone was not present at any time during the transactions described regarding Mr. Treis, and Freeman made no mention of him. In fact, Mr. Treis did not know anything about Mr. Stone. It was only after Mr. Treis found out that Freeman was in jail that he had any contact with Stone. Toward the end of January 1984, when he found out that the "S" in D & S was Respondent, Treis and a friend went to Stone's office to find out what Stone intended to do about the property. Stone indicated he was not responsible for anything that Freeman did and that he would not honor the contract that had been entered into with D & S. At some time prior to November 26, 1983, in response to an advertisement placed in the Chiefland newspaper by D & S, Howard Robinson contacted Freeman to obtain an estimate for the construction of a home in Levy County. During the contract negotiations, Freeman provided Robinson with a D & S business card which bears only Freeman's name. Robinson is a resident of Largo but owns property in Levy County. On November 26, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, entered into a contract with D & S which was signed by Michael Freeman, for the construction of a home for the price of $16,900.00. Payments were to be made one-third upon acceptance of the contract, one-third upon "rough-in" inspection, and one a third upon completion. The owner was to install floor coverings, heating and air-conditioning and appliances, and the contractor was to provide a one year warranty on construction. Construction was to begin by November 29 and the house was to be completed within 60 days. Three days later on November 29, 1983, Mrs. Robinson issued a check in the amount of $5,633.33 to D & S Homebuilders, Inc. as the first payment for the construction of their home. This check was endorsed by Michael Freeman for D & S. It should be noted here that, as previously, the business card given to Mr. Robinson by Freeman at the time of their first meeting reflects only Freeman's name, not that of Respondent. After the contract was executed, Mr. Robinson returned to Largo and did not come back to Levy County until January 1984. On December 22, 1983, Mr. Freeman came to Largo to see the Robinsons for purpose of securing the second draw. At that time, he indicated the foundation and slab had been poured and that walls erected and the roof trusses were to be installed the following day. Based on these representations, Mrs. Robinson issued another check for $5,633.33 to Freeman for the second draw under the contract even though the second draw was not due until after erection of the roof trusses. As inducement to pay prior to the time called for in the contract, Freeman agreed to amend the contract to provide air conditioning and heating, furnish the floor covering, and build a 10 x 12 foot pump house. After paying these additional sums, Mr. Robinson found out that construction on his house had not been started even though Freeman had indicated that it had. Therefore, in January 1984, Mr. Robinson made his first trip back to Chiefland since the signing of the contract to visit the construction site and discovered that the only work accomplished had been the digging of a footer. On or about January 10, 1984, Freeman, on behalf of D & S, applied for a building permit to construct the property in question and this permit was issued that same day. The only construction accomplished on Robinson's property was an oversized footer, approximately three feet wide and four or five feet deep, out of which the steel company had already taken the steel originally installed. Even after this however, Mr. Robinson did not contact Respondent because his dealings had always been with Freeman and he had never seen nor talked to Stone. Neither Stone or any of his agents or employees has ever contacted Mr. Robinson concerning either completing the construction or repaying the money paid under the contract. The only thing Mr. Robinson has ever been reimbursed with was a $300.00 payment from the County when Mr. Freeman was on a work- release program while in jail. In November 1983, Mitchell Piperski saw an ad in the paper for a home built by Mr. Freeman. This ad was in the name of D & S Builders and Mr. Piperski contacted Freeman at the phone number in the ad. Freeman thereafter came to Piperski's house and they discussed the possible construction of a home for the Piperskis. As a result of these discussions, Mr. Piperski, on December 19, 1983, entered into a contract with D & S signed by Michael and Kris Freeman for the construction of a home in Chiefland for a contract price of $16,500.00. Since Mr. Piperski did not have a lot on which to build the house, Freeman took him a see a lot which he said he, Freeman, owned. The lot in question was a five acre corner and when Piperski said he did not need so much land, Freeman said he would keep one half. Since, however, the two parties could not agree on the property, Piperski purchased a lot from someone else. A short time thereafter, the Freemans came to the Piperskis and indicated they would be in financial difficulty if the Piperskis did not buy their property and as a result, the Piperskis agreed to allow Freeman to build the house on the property which, by warranty deed on December 19, 1983, Freeman conveyed to the Piperskis. At closing Freeman was paid $5,000.00 called for upon acceptance of the contract, and $12,500.00 for the lot. During the negotiations, Freeman had told Mr. Piperski that there were three people involved in D & S. These three were Freeman, his wife, Kris, and someone else, undisclosed, who was in the real estate business. Mr. Piperski had known Stone from the lodge to which they both belonged but he had no idea that Stone was the "S" in D & S. No work on the construction of the Piperski house was ever accomplished. When Piperski called the building department, he was told that Freeman could no longer build homes because Mr. Stone had pulled the authorization for him to use Stone's license. This disclosure was made to Mr. Piperski on January 8, 1984. Prior to that date and all through the negotiations, he had no idea that Stone was involved in the transaction. That afternoon, Mr. Piperski went to a lawyer about the situation and the lawyer called Stone. When Piperski asked Stone for his $5,000.00 back, Mr. Stone said he would allow Freeman to use his license to complete the house. Notwithstanding this promise by Stone, Freeman never made any effort to secure a permit to begin construction. Mr; Piperski did not contact Stone again after that one instance because he felt Stone knew what the situation was and what had to be done. Stone, on the other hand, did not contact Piperski either, nor did Freeman, and at no time was Piperski reimbursed the $5,000.00 deposit he made under the terms of the contract. On January 9, 1984, Stone wrote to Mr. A1 Simmons, the attorney who formed the corporation known as D & S Homebuilders, Inc. In this letter Stone recalled that Simmons had formed the corporation in which Freeman was President, his wife was Secretary/Treasurer, and he, Respondent, was Vice-President. Stone also cited that there was a communications gap between Freeman and himself and as a result, asked how he could be removed as an officer of the corporation. Stone indicated that he was "going to notify the County that I am no longer going to authorize the use of my license as D & S Homes." At the bottom of the letter, he states that it constitutes official notification to Freeman and to Mr. Davis, the building official, that his license is no longer to be used under D & S Homes. By this letter, Mr. Stone recognized that as of January 9, 1984, he was still a part of D & S Homes and was aware of the use of his license by D & S under the authorization given earlier in the year. It has already been found that in November 1983, Stone and Freeman entered into an agreement for Freeman to pay Stone for the use of his license by D & S Homes. It is also noted, however, that on January 5, 1984, approximately two months later, Mr. Stone wrote to Freeman indicating his dissatisfaction with the way Freeman was managing the company and because of Freeman's failure to communicate with Stone in response to inquiry. In this letter, he makes it very clear to Freeman that if Freeman does not keep in touch, he will terminate the relationship that he has with D & S. By so doing, Stone puts to rest any question that he was still a part of D & S and agreed to Freeman's using his license for construction by that firm as late as January 5, 1984 - well after the contracts described above were entered into by Freeman. D & S had a checking account with the Bank of Florida in Chiefland on which both Respondent and Freeman were authorized to write checks. In October 1983, Mr. Freeman drafted a check to Exchange Realty, which is owned by Respondent, in the amount of $500.00 which bears the notion, "commission on burnout." This check was deposited to the account of Exchange Realty. The handwriting on the endorsement appears to be that of Penny Via as does the name of the payee. On October 24, 1983, Mr. Stone wrote a check, apparently on a counter check payable to Exchange Realty in the amount of $500.00. Again, this check is endorsed for deposit to the account of Exchange Realty and not only the endorsement but also the check itself, with the exception of the signature, appears to be drawn in the handwriting of Ms. Via. While offered to show Respondent's receipt of benefit from his association with D & S, this evidence does not do so. Respondent knew of this account, nonetheless, and agreed to be a signatory on it so that he could work on the account when Freeman was out of town. After a short period, however, he took his name off the account though he cannot remember when that was. Respondent's contention that he had little if any connection with the actual construction work accomplished by Freeman under the D & S banner is supported by the testimony of Earl Jones, a plumber, who did the plumbing work on some of the houses constructed by Freeman during the Summer of 1983. Jones was hired by Freeman who, at the time, advised him that he was a general contractor and owned the business. Freeman admitted that he was a friend of the Respondent but during the whole period of his association with D & S, Jones never dealt with Stone and he feels that his employer was Freeman, not Stone. During the period of their association, Jones had no contact at all with Respondent. All bills for services rendered were sent directly to Freeman. Andrew Sension, an electrical contractor, met Freeman when Freeman solicited bids for the drawing of house plans. Thereafter, Sension drew five house plans for Freeman through D & S and also did some electrical work. At that time, Freeman indicated that he and his wife owned D & S and throughout their relationship, Sension assumed that Freeman was licensed. He has, however, worked for Respondent but never any project where Freeman and Respondent were involved together. To his knowledge, Respondent had a good reputation in the County as a contractor. Respondent has lived in Chiefland for approximately 15 years and is licensed as a contractor in both Florida and Virginia where he operated as a general contractor for 10 or 11 years before coming to Florida. In addition, he worked as a contractor in Ft. Lauderdale for 5 or 6 years and in all his construction history, never had any disciplinary action taken against him. Stone met Freeman some time in the middle of 1983 when Freeman came to his real estate office to buy a lot to build on. Later on, Freeman came back and said his brother an attorney, had suggested he contact Stone to form a corporation to build homes. At the time, Freeman, whose real name was Michael, was using the name Dennis Freeman, actually the name of his brother. When Stone checked Freeman's reputation out with the credit bureau, he checked the name, Dennis Freeman, and found that there was no adverse comments recorded. He did not know at the time that he was checking the record of a different individual. Nonetheless, satisfied with the results of his inquiry, and willing to go into the proposition suggested by Freeman, the parties made an appointment with attorney Simmons to form a corporation. Stone contends, and Simmons concurs, that though the corporation was formed, it never became operative because while formed in the name of Simmons for incorporation purposes, the transfer of authority to the true officers, Stone, Freeman, and Freeman's wife, was never accomplished. Were this all there were to it, there would be little difficulty in accepting Stone's exculpatory rationale. The fact remains, however, that his conduct and communications with his attorney in January 1984, several months after the corporation was formed, clearly reveals that though the official transfer of names never took place, he was well aware that D & S was active, that Freeman was building homes under the D & S banner, and that Freeman was using his, Stone's license, to do so with Stone's permission. The letter of January 9, 1984, to the lawyer clearly defeats Stone's contention that he felt the authorization for Freeman to pull permits was a one time proposition. If that were the case, he would not have indicated in these later communications that he was aware of what was going on and wished it stopped as of that time. There is no doubt that Respondent never met Mrs. Reagan, the Fumeas, the Matthews, the Robinsons, Mr. Treis, or the Piperskis in the capacity of a contractor. None of the people ever indicated that they dealt with Stone. Respondent admits that his contractor's license was withdrawn by the County but contends that this action was taken at a meeting to which he was not invited and did not attend. He did pot know of the action taken, he claims, until he read it in the newspaper. There is no evidence to contradict this. He firmly believes that his problem with the County is the direct result of the fact that he failed to contribute Mr. Davis' church when asked-to do so at the time he executed the general authorization for Freeman to use his license. Whether Mr. Davis is the complainant and the cause of the disciplinary action being taken here is immaterial however, and in any case, there is no evidence to support Respondent's contention. As for Freeman, on January 30, 1984, he entered a guilty plea to one count of a third degree felony by failing to redeliver and one count of a third degree felony by forgery and committing grand theft. Thereafter, he was found guilty of the charges and placed on probation for two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-1468 be dismissed. It is further recommended that based on the violations established in DOAH Case No. 85-0690, Respondent's license as a registered general contractor be suspended for six months and that thereafter Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 16th day of January, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED W. Douglas Beason, Esquire 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey J. Fitos, Esquire 1 East Silver Springs Blvd. Ocala, Florida 32670 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2, Jacksonville, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by parties to this case. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S SUBMISSION 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. 2 · Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 1 through 3 are irrelevant. Sentence 4 is accepted as to it relates to the letter being prepared by the building department but rejected as to this being done at Respondent's request. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 1O. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the first sentence which is irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12, except for the last sentence which implied Freeman signed as affiant when in fact he signed as a witness. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as irrelevant and misleading. There is no indication in the record that Respondent knew of this contract or that any demand for reimbursement was made upon him. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 and 22, except for sentences 3 & 4, which are rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and inaccurate. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35, except that November 6 in the proposal should be November 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 and 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Accepted but not adopted as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted n Finding of Fact 45 and 46, except that it was the building office that advised Piperski that Freeman did not have a permit, not Respondent. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Sentence 1 through 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Sentence 4 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 5 and 6 adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Sentences 3 through 5 rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Findings of Fact 26- 29. Sentence 3 rejected as not being a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Sentence 1 rejected as contra to the evidence. Mrs. Reagan did not sign the contract. Mrs. Fumea did. Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Sentence 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 4 adopted in general. Sentences 1 and 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 17, 35 and 41. Sentence 3 rejected by contra to the weight of the evidence. Sentence 4 is rejected as irrelevant. Sentence 5 is ejected as contra to the weight of the evidence in that he failed to show the proper concern for the use of his licenses. Rejected as irrelevant to the issues herein. 8 and 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. Adopted as a general fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61. Adopted in Findings of Fact 52-55.
