Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Clyde S. Botner, was a registered specialty contractor having been issued license number RX 0043602 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). Respondent is now the owner of Days Aluminum Products (DAP), a construction firm located at 4404 Devonshire Road, Tampa, Florida, but was in the process of purchasing the business when the events herein occurred. He has been licensed by the State since June 29, 1983. Botner was and still is the only state licensed contractor with the firm. Debra Tackett resides at 7302 Sequoia Drive, Temple Terrace, Florida. Tackett desired to have an aluminum carport added to her house and contacted DAP for the purpose of obtaining an estimate. Respondent visited Tackett's residence in July 1987 and gave an estimate of $7,088 to complete the job. Within a few days, another DAP representative, Scott Tarbox, met with Tackett and agreed to reduce the price to $6,000. After the contract changes were initialed by Tarbox, Tackett gave Tarbox a check for $1200 as a down payment on the work. The check was deposited to the account of DAP. The contract carries the signature of Botner as the authorized agent of DAP. On or shortly after July 18, Botner made application for a building permit with local officials butt was unsuccessful since the proposed construction was three feet beyond the setback line. This meant the structure had to be moved back three feet or a variance obtained from local zoning officials. Because Tackett preferred not to modify her structure, she requested that respondent obtain a variance. By then, Botner had put up string lines, laid boards for pouring concrete and dug some trenches. The value of this work was less than $1200. Although respondent now contends he had no authority or responsibility to do so, he agreed to make application for a variance by August 26 so that the matter could be taken before the local zoning board for final decision on September 17. However, he missed the August 26 filing deadline. Around September 15 Tackett learned that the application for a variance had not been timely filed and, in any event, it would probably be denied. Therefore, she decided "it was best to terminate" the contract. She also requested that Botner return her deposit. Although respondent promised to return the money on two occasions (September 18 and 22), he did not do so. When he did not meet the second deadline of September 22, she filed an action against Botner in small claims court the same date seeking to recover her $1200. On September 29, 1987, or a week after the small claims court action had been filed, respondent purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $1264 and had an employee, Larry Blevins, carry the check to Tackett. However, before returning the deposit, Blevins asked that Tackett sign a "release" which forbade her from making any complaints against DAP. Tackett declined to sign the release and was accordingly not given her money. By letter dated October 5, 1987 Tackett received an offer of $1263 from DAP's attorney but such payment was again conditioned upon her agreeing to "not register any complaint with any governmental or non-governmental agencies regarding (DAP)." She again declined the offer. On January 5, 1988 Tackett obtained a judgment in the amount of $1263 plus interest against Clyde S. Botner d/b/a Days Aluminum Products. To date, Botner has paid only $100 of that judgment. Botner conceded the judgment is still unpaid, except for one payment of $100, but contends Tackett has damaged his firm's reputation by filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau and the Board and obtaining a judgment in small claims court. He also contends that Tackett gave conflicting and untrue versions of what occurred to the Board investigator and the Better Business Bureau. He does not believe the judgment has anything to do with DAP or his license but instead is a purely civil matter. This is because he says the work in question could have been performed in Hillsborough County in 1987 without using his state license. Finally, he contends this proceeding is unjustified because he twice attempted to repay the money in 1987 but the customer refused his offers. There was no evidence of any prior disciplinary action having been taken against respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987) and that a fine in the amount of $750 be imposed. The other charge should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2693 Petitioner: 1-3. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. 7-8. Covered in finding of fact 3. 9-11. Covered in finding of fact 4. 12-13. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being irrelevant to the issues. Covered in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. Clyde S. Botner 1989. 4404 Devonshire Road Tampa, Florida 33634 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent allowed an uncertified and unregistered person to engage in prohibited contracting in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e), (f), and (m), Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, with the responsibility for prosecuting the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding pursuant to chapters 455 and 489, and the rules promulgated thereunder. In September, 1980, license number CG C015802 was issued to Respondent, Thomas J. Freese, as the qualifying agent for Tracy Industries, 728 St. Lucie Crest, Stuart, Florida 33494 ("Tracy"). Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Tracy Industries at all times material to this proceeding. At no time material to this proceeding was Robert Sherno licensed by Petitioner as a contractor. On or about May 30, 1988, Mr. Sherno contracted with William F. Meinking to construct a home for Mr. Meinking. The contract price was not to exceed $64,000.00. A building permit was issued for the construction of Mr. Meinking's home on June 8, 1988. The permit was obtained by Mr. Sherno as agent for Respondent. A notice of commencement was filed by Mr. Meinking on June 20, 1988, listing Respondent as the contractor, and listing Mr. Sherno as the person designated by the owner for service of notice and other documents. Respondent authorized Mr. Sherno to obtain the building permit by letter to the local building department dated June 21, 1988 ("authorization letter"). The authorization letter was requested by Robert Nelson who was Tracy's president. Mr. Nelson was personally acquainted with Mr. Sherno and dealt directly but separately with Mr. Sherno and Respondent. Mr. Sherno paid $200.00 to Mr. Nelson at the time of the authorization letter. Mr. Nelson told Respondent that the permit was for the construction of Mr. Meinking's home. Respondent initially questioned the need for a contractor to pull the permit when the owner could build his own house under an owner's permit. Respondent was told that Mr. Meinking and Mr. Sherno were going to develop a number of homes in the area Not only would the number of homes not qualify for an owner's permit, but it was anticipated by Mr. Nelson that the development plan proposed by Mr. Sherno and Mr. Meinking had excellent profit potential for all concerned. Based on that information from Mr. Nelson, Respondent signed the authorization letter. Respondent knew Mr. Sherno and knew that Mr. Sherno was not a licensed contractor. Neither Respondent nor any qualified person supervised the construction of Mr. Meinking's home. One person employed by Tracy in an administrative or clerical capacity visited the construction site occasionally. Respondent inquired of Mr. Nelson from time to time at the offices of Tracy as to the status of construction. Respondent drove by the construction site from time to time, but did not personally supervise construction in any capacity. Respondent did not inspect the progress of construction, provide insurance, discuss the progress of construction with Mr. Meinking, Mr. Sherno, or anyone at Tracy. Respondent assumed that construction was proceeding according to schedule and in a satisfactory manner as long as there were no complaints. Mr. Meinking paid Mr. Sherno the entire $64,000.00 pursuant to the terms of the contract. During the latter stages of construction in the first or second week of November, Mr. Meinking began receiving calls from subcontractors stating that they had not been paid. Mr. Meinking terminated his contractual relationship with Mr. Sherno on or about November 17, 1988. Mr. Meinking paid approximately $16,500.00 to eight subcontractors and an additional $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 to finish construction of his home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(e), (f), and (m), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent be fined $2,000.00 which represents the aggregate amount of the minimum fine for each violation. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of August, 1990. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues presented, Respondent was a registered residential contractor under license number RR 0024559, issued to Kenneth Rowland qualifying Phoenix Construction Services, Inc., issued in April 1975. On May 12, 1977, Angela Close entered into a contract with C & C Roofing Company of Longwood, Florida, to enclose and make a room of the carport on her home located at 215 Ulysses Drive, Apopka, Florida. The contract, which detailed the work to be done, called for a contract price of $2,500 and stipulated the work was to be completed in approximately three weeks from start date. The amount of $1,150 was to be paid when the job was started, and the balance was to be paid upon completion and acceptance. This agreement was signed by Angela Close and J. D. Carver. Ms. Close had given the contract to Carver because she worked with his wife at Seminole Community College and had been advised by her that Carver was in financial difficulty and needed the work. The contract was signed at Close's house, where Carver came with his wife, bringing the contract to be signed. Carver did the preliminary measuring work, but when actual construction began, Respondent was present and accomplished the majority of the work. On May 26, 1977, 14 days after the contract was signed, Respondent pulled a building permit #99146 to accomplish the work called for in the contract, from the Orange County Building Department. Several weeks after the work was started, Respondent asked Ms. Close for some additional progress payments on the job. Since she had already paid Carver in full according to the terms of the contract with him, she refused to pay Respondent, telling him she had paid all that was called for under the terms of her contract with Carver. When she said this, Respondent appeared quite surprised to learn of the contract and angry as well. On June 30, 1977, Respondent wrote a letter to the Orange County Building Department notifying that office that he had stopped work on that project because of nonpayment and requesting his name and license number be removed from the permit. As a result, the permit was cancelled on July 7, 1977. In an interview with Bobby J. Hunter, Sr., an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) several years later, Respondent indicated he agreed to do the job in question for Ms. Close, a friend of Carver, for $3,500. He pulled the permit and commenced work without ever talking to Ms. Close or without having a contract from her to do it, relying on the word of Carver that it was proper to do so. He received several payments from Ms. Close, transmitted through Carver. Two were in cash, and one was a check. When Respondent found out that Ms. Close had a contract with Carver for $2,500 and had paid him in full, he realized he would not receive funds to satisfy the work he had put in on the job, and he ceased work. The investigative report prepared by Mr. Hunter includes summaries of the interviews with both Carver and Respondent which state that Carver and Respondent were partners. Rowland, in his testimony at the hearing, denied any partnership relation. In light of the fact that these summaries are second-hand hearsay, contradicted by sworn testimony of the Respondent that he was not a partner of Carver, I resolve that dispute in favor of the Respondent and find that he was not a partner of Carver. Respondent contends under oath, and I so find, that he pulled the permit to do the work without knowledge of the prior contract between Close and Carver, as a favor to Carver who was reportedly a friend of Close. It was his understanding that, though Carver made the arrangements, it was his, Respondent's contract with Close for the figure he had quoted to Carver after his first survey of the job site, $3,500. He had been told by Carver not to talk with Close, as she did not speak English well, and he admitted to having made a grand mistake in proceeding without a contract from the owner Close. Carver's reliability is not the best. Mr. Hunter, investigator for DPR, indicated that Carver made some false statements to him in other cases. As a result, though Carver alleges he and Respondent were partners, and even Respondent's statement to Hunter seems to so indicate, there was, in reality, no partnership requiring Respondent to qualify C & C Roofing on his license, though there was plans to do so in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth Rowland 4403 North Powers Drive Orlando, Florida 32808 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a licensed dentist in Florida holding license number DN 0001025. Respondent graduated from Emory University Dental School in 1945, thereafter served two years apprenticeship with a practicing orthodontist before opening his own office in Coral Gables, Florida, where he practiced orthodontics for some 25 years before selling his practice and moving to the Tampa Bay area. Respondent is eligible for board certification. In November 1981 Respondent was working as an orthodontist at the Sheppard Dental Clinic in Seminole, Florida. On November 23, 1981, Valarie Rosenfeld went to Respondent to discuss orthodontic treatment to correct a deep overbite and severe overjet. At the time of this visit Miss Rosenfeld was 17 years old and had a severe Class II skeletal discrepancy with a 9.5 degree discrepancy between upper and lower jaws and an overjet of 12 mm. Respondent took some seven photographs of Miss Rosenfeld (Exhibit 2) showing generally the condition of her teeth and her facial profile. Be also took a cephalometric x-ray (Exhibit 3) and a panoramic x-ray (Exhibit 4) of Miss Rosenfeld. Respondent advised Miss Rosenfeld that it would be necessary to extract one tooth in her upper jaw and maybe a second tooth in order to improve her appearance. The purpose of this extraction was to make room in which to move the upper teeth to reduce the overjet. Respondent did not discuss surgery with Rosenfeld or fully explain to her the options available and the probable consequences of each of the options she may elect. Miss Rosenfeld has a thin maxillary bone which does not show up very well on the cephalometric x-ray taken due to a burnout in this x-ray at the location this fact could be determined. Absent adequate bone in which to move teeth it becomes very difficult to obtain much movement. In accordance with orders issued by Respondent Miss Rosenfeld's tooth number 12 was extracted by another dentist at a subsequent visit to the clinic. Respondent next saw Rosenfeld on December 16, 1981, when he put separators between her teeth to make room for bonds. Respondent intended first to install light wire braces to better level the teeth before this was replaced by heavier wire which would be tightened from time to time to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Although he testified he planned to reduce the malocclusion using intrusion mechanics Respondent did not discuss with Miss Rosenfeld the headgear which she would have to wear at night during this process or fully explain the procedure to her. Following her December 16 visit, Rosenfeld was seen by a Dr. Bryant, an orthodontist who was replacing Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Clinic. Bryant saw Rosenfeld on December 22, 1981, when he fitted and cemented bonds on the teeth and put in the flexwire to level the teeth. She was next seen at the clinic on January 23 when Bryant religated the flexwire. The next visit on February 15, 1981, Bryant again religated the braces. Rosenfeld was last seen by Respondent on March 20, 1982, when he religated upper arch and observed lower arch. Rosenfeld was seen on April 24, 1982, by Bryant who advised her that three additional extractions would be required to correct the malocclusion. Rosenfeld then decided to obtain a second opinion before losing anymore teeth and went to see another orthodontist, John Harrison. When Dr. Harrison examined Rosenfeld he explained the three options available to her to wit: (1) do nothing, (2) attempt some movement of the teeth to reduce the overjet and overbite and (3) surgery. Dr. Harrison took additional x-rays and attempted to obtain the dental records from Sheppard's Dental Clinic but without much success. By this time Respondent no longer worked at Sheppard's and Harrison became quite frustrated by the lack of cooperation he got in attempting to obtain Rosenfeld's records. He received only the panoramic x-ray. Harrison made models of Rosenfeld's mouth, took cephalometric x-rays, made intra and extra-oral photographs and did quite a number of tracings from the cephalometric x-rays to better ascertain the misalignment of the upper and lower jaws. He discussed the various options with Rosenfeld and, at her request, commenced the mechanical intrusion needed to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Harrison would not have extracted tooth number 12 because there is insufficient maxillary bone to allow much movement of the upper teeth or to fill the void created by the extraction. Harrison further opined that the orthodontic problem faced by Rosenfeld is wholly in the lower jaw and this can be fully corrected only by risky and expensive surgery. Attempting to correct the problem by retracting the upper teeth is, in his opinion, the wrong approach. He considers the entire problem is in the lower arch and retracting the upper teeth, which are satisfactory, to obtain a better alignment between the upper and lower teeth, simply creates another problem, viz. changing the existing good profile of the upper lip. Furthermore the thin maxillary bone in which the upper teeth are being moved is not adequate to accomplish much movement of the teeth and when the bonds are removed the upper teeth will likely return to their original position or close thereto. The cephalometric x-ray taken by Respondent on November 23, 1981, was overexposed in the part of the x-ray which would best show Rosenfeld's maxillary bone and thereby alert Respondent to the problem of moving the upper teeth. Dr. Harrison formed his opinion that Respondent's diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld was below minimum acceptable standards on his initial assumption (from the records he obtained from Sheppard's Dental Clinic) that the diagnosis and course of treatment were made with panoramic x-rays only. When he learned the day before the hearing that Respondent also had the benefit of the cephalometric x-ray, Harrison hedged his opinion and ultimately concluded that Respondent's diagnosis and course of treatment did reach minimal acceptable standards. Petitioner also called Dr. DeDominico, an orthodontist, who, at the request of Petitioner, examined Rosenfeld and her dental records. DeDominico concurred with Harrison that extraction of tooth number 12 was not indicated and it is unlikely the space vacated by the removal of that tooth can be closed by the movement of the other teeth on the upper jaw. DeDominico further opined that and adequate diagnosis could not be made from the x-rays taken by Respondent due to the "burnout" in this critical area of the cephalometric x-ray which concealed the thinness of Rosenfeld's maxillary bone. Failure to retake this x-ray before embarking on a plan of treatment that required an adequate maxillary bone for success, and that included an unnecessary extraction was, in his opinion, below the minimal acceptable standards for the dental profession. Respondent testified that his more than 20 years experience in orthodontics qualified him to properly diagnose Rosenfeld's problem without doing tracings from the cephalometric x-ray, and that he considered the cephalometric x-ray adequate for the diagnosis that was made. Further, extraction of tooth number 12 was necessary to provide space into which the upper could be moved to accomplish the retraction of the upper teeth desired. He did not explain the available options to Rosenfeld and never considered surgery as a viable option for the orthodontic problem presented by Rosenfeld. He also failed to apprise her of the full implications of the treatment he planned, such as headgear, for the mechanical intrusion or of the limited success to be expected from this procedure. Respondent's expert witnesses, whose depositions were received into evidence as Exhibits 9 and 10, both opined that the diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld by Respondent met minimum acceptable standards of the dental profession. One of these witness' credibility is somewhat tarnished by his testimony that the mandible can be induced to grow in an adult. Not only was this testimony deemed incredible by other expert witnesses but also even a layman generally understands that the skeletal structure does not continue to grow after maturity.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Luis Garcia, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June 2005, Respondent received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”) to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificate of Competency. Based on the Certificate of Competency, the Department issued Respondent a registered contractor’s license bearing license number RF11067267. Respondent also applied for a certificate of authority for his business, A.P.A. Plumbing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APA”). Based on the Certificate of Competency and the registered contractor’s license being granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to APA, QB 42763. Subsequent to the Department’s issuance of both the registered contractor’s license to Respondent and the certificate of authority for APA, Respondent and the Department learned that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency (hereinafter referred to as the “BCCO”) obtained by Respondent was not a valid certificate. Respondent’s actions were not as a result of any fraud or intentional action on the part of Respondent; however, it is acknowledged by all parties that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency obtained by Respondent was not valid. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the Miami-Dade BCCO employees were engaged in a scheme to defraud the public. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent obtained the BCCO Competency Card in deviation of any state laws or rules, or local ordinances. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the BCCO Competency Card was not a valid certificate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent’s attestation on the application was inaccurate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the approved BCCO qualifying board did not approve the Competency Card. At no time did Respondent have knowledge that any documents Respondent submitted to the Department contained false, forged, or otherwise inaccurate information or material. At the time the Department issued the registered contractor’s license and subsequent certificate of authority on the sole basis of the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency presented by Respondent, the Department properly issued the registered contractor’s license based on the information submitted to it. The parties stipulated that the Respondent was not entitled to the registered contractor’s license and certificate of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency was not a valid certificate. At the time of application to the Department, Respondent was not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department. Subsequent to Respondent’s initial application and receipt of registered contractor’s license RF11067267, Respondent has taken the competency test required to be properly licensed through the Department. Respondent asserts that he has passed the test. The Department will not dispute this if he is able to provide verification that he did receive a passing score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Luis Garcia violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew D. Morton Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Atkinson, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard A. Alayon, Esquire Alayon & Associates, P.A. 4551 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Manuel Cabanas was licensed as an electrical contractor and held license number ER 0006946 issued by Petitioner, the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. On or around December 13, 1988, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of Dade County, Florida (Board) charged Respondent with the misrepresentation of material facts concerning his employment or work status on documents submitted with his application to obtain a business certificate of competency. A hearing on the charge was held before the Board on January 3, 1989. At the hearing, Respondent initially pled not guilty, but changed his plea to no contest sometime after a Board member advised Respondent that his testimony indicated that he was actually guilty of the charge. On January 6, 1989, Respondent was notified by the Board that after hearing all the testimony, a determination had been made that Respondent was guilty of the charge. As discipline for his act, the Board revoked Respondent's certificate of competency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending Respondent's license number ER 0006946, conditioned upon reinstatement of the local license as long as Respondent intends to practice in the jurisdiction of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board of Dade County, Florida. As to any other jurisdiction, the appropriate penalty is suspension of Respondent's license number ER 0006946 for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of December 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December 1989.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated June 22, 1989, alleges that Respondents violated Sections 475.25(1)(e), 475.25(1)(o), 475.42(1)(a) and 475.42(1)(e), F.S., by failing to pay an administrative fine and by operating as a broker without a valid current license. The issue in this proceeding is whether those violations occurred, and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jeffrey Robert Horne, is currently licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0433763 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. Respondent, the People's Realty, Inc., is now and was at all times material hereto, a corporation registered as a real estate broker in the State of Florida having been issued license number 0253302 in accordance with Chapter 475, F.S. Jeffrey Robert Horne is licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for The People's Realty, Inc., at 1125 U.S. Highway One, Sebastian, Florida 32958. On December 6, 1988, the Florida Real Estate Commission issued its Final Order in Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Jeffrey Robert Horne, Case #0156666, DOAH #88-2547, finding Respondent Horne guilty of violations of Section 475.25(1)(a), (b) and (k), F.S., reprimanding him, and assessing a fine of $500.00 for each of the three violations, for a total of $1,500.00. The order was filed, and was sent to counsel for Respondent, on December 13, 1988. The order does not, on its face, designate a deadline for payment of the fine. Jeffrey Horne sent a check dated 1/26/88 to the Department of Professional Regulation, (DPR) in the amount of $500.00, for one-third of his fine. The check was dishonored for insufficient funds and was returned to DPR. A form letter was sent to Jeffrey Horne notifying him of the nonpayment and assessing a $25.00 service charge. On or about April 7, 1989, Jeffrey Horne submitted a cashier's check to DPR in the amount of $525.00. Jeffrey Horne's April 7, 1989, submittal immediately followed his receipt of this form letter: (Note: some portions of letter are handwritten) Records Section 4-5-89 Jeffrey R. Horne 414 Quarry Lane Sebastian FL 32958 Dear I refer you to D. KELLER'S letter dated 2-24-89 , a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, regarding your check(s) in the amount(s) of $500_ being dishonored by your bank, said check(s) being applicable to your request(s) for fine by Real Estate Commission. Since you have not complied with the above, this is to advise that I have cancelled your ( )salesman, (X)broker, (X)corporate license(s) No.(s) 0433763 & 0253302 effective 1-26-89 , and request the immediate return of said license(s) to this office. Accordingly, if you are operating as a ( )salesman, (X)broker, and/or (X)corporation, you are doing so without being the holder of valid license(s) and in violation of Chapter 475, of the Florida Statutes. For your information, the above license(s) cannot be reacti- vated unless the required amounts of $500 and $25 service charge are submitted by certified check or money order and license applied for on proper form to the undersigned. If within 10 days from the date of this letter, you still have not complied, this matter will be turned over to our Investigation Section. Sincerely, P.S. Both licenses also expired 3-31-89. No renewal shows as processed DJP: Enclosure D. Janet Puckey, Records Administrative Assistant II cc: DPR-Tallahassee - Finance & Accounting People's Realty Inc., 9516 Fellsmere Hwy, Sebastian 329 (Petitioner's exhibit #10) Nothing in the record of this proceeding explains how an effective date of 1/26/89 was established, or by what authority an Administrative Assistant II could cancel a license. In anticipation of license expiration, Jeffrey Horne had sent two renewal fee checks, dated March 27, 1989 and March 28, 1989, in the amount of $57.00 each, to DPR. These checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. Form letters dated April 26, 1989, were sent to Jeffrey Horne and to People's Realty, Inc., informing them that the checks were dishonored and requesting payment of the full amount, plus $10.00 service charge for each check. The letters also included this warning: * * * If you do not comply with the above, your license will be cancelled fifteen days from the receipt of this notice and immediate return of your license will be requested. Accordingly, any real estate business conducted subsequent to the expiration of your old license will be in violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statute. Your license cannot be reactivated unless the dishonored check is paid in full and a $10.00 service charge is paid. * * * (Petitioner's Exhibit #5) Jeffrey Horne received the notices approximately April 28, 1989, and on May 22, 1989, he sent a money order to DPR for $132.00, intending to cover the two $57.00 renewals and $10.00 service charges. He was later informed that he was $2.00 short, and he eventually sent that amount. Larry Whitten was an Investigative Specialist II, assigned to the Division of Real Estate Palm Beach office, between January 1988 and September 1989. In response to a memo from Attorney Steven Johnson, Investigator Whitten contacted Jeffrey Horne to determine whether he was currently operating. Investigator Whitten cannot recall the exact dates of his one office and two telephone contacts, but they were sometime between May 24, 1989 (the date of the memo), and June 16, 1989. The telephone was answered, "People's Realty", and the office was open and staffed by Jeffrey Horne and another person. On June 12, 1990, Darlene F. Keller, Director of the DPR Division of Real Estate, executed a "Certification of Absence of Public Record", stating: I HEREBY CERTIFY that a search of the records of the Florida Real Estate Commission has revealed that as of June 19, 1989, $1,000.00 of the fine owed by Jeffrey Robert Horne had not been received, nor had the renewal fee of $67.00 been paid. The licenses of both Respondents were invalid from April 1, 1989 to June 14, 1989. WITNESS my hand and seal this 12th day of June, 1990. (Petitioner's Exhibit #6) Paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint which initiated this proceeding states: "On or before June 14, 1989, Respondent made good the renewal fee checks previously returned NSF." This statement is consistent with Respondents' exhibit #1, which includes the DPR letters acknowledging payments. However, this conflicts with the statement in paragraph 10, above, that as of June 19, 1989, the renewal fee of $67.00 had not been paid. The same claim is also repeated in paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint. The complaint alleges that both Respondents are licensed, and that from January 13, 1989 to March 31, 1989, Respondent Horne was licensed and operating as the qualifying broker for the People's Realty, Inc., but that from April 1, 1989 to June 14, 1989, they were operating without valid and current licenses. (Paragraphs #1-4, Administrative Complaint dated June 22, 1989.) It is apparent from the above that it is Petitioner's position that Respondents' licenses expired on March 31, 1989, for nonpayment of a renewal fee, and were reinstated on June 14, 1989, when (according to one version of DPR's account) the renewal fees were properly paid. The retroactive "cancellation" of Jeffrey Horne's license by D. Janet Puckey is either given no effect, or his license was retroactively reinstated when he sent the $525.00. Jeffrey Horne has been licensed as a real estate broker since 1987. Prior to that he was licensed in Florida as a real estate salesman. The incident which led to his discipline in 1988 occurred when he was a salesman and is his only infraction of record. At the time that his checks were dishonored in 1989, he was in financial straits, having incurred legal expenses due to the disciplinary proceedings, and having recently started over with his own business. He does not consider his financial situation a threat to his clients as he refuses to accept or hold funds in escrow. Rather, he has an arrangement with a title company to maintain the escrow account. When the DPR checks were written, he thought that they would be covered by commission checks he had deposited. When he was notified that the checks were bad, he provided restitution as soon as he could. The payment of $132.00 rather than $134.00, to cover the two $57.00 renewal fees and $20.00 in service charges was a mathematical error. Jeffrey Horne concedes that he continued to operate as a broker and to operate the People's Realty, without pause, during the relevant period. He denies that he was given a deadline for payment of his fine, and he was attempting to pay it in installments. Until he was contacted by the investigator, he did not believe that his license had been revoked and would have stopped operating if he had been clearly instructed. He also attempted to pay his renewal fees and, until he was informed otherwise by DPR, he believed the fees were paid. The notice, described in paragraph 7, above, is ambiguous, but appears to provide a 15-day grace period when a check has been dishonored. Horne received the notices on April 28, 1989, but did not send the money order until May 22, 1989. He is guilty, at most, of knowingly practicing with an expired license for nine days (May 13th until May 22nd). At the time of hearing, the entire $1,500.00 administrative fine had been paid, as had the renewal fees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondents violated Section 475.42(1)(a), F.S., reprimanding them, and assessing a fine of $100.00, to be paid in full 30 days from the date of the Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of July, 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 18th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire DPR-Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Gregory J. Gore, P.A. P.O. Box 780384 Sebastian, FL 32978-0384 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director DPR-Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice as building contractors. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed individually as a Certified General Contractor pursuant to license number CG C 0055328 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board"). Respondent has never been licensed by the Board as the qualifying agent for Mr. Gary Butler ("Butler"), an unlicensed contractor. In 1993, Respondent entered into an agreement with Butler who has never been licensed by the Board. The terms of the agreement require Respondent to pull permits for construction projects entered into by Butler. Butler pays Respondent for each permit or weekly. Respondent supervises some, but not all, of the projects undertaken by Butler. In August, 1993, Mr. Lynn Kyler ("Kyler"), the owner of a residence constructed by Ms. Denise Pyke ("Pyke"), a Certified Residential Contractor, asked Pyke to find a contractor to build a new dock and boat house at Kyler's residence. The Kyler residence is a lake front home located at 10250 State Road 561 A, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. Kyler authorized Pyke to act as Kyler's agent for construction of the dock and boat house. Kyler resided in Indiana from August through late fall of 1993. Pyke obtained recommendations of various candidates including Butler. Butler represented himself as a licensed and insured builder of docks and boat houses. Butler provided Pyke with a business card representing that Butler is licensed and insured. Pyke obtained cost and design proposals from Butler and Norquist Construction Company and communicated the proposals to Kyler. Kyler chose Butler. Butler agreed to demolish the existing dock and construct a new dock and boat house (the "project"). Kyler paid Butler the full contract price of $6,897.60. Prior to the completion of the project, neither Respondent nor Butler disclosed to Pyke or Kyler that Butler was unlicensed. Nor did they disclose that Butler would use Respondent's license to pull the permit for the project. Respondent knew that Butler is not licensed as a contractor, in any capacity. On August 25, 1993, Respondent and Butler went to the Lake County Building Department. Respondent used his license to pull Permit Number T93- 04793 for the project. The permit was issued to Respondent, listed Respondent's license as the certified general contractor, and was maintained in the official records of the Lake County Building Department. Respondent listed himself on the permit as the contractor for the entire project without limitation and without reference to Butler. Respondent was not authorized by Pyke or Kyler to pull the permit or to participate in the project. At the time, neither Pyke nor Kyler were aware of Respondent's existence or his role in the project. Respondent did not participate and had no involvement in the project except pulling the permit. The project was commenced by Butler in August, 1993, and completed shortly thereafter. Respondent did not supervise or participate in the construction of the project. Butler began the project without first filing a Notice of Commencement. Butler constructed the project with only a 10 foot setback in violation of the 25 foot setback required in Lake County Code Ordinance 10.0401(3)(d). Butler also failed to obtain an electrical permit in violation of Standard Building Code, Section 103.1.1. (1991). The project, as built by Butler, has no value to Kyler. The project failed final inspection for violation of the 25 foot setback and failure to obtain an electrical permit. The roof tiles on the boat house had to be removed because they were falling off the roof. The project itself is coming apart. It will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 to bring the project into compliance with local code requirements and to make it usable. Respondent was aware of the 25 foot setback when he pulled the permit for the project. The project plans submitted for the permit reflect the 25 foot setback. Lake County allows contractors to withdraw permits that have already been pulled. Respondent never withdrew the permit for the project. Butler was unable to obtain a final inspection because he failed to file a Notice Of Commencement at the outset of the project. Pyke and Kyler filed the Notice Of Commencement in order to obtain the final inspection. As the contractor of record, it was Respondent's responsibility to ensure that a Notice of Commencement was filed and that the project passed final inspection. While obtaining the information necessary to file the Notice Of Commencement, Pyke and Kyler learned that Butler was unlicensed and uninsured and that Respondent had used his license to pull the permit. When confronted by Pyke, Respondent did not deny knowledge of the project and assured Pyke that the problems with the project would be corrected. Despite Respondent's assurances, the code violations have not been corrected. Nor have the defects in construction been corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating: Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a); and Sections 489.129(1) (e), (f), (n), and (p). It is further recommended that the Board place Respondent on probation for three years, subject to reasonable conditions, impose an administrative fine of $5,000, and assess costs of $717.50 plus reasonable costs incurred by Petitioner subsequent to the date of this Recommended Order to investigate and prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March 1996.
