Findings Of Fact On March 10, 1983 Marvin L. Lessne was issued a non- active broker license #0051792. His non-active license expired on September 30, 1984 and was not renewed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On September 13, 1984, Marvin Lessne pled guilty to seven cases of Grand theft. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 10). On January 7, 1985, he was sentenced by Judge Patricia W. Cocalis, Circuit Judge for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. His total sentence was for two and a half years in prison, ten years of probation and full restitution to his victims. The total amount of money taken by Mr. Lessne from his victims was approximately $215,000.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10) By affidavit, Harold R. Huff, Director of the Division of Real Estate certified that a search of Division records failed to reflect that Marvin Lessne informed the Division of his conviction and subsequent incarceration.
Recommendation It is therefore, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 475.25(f) Florida Statutes. (Count I, Administrative Complaint) and dismissing counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of July, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK, 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 28th day of July, 1986 COPIES FURNISHED: Sue Hartmann Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Marvin L. Lessne 4341 Northwest 16th Street Apartment 101 Lauderhill, Florida 33313
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered general contractor having been issued license No. RG 0019051. (Stipulation.) At all times pertinent to the charges, respondent engaged in the business of contracting under the name of Atlas Associates, Inc., of which he was the president. (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) Atlas Associates, Inc., however, was not qualified, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes (1977), to engage in the business of contracting. (Stipulation.) Respondent's registration authorized him to engage in the business of contracting only in Hillsborough County. He was not qualified to contract in any other county. He knew that he was not authorized to pull building permits in Pasco County. (Tr. 5, 171-172.) (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) II. Atlas Associates, Inc., entered into a contract with Darryl R. Sutphin and his wife to construct a residence in Pasco County at 631 North Shore Drive, Lake Padgett, Florida. Respondent executed and performed under this contract as president of Atlas Associates, Inc. (Stipulation.) Respondent obtained the assistance of his brother-in-law, James Weinman, president of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., which was authorized to engage in contracting and pull building permits in Pasco County. At Mr. Weinman's request, John Weinman, an employee of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., pulled the building permits for the Sutphin job in the name of Masterpiece Homes, Inc. However, neither Salvatore Carollo, its licensed contractor, nor any other licensee employed by Masterpiece Homes, Inc., was involved in or supervised the subsequent construction of the Sutphin residence. (Tr. 71.) (Testimony of Weinman, Robinson, Carollo, Sutphin.) Construction of the Sutphin residence was financed by Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Fidelity Federal"). An agreement was entered into between Fidelity Federal, the Sutphins, and Atlas Associates, Inc., whereby Fidelity Federal was to disburse the loan proceeds to Atlas Associates, Inc., in four draws. In conjunction with the payment of each draw, Fidelity Federal required respondent, on behalf of Atlas Associates, Inc., to execute standard no-lien affidavits certifying the following: All the persons, firms, and corporations who have furnished any labor, services and/or materials in connection with the construction or improvements on the real estate [in question]. . .have been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit. . .The undersigned owner further certifies that he has received no notices of unpaid bills or claims affecting the foregoing real estate except as are shown above. (P-5, P-6, P-7.) (Testimony of Hager; P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7.) Atlas Associates, Inc., contracted with Nu-Air Manufacturing Company ("Nu-Air") to install windows and screens at the Sutphin residence. On October 16 and 22, 1979, Nu-Air installed the windows and, except for installing the screens, provided all the services and materials required under the contract. In November, 1979, Nu-Air mailed invoices totaling $700.56 to Atlas Associates, Inc. When the invoices were not paid, Nu-Air's credit manager sought payment by directly contacting a representative of Atlas Associates, Inc. No payment has been made, and the $700.56 remains unpaid. A claim of lien was subsequently filed on January 14, 1980. Yet, on October 19, 1979, and February 14, 1980, respondent executed Fidelity Federal's standard affidavits certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms who furnished labor or materials in connection with the Sutphin job had "been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit." As a result, Nu- Air suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Boyles; P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10.) On October 24, 1979, another subcontractor, Nuccio Heating and Air Conditioning ("Nuccio"), contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to furnish and install central heating and air conditioning units at the Sutphin job. Nuccio completed installing the units required by the contract on November 4, 1979. An invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., by November 6, 1979. When it was not timely paid, Nuccio contacted respondent in December, 1979. Nuccio was never paid for its labor and materials; on July 22, 1980, it filed a claim of lien for a total of $2,927. Since Nuccio subsequently repossessed the condensing units, the amount that is now due and remains unpaid is $1,462. Yet, on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal the required affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and material for the Sutphin job had been fully paid. As a result, Nuccio suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Nuccio; P-7, P-8, P-9, P-12.) On January 2, 1980, another subcontractor, W. W. Drywall, contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to install drywall for the Sutphin job. The drywall work was completed in early January, 1980, and an invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., on or about January 12, 1980, for $2,591.06. On February 14, 1980, W. W. Drywall received a partial payment of $1,000, but the balance of $1,591.06 remains due and unpaid. W. W. Drywall subsequently filed a claim of lien for this amount. Yet on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal a standard affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and materials for the Sutphin job had been paid. As a result, W. W. Drywall has suffered financial loss. (Testimony of West; P-7, P-13, P-14.) III. Respondent admits that when he executed the first October 19, 1979, affidavit, he knew that there were subcontractors which had not been paid. (Tr. 182-183.) He explains that he intended to pay them with the money he received from the draw. By the time he signed the February 14, 1980, affidavit, subcontractors had begun submitting bills directly to the loan officer of Fidelity Federal. He assumed, without checking or inquiring, that the subcontractors had been paid. (Testimony of Robinson.) Respondent was unaware of the Construction Industry Licensing Law requirement that registered contractors must register the corporate names under which they are doing business. Thus, his failure to qualify Atlas Associates, Inc., was not a willful or intentional violation of the Construction Industry Licensing Law. (Testimony of Robinson.) Between October, 1979, and February, 1980, respondent's working relationship with Mr. Sutphin began to deteriorate for reasons not material here. As a result, Mr. Sutphin began to actively participate in the project and deal directly with the various subcontractors. (Testimony of Robinson, Sutphin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to have his general contractor’s license re-instated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received a license as a general contractor in 1984. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was required to renew his license every two years. For the Petitioner, the renewal was due on or before August 31 of even numbered years. For example, the Petitioner’s license due for renewal in 2000 was due August 31, 2000. There are two types of licenses pertinent to this case: active and inactive. The renewal fees associated with these licenses are different. An inactive licensee pays a smaller renewal fee. The Respondent is responsible for maintaining records, collecting the appropriate fees, and processing license renewals for licensees. If a contractor fails to pay the requisite renewal fees when they are due the license automatically goes into a “delinquent status.” This status continues until the licensee makes good on the past due renewal fees and submits a complete renewal application. If the licensee does not remit the appropriate fees and completed application before the next licensing renewal period expires (the next two year cycle), the license becomes “null.” In this case, the Petitioner held an inactive license during the 1998-2000 two year-period. On or before August 31, 2000, the Petitioner should have submitted a complete application and paid the renewal fees to keep his license in good status. The Petitioner did not submit a complete application and did not remit the appropriate fees for renewal on or before August 31, 2000. Consequently, on September 1, 2000, the Petitioner’s license went into the delinquent status noted above. To clear this status the Petitioner was required to renew his license by submitting a complete renewal application with the appropriate fees on or before August 31, 2002. The Petitioner did not do so. Therefore, on September 1, 2002, the Petitioner’s license became “null” as a matter of law. The “null” status cannot be changed by paying unpaid fees. Instead, a licensee may either apply for and seek a new license or seek to re-instate the license. To that end, the Petitioner filed a request for reinstatement on or about June 9, 2006. When the Respondent denied the Petitioner’s request for reinstatement, the instant case ensued. Prior to August 31, 2002, the Petitioner did not contact the Respondent to relate personal tragedies, did not cure the delinquent renewal status, and did not pay the fees necessary to renew his inactive license. The Petitioner’s request for a refund (dated May 18, 2005) of the untimely fees paid in September 2002 was not approved. The Respondent provided no explanation for why the untimely fees were not refunded to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his license. The Respondent should, however, refund the Petitioner’s untimely paid fees. S DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Williams 513 Northwest 22nd Avenue Apartment 4 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311-7773 Deborah Bartholow Loucks, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 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 Michael Martinez, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Gerardo Quintero, 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 RF11067268. Respondent also applied for a certificate of authority for his business, Q Plumbing Services Corp. (hereinafter referred to as “QPSC”). Based on the Certificate of Competency and the registered contractor’s license being granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to QPSC, QB 42825. Subsequent to the Department’s issuance of both the registered contractor’s license to Respondent and the certificate of authority for QPSC, 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.
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 Gerardo Quintero 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 issues are: (1) whether Petitioner is qualified for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a greyhound owner; and, (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to waiver of the provisions in accordance to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Stephen M. Morris, submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a greyhound owner on or about February 24, 2005. On his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, Petitioner accurately reported that he had been convicted of the following three felonies: (1) possession and sale of a controlled substance, (2) trafficking in controlled substance (cannabis) in excess of 100 pounds, and (3) dealing in stolen property. The foregoing felony convictions were in or about 1976, 1984, and 1993, respectively, and were the result of offenses that occurred in Florida. Due to Petitioner's felony convictions, as noted in paragraph 2 above, his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license was subject to denial. Consequently, on February 24, 2005, in addition to his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, Petitioner also requested that a waiver be granted so that he could obtain the license. Petitioner's application and his request for waiver did not include any information which would establish his rehabilitation or demonstrate that he has good moral character. As part of the Division's review of Petitioner's request for waiver, on or about April 5, 2005, Mr. Toner interviewed Petitioner. During the interview with Mr. Toner, Petitioner had the opportunity to present information that established his rehabilitation and demonstrated his present good moral character, but he did not produce such information. In light of the information regarding Petitioner's felony convictions, which are undisputed and included in Petitioner's application, Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for the license which he seeks. By Petitioner's own admission, he was convicted of the felony offenses noted in paragraph 2 above. The number of felony convictions and the times that the offenses were committed, show a pattern of serious criminal behavior and recidivism. Petitioner may be rehabilitated and may have present good moral character. However, Petitioner did not testify at the final hearing and presented no evidence that he has been rehabilitated and has present good moral character. Absent from the record is any testimony from Petitioner or from Petitioner's friends, relatives, business associates, employers, or church members regarding Petitioner's good conduct and reputation subsequent to the date of his last felony conviction. In absence of any evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated and has present good moral character, the Division has no basis to grant Petitioner a waiver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Stephen M. Morris', application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license and his request for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefan Thomas Hoffer, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Stephen M. Morris 162 Warren Avenue New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32168 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether or not on or about December 8, 2000, Petitioner possessed the appropriate license to operate a body-piercing salon establishment in accordance with Section 381.0075, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-19, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented, the testimony, and upon the personal inspection of the undersigned, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health, is the state agency charged with implementation of Section 381.0075, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-19, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Rita Moroz, operated a manicure-pedicure, nail-lengthening establishment, "A New Adventure of Tampa Bay," located at 11608 North Dale Mabry Highway, Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida 33618. Section 381.0075(2)(a), Florida Statutes, defines "BodyPiercing" as for commercial purposes the act of penetrating the skin to make, generally permanent in nature, a hole, mark, or scar. "Bodypiercing" does not include the use of a mechanized, presterilized ear-piercing system that penetrates the outer perimeter of lobe of the ear or both. At all times material hereto, Petitioner admitted that she operated a body-piercing establishment salon and provided body-piercing services without first having obtained a body-piercing license as required by law. At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner possessed a manicure-pedicure license issued by another country and her foreign license also authorized body-piercing services. Petitioner, upon receipt of the Certificate of Violation, discontinued performing body-piercing services. The representative for the Agency stated that the Department would accept, in consideration of Petitioner's admissions and prompt discontinuation of body-piercing services, a reduced fine in an amount not to exceed $500.00.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
