Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent was a registered building contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RB 0009164. At no time material to this proceeding was Domingo Alonzo (a/k/a Domingo Alonzo) registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent and Alonzo signed and submitted a proposal to Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox for remodeling and additions to their residence located at 1550 Zuleta Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida in accordance with plans prepared by Frese - Camner Associates on file with the City of Coral Gables, Florida, File No. 2897 for a contract price of $65,940.00 with draw schedules attached. On December 6, 1982, Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox (Homeowners) accepted the Proposal (Contract). On December 6, 1982, the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,297.00 in accordance with the contract whereby they were to receive 5 percent of the contract amount as a down payment upon signing. The draw schedule provided for a 10 percent retainage from each draw which was to be paid to Respondent and Alonzo upon completion and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. On December 21, 1982 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $2,025.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 3 for $1,350.00, Schedule II - Item 2 for $360.00 and Item 5 for $315.00. On December 17, 1982 the Homeowners and Respondent filed the affidavit required by ordinance with the City of Coral Gables for the purpose of having a building permit issued covering the work under the contract. 9. On January 19, 1983 Respondent using his building contractors license applied for building permit to cover the work anticipated under the contract and on the same day was issued building permit, No. 28214. Under the contract the Homeowners were to pay for the building permit and the bond required by the city. On January 26, 1983 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,000.00 which along with a payment on January 27, 1983 of $500.00 and January 31, 1983 of $544.60 represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 2 for $405.00, Item 5 for $1,260.00, Item 6 for $1,547.10 and Item 13 for $832.50. All payments from December 6, 1982 through January 31, 1983 under the contract by the Homeowners totaled $9,366.50 and were paid jointly to Respondent and Alonzo. On February 4, 1983 Respondent and Alonzo entered into an agreement, prepared by Myron Gold in the law office of Gold and Fox, whereby the Homeowners were to pay the balance of the funds remaining under the contract to Alonzo individually. After this date all payments were made to Alonzo. It was the Homeowners understanding after the February 3, 1983 agreement that Respondent would still be responsible for the supervision of the construction although they never saw Respondent again until October 1983. Edward Borysiewicz testified that he dealt with Respondent during March 1983 when he made the floor slab inspection on March 3, 1983 and the columns inspection on March 14, 1983. The record is clear that shortly after the agreement on February 3, 1983 Respondent no longer came to the construction site and supervised the work of Alonzo. On February 8, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,060.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 1 for $810.00, Item 5 for $1,417.50 and Item 13 for $832.50. On February 28, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,155.40 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 4 for $1,705.50 and $729.90 for extras apparently not covered by the contract but whether the balance of check No. 1161 (Pet. Ex. 13) of $720.00 was for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 18, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $1,000 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 9 for $819.00. Again whether the balance of check No. 1206 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) of $181.00 is for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 21, 1983, the Homeowners paid Alonzo $6,400.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Items 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. On March 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $2,166.90 but Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 does not list check No. 1210 as being a payment under the contract or for extras. On March 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $4,230.00 which represents a draw under Schedule I - Item 7 for $2,520.00 and a payment for extras not covered under the contract in the amount of $1,710.00. On April 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,207.40 which represented a draw Schedule I - Items 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14. On June 24, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,788.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 12 for $667.00, Item 14 for $3,024.00 and payment for extras not under contract for $2,097.00. After March 14, 1983 Respondent was not seen on the job site and there was no longer any apparent supervision of Alonzo by Respondent. After Respondent left the job site there was no licensed building contractor involved in the construction. After Respondent left the construction site the Homeowners soon realized that Alonzo did not know how to proceed with the work and experienced problems with the pace and manner in which the work was being accomplished. On July, 1983, Alonzo stopped working altogether. Although the Homeowners were aware of the problems that Alonzo was having with the construction and that Respondent was not on the job, the record does not reflect that they ever attempted to contact Respondent after the meeting on February 3, 1983. On August 1, 1983 the Homeowners notified Respondent and Alonzo that the contract had been terminated. The Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo $42,174.20 total under the contract (pages 1-5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) and paid Alonzo $10,766.37 for extras (Pages 6- 10, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15). On August 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Edward Bryant, plastering contractor the sum of $3,100.00 for plastering performed by Edward Bryant. This was for work under the contract that had not been completed or work necessary to correct problems that were already completed. Roberta Fox testified that there were no extras on plaster, however, page 7, line 11 and page 9, line 21 of Petitioner's Exhibit 15 indicates that there was extra plastering. On August 29, 1983 and September 29, 1983 the Homeowners paid Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. the total amount of $4,875.00 for work contemplated under the contract that had not been completed or needed correction. Homeowners had paid Alonzo $3,591.00 for plumbing under the contract. Both Alonzo and Southwest Plumbing, Inc. were paid for extra plumbing not covered by the contract in the amount of $567.00 and $391.50, respectively by the Homeowners. From September 13, 1983 through June 13, 1984 the Homeowners paid Charles Brueg, Jim Brueg, Charles Buffington and Dan, Inc. the total amount of $4,192.91 for electrical work contemplated under the contract that was not completed or required correction after Alonzo left the construction site. Page 6 lines 6 and 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 indicate that there were extras not covered by the contract. The total amount for electricity contemplated by the contract was $3,649.00. Alonzo was paid $2,627.10 under the contract and $1,710.00 for extras. The Homeowners were required to obtain the services of an air conditioning contractor to complete the work contemplated under the contract after Alonzo left the job site and as a result were required to pay Cameron, Inc., the air conditioning contract the amount of $5,181.60 between August 16, 1983 and January 24, 1984. The total amount contemplated under the contract was $3,600.00 of which $1,134.00 had been paid to Alonzo. Debris was dumped in the swimming pool requiring the Homeowners to pay $7,000 to refurbish the swimming pool. This amount included the repair contemplated under the contract and the extra work caused by Alonzo. The contract contemplated $2,300.00 for repairs of which none had been paid to Respondent or Alonzo. The Homeowners paid $1,150.00 to a painting contractor to finish the painting contemplated under the contract. Alonzo had been paid $1,125.00 for painting. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) The contract provided $2,500.00 for all painting required under the contract. Respondent failed to notify the building department that he was no longer responsible for the construction. After the Homeowners terminated the contract due to Respondent's and Alonzo's nonperformance, the Homeowners had to expend a substantial amount of extra money to complete the construction. The evidence is insufficient to determine an exact or approximate amount. Roberta Fox's testimony was conflicting with regard to her understanding as to whether or not the Respondent would continue to supervise the construction after the meeting in the Homeowners' law office on February 3, 1983 when Respondent and Alonzo entered into this agreement. Myron Gold testified that it was his understanding that Respondent would continue to supervise Alonzo after the agreement. However, the Homeowners action in this regard subsequent to February 3, 1983, in making no effort to bring the matter to a "head" and requiring Respondent to supervise the work or terminate the contract and in continuing to deal with Alonzo although Homeowners were aware shortly after February 3, 1983 that Alonzo could not perform without Respondent's supervision and that they knew Respondent was not on the job, tends to show that they were aware or should have been aware that Respondent was no longer involved in the day to day supervision of the construction. Alonzo installed a fireplace pursuant to the contract that the building department determined to be a fire hazard and recommended against its use. The Homeowners applied for and were granted a "owner/builder" permit on September 1, 1983 and requested cancellation of the building permit issued to Respondent which was cancelled on September 6, 1983. They have not received a certificate of occupancy because the building department has not performed the following inspection: electrical final; plumbing final; air conditioning final; roofing final and public works final. The building department would have issued a "stop-work order" had it been aware that Respondent was not supervising the construction and would have required the Homeowners to obtain another licensed building contractor or proceed as a owner/builder. The plans prepared by Frese-Camner Associates that were made a part of the contract by reference were not introduced into evidence with the contract and thus the record is insufficient to determine what was required to meet the specifications of the plans and thereby determine if the specifications had been met. There was a permit issued for the septic tank and drain field which work was started in December, 1982. The construction of the house itself was started in January 1983. The first inspection (foundation) on the house was made by the building department of January 21, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)(k)(m), Florida Statutes (1981) and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) years, provided, however, that if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of restitution to Myron Gold and Roberta Fox within one (1) year from the date of the final order herein, then the suspension shall be stayed and Respondent placed on probation for the balance of the suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 6th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2529 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 except clarified as to the last date on construction site. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact24 but clarified to show correct amount paid under contract as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified to show that extra plastering not under contract was required. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32 but clarified to show that the record does not support a figure that approximate $32,000.00. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence even though the Homeowners' testimony supported this fact because the Homeowners' actions with regard to Respondent after February 3, 1983, was to the contrary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: No Findings of Fact was submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Beason Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George J. Soler, Pro Se 3315 S.W. 96th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165
Findings Of Fact In early September of 1979, John and Ruth E. Lockwood contracted with P & P Custom Pools, Inc. (P & P), for the construction of a swimming pool at their home, 231 El Dorado Drive, Debary, Florida. Respondent, Philip J. Mains, signed the contract on behalf of P & P and later obtained a building permit. He and his men began excavating on site in mid-September. The Lockwoods paid respondent $700.00 on September 6, 1979. As construction progressed, they paid him $1,706.25 on September 27, 1979; $1,000.00 on October 26, 1979; $1,047.50 on October 29, 1979; and $1,706.25 on November 20, 1979. At the appropriate times, a building inspector was summoned, who inspected the project, including the placement of reinforcing steel, ground wiring, and lights. Neither the "steel inspection" nor the "deck inspection" revealed any problem. The workmanship was excellent, as far as it went, but the Volusia County building inspector's office was never asked to perform a final inspection. As respondent promised there would be, there was water in the swimming pool by Christmas of 1979, but respondent did no further work after December, 1979. He never installed the pump, filter, diving board, or hand bars called for in the Lockwoods' contract. Earlier in 1979, Patrick T. Ryan, the other principal in P & P, left town and abandoned the business which was then $37,000 in debt. In November of 1979, respondent turned the company's books over to an accountant. In January of 1980 the business' financial problems became critical and, at the accountant's suggestion, respondent so advised the eight homeowners for whom he was building swimming pools, including, in January or February, Mr. Lockwood, who reacted angrily. Respondent testified that Mr. Lockwood "cussed him out." Thereafter respondent avoided the Lockwoods until April of 1980 when they found him working on another pool. There was enough money owed on the eight contracts as a group to finish all the pools, according to respondent's uncontroverted testimony, at the time the Internal Revenue Service levied on respondent's bank account and seized his tools and equipment. Even then respondent offered to finish the Lockwoods' pool if they would buy the materials. Respondent's wife asked Mrs. Lockwood to write a check to a supplier for a pump and filter so that respondent could install them and get water in the pool circulating. Instead, during the last week of April, 1980, the Lockwoods contracted with somebody else to finish the job and paid him $1,200. Respondent subcontracted with a Jacksonville cement company to pour concrete for the pool. After the concrete had been poured, the Lockwoods got a registered letter from the subcontractor threatening to place a lien on their property if he were not paid. According to Mr. Lockwood, the problem was that some check [supposedly drawn by respondent in favor of the subcontractor] had been delayed in the mail. In any event, there was no indication in the evidence that the Lockwoods heard anything further from the subcontractor.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's registration for thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 30th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip J. Mains c/o Sue Mains Route 2, Box 799A DeLand, Florida 32720 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-2231 PHILIP J. MAINS, RP 0024663, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the certified general contractor's license of W. Bert Jones should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact By an Administrative Complaint filed October 27, 1976, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board sought to revoke the general contractor's license of W. Bert Jones alleging that the Respondent contractor entered into a contract with Mrs. Barbara Loewe to renovate her home and to add a room onto the back of the house; that the Respondent contractor was paid in full the contract price but the job was not completed and there were numerous building code violations. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. Pursuant to written agreements entered into between the Respondent and Mrs. Barbara Loewe of Tampa, Florida, Respondent agreed to renovate Mrs. Loewe's home and to add a room onto the back of the house. Mrs. Loewe, either by paying the Respondent directly or paying material suppliers, paid the full contract price. In June or July of 1975 the Respondent left the job contracted for partially or wholly incompleted as follows: the ceiling of the kitchen and drywall were in complete and the kitchen was not painted; the guest bathroom was not trimmed; two back rooms were incomplete. Inasmuch as the ceiling was left undone, it was not trimmed, the drywall was incomplete, the doorways were left uninstalled, and the paneling was incomplete; the bathroom had no toilet, no sink and no trim on the tub; in the master bedroom the ceiling was left sagging, there was no insulation in ceiling or walls, the door was untrimmed, siding was left partially undone and the windows weren't trimmed; holes were left unrepaired around the pipes in the home. The sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) was paid by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company in full settlement of the claims arising under the general contractor's bond. Additional money, approximately Thirty-Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500), was spent by Mrs. Loewe in addition to the Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) received from the bonding company in order to complete the jobs contracted for. Although there were minimum changes In the job as originally contracted for, work is still going on to complete the original work contracted for by the Respondent. The building inspector for the City of Tampa Building Bureau, Tom Burgoyme, inspected the job site on several occasions during the progress on the work contracted for between Mrs. Loewe and the Respondent. He found building code violations and submitted a list of corrections to the Respondent, Mr. Jones, which were not remedied. A number of problems arose during the construction work, some of which was not the fault of the Respondent. Another contractor was involved in the work on the project. Funds in excess of the purchase price were paid to the Respondent and funds in excess of Eighty-Five Hundred Dollars ($8,500) were needed or will be needed to complete the project.
Recommendation Revoke the general contractor's license of Respondent, Number C GC007323. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 W. Bert Jones 2300 Greenlawn Street Brandon, Florida 33511
The Issue The single issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to at least three more points on his response to question #121. If not, he has failed the examination.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth A. Carper graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida. In the nine years since graduation he has worked for an engineering firm primarily in the area of drainage design. Question #121 is the type of problem he deals with daily. The ultimate objective of the question is to determine whether the flow of an open channel with given specifications is subcritical or supercritical. The question required the computation of the channel's critical depth and normal depth. In the hypothetical situation described by the question, certain extraneous information was given. An appropriate answer required that this "red herring" be ignored. The ISSP is a standardized grading device by which a person subjectively grading a problem will consistently apply a score based upon specified types and numbers of deficiencies. The intent is to reduce the chance of over-leniency or an overly strict approach by different graders. The ISSP developed by the National Council of Engineering Examiners for question #121 provides in pertinent part: 10. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution, well organized, all relevant ASPECTS fully addressed. Correct approach; numerical answers correct within rounding errors; conclusion correct; adequate written records. All parts are of equal weight (3 parts). 9. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution but exces- sively conservative in choice of working values; or presen- tation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. All correct, as in 10 above, except for a single math/units error; or inadequate written record. 8. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread table or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. All correct, as in 10 above, except for multiple math/units errors; or inadequate written record; or in combination. 7. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied. Obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable. Same as 8 above, except for more gross errors; or in combination; or a single part of three parts required completely wrong or missing, with the other two parts correct. 6. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, applicant demonstrates minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant ASPECTS of the item. Multiple math/units/records errors; or in combination; or one part completely missing or wrong, with other errors; or in combination. (Joint Exhibit 1) The grader of Carper's examination did not testify, but provided notations on the answer sheet. The solution required selection of an appropriate formula, which Carper did; it also required a trial and error mathematical computation of the value of "y." In the first part of the question Carper found "y" to be "... between 9.2 and 9.3, say 9.3'." The grader crossed out this answer with the notation,-- "not an engineering answer-Finish iteration to a close enough' final value." The grader's answer was 9.24. In the second part of the question, Carper indicated "y" was "... between 6.8 and 7.0, say 7.0'." The grader's answer was 6.99, and similar notations, were made, "not an engineering answer. Finish the iteration." It is apparent that the grader felt that the solution should be carried out to the nearest hundredth place. Yet, in a very similar question (#421), also requiring computation of normal depth, Carper's answer, 4.7' was marked "OK", and he received the full 10 points for his solution. Nothing in the instructions specifically requires a solution to the nearest hundredth. This is left to the judgement of the engineer. "Real world" engineering practice would not require a solution to the nearest hundredth place. The design of a large open channel is substantially less precise than the design of a bridge or multi-story building. In hydraulics, the practice is often to round up, for example, from a 9.8 to 10, as a conservative measure. It is also common to use estimates; for example, the roughness coefficient (resistance of the channel walls) is a textbook figure, rather than one derived from the structure itself. Given the lack of precision inherent in the formula, the computation of value beyond the tenth place serves no valid purpose. The sample solution to #121 provided by the grader specifically states "ignore backwater curve." While Carper's solution does ignore the "red herring," his work sheet does not affirmatively note that he did. Respondent claims that the grader could not know whether the back water curve was properly ignored, or just overlooked. At worst, this minor deficiency constitutes an inadequate written record. The appropriate score, based on the ISSP table reflected in paragraph 4, above, is "9." Carper selected the proper formula, performed the mathematics and arrived at answers reflecting acceptable engineering practice. The descriptions of deficiencies for the scores of less than 9 do not apply to Carper's solution for this question. Respondent's expert conceded that the solution did not contain a mathematics error. In making these findings I have considered and weighed the opinions of the three experts who testified in this proceeding. Both experts presented by Petitioner were qualified, without objection, in the engineering fields of hydraulics, hydrology and water resource management. They both have over 30 years of extensive practical experience in those fields, and they both have lectured or taught in colleges and universities. The weight of their testimony is tempered by their personal knowledge of Petitioner for eight or nine years and by their knowledge of the score he needed to pass the examination. Nothing in the substance of their testimony, however, revealed a bias in favor of their colleague, and their testimony was considered candid and forthright. They would have scored #121 as "9" or "10". Respondent's expert, a consulting engineer, employed as an Associate Professor in the University of Florida Civil Engineering Department did not know Carper, nor was he advised of the score he would need to pass. He would have given Carper a "6" or "7" on question #121, but more likely a 7, based on Carper's failure to carry his answer to "three significant figures." This opinion was not adequately explained in terms of acceptable engineering practice, but rather was based on acceptance of the test grader's judgement. (Joint Exhibit #2, Deposition, p. 29) Respondent's expert was less qualified than Petitioner's experts. His primary experience as a consulting engineer has been in review of the work of others, rather than active design.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, awarding Kenneth Carper 9 points for question #121, thereby providing a passing grade for the engineering examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4979 The following constitute my rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner 1-5. Addressed in Background. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph #11. 8. Addressed in Background. Respondent Addressed in Background. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Rejected as unsubstantiated speculation. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian E. Currie, Esquire SANDERS, McEWAN, MIMS & MARTINEZ, P.A 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neal, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of general contractor's license number CG C007235, and certified residential contractor's license number CR C006769. On or about January 6, 1976, Respondent entered into a Building Agreement with Walter and Ellen Scott (hereinafter "owners") for construction of a residence to be located at 10244 Deerwood Club Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Among the provisions contained in this agreement was the following: [Respondent] will construct house for actual Construction Costs plus $10,000 profit. Addendum to contract Number 19 contains construction estimate sheet and allowance sheet which is guaranteed by [Respondent] not to exceed $85,000, plus $10,000 profit. All construction costs above $85,000 will be absorbed by contractor resulting from faulty workmanship or incorrect overall estimate. Additional costs resulting from exceeding allowances or phases not covered by estimate, (Wallpaper, Light fixtures, etc.), will be paid by purchaser. [Respondent] will be compensated at $2,500.00 out of each of the last four construction draws. Purchaser will be refunded in difference of construction under $85,000.00. Purchaser has the right to examine cost of construction at any stage to determine how close cost [sic] are running to estimate. (Emphasis added.) In addition, the Building Agreement contains a listing of allowances for various items such as carpet, flooring, wallpaper, doors, fireplaces, appliances, plumbing fixtures, wiring and windows. These provisions of the contract deal with standard items to be included in the construction, absent some request and agreement between the parties to specific changes. With respect to changes, the agreement provides specifically that: Should the Purchaser at any time during the progress of said residence require any alterations to or deviations from, additions to, or omissions, in said Agreement, which are acceptable to the Contractor, they shall have the right and power to make such change or changes when practicable, and the same shall in no way make void the Agreement; but the differences shall be added to, or deducted from the amount of the Agreement as the case may be, by a fair and reasonable evaluation . . . (emphasis added.) Finally, the Building Agreement also provides that Respondent was to use his best effort to deliver the completed residence on or about 180 days from the start of construction, which, by terms of the agreement, is defined as the date on which footings are poured or the day rough plumbing was begun. Although Respondent obtained a building permit for construction of the residence, from the City of Jacksonville, Florida, dated February 5, 1976, there is nothing in the record of this proceeding on which a firm determination can be made as to when construction actually started. Although the actual starting date for construction is unclear, it is obvious from the record that Respondent and the owners began to experience problems from the outset. The owners received a notice of lien soon after the slab for the residence was poured. In addition, there appears to have been some miscalculation with respect to the size of the slab for the structure to which some additions had to be made. Respondent apparently failed to pay for the initial treatment for subterranean termites at the time of the pouring of the slab, and the termite bond on the residence was cancelled. In addition, the slab appears to have been poured in such a fashion as to require adjustments in the construction of the driveway to avoid rainwater runoff entering the residence. One of the more difficult problems in the initial stages of construction involved leaks in the roof of the structure. When it appeared that efforts to repair the leaks had not been entirely successful, the owners requested that Respondent delay work on the interior in order that repairs on the roof might be accomplished before proceeding in order to avoid interior damage. After an extended delay occasioned by an unusual period of dry weather which prevented a determination as to whether the roof would continue to leak, work on the interior was recommenced, only to discover that the roof had not been sufficiently repaired. As a result of continuing problems with the roof, work which had been completed in the interior of the structure was damaged by rainwater. In fact, as of the date of final hearing in this cause, it appears that final repairs to the roof had still not been accomplished. It appears from the record that construction delays attributable to roof leaks in the residence set the tone for the remainder of the business dealings between Respondent and the owners. From this point forward, the relationship between Respondent and the owners became virtually adversary in tone. This state of affairs was complicated by an extensive series of changes or substitutions in the original plans and specifications by the owners. As indicated above, the original Building Agreement contained provisions concerning allowances for various portions of the work, and optional items which could be added at additional charge to the owner. Unfortunately, the record is unclear as to exact dollar amounts attributable to extras selected by the owners, as well as to amounts actually received by Respondent in the course of construction draws on the original contract. However, it is clear that extras selected by the owners totalled between $20,000 and $25,000. These items, which were not contained in the original contract, included ceramic tile flooring; double oven; wooden window frames; extensive extra bricking work, including brick more expensive than that described in the original contract; a larger driveway; burglar alarms; simulated marble vanities, tubs and sinks instead of cast iron fixtures as originally contemplated; crown moldings and interior door moldings throughout the interior of the residence; more expensive plumbing fixtures; extensive parquet flooring; larger closet areas; and extensive changes in the location of plumbing fixtures and electrical outlets. In addition, what appears from the evidence to have been a handmade stairway was substituted at an additional cost of approximately $5,000. The construction of the staircase not only included additional expense, but for some reason not entirely apparent from the record, caused additional delay in construction of other areas in the residence. Respondent apparently did not maintain a separate checking account for construction draws on this project, instead comingling disbursements on the construction loan with other funds in his general checking account. Additionally, no documentation was submitted by either Petitioner or Respondent to establish dates on which draw requests were either submitted by Respondent to the owners or the financial institution financing construction, or the dates on which any such draw requests were funded, either in whole or in part. As a result, it is virtually impossible from the record in this proceeding to determine the basis for disbursements from the construction loan account, or the disposition of those sums once disbursed. Although there was some general testimony about the filing of liens by various subcontractors, no documentation of these liens was submitted into evidence. What is, however, apparent from the record is that in early 1977, almost one year after initial disbursement of construction funds to Respondent, almost the entire $95,000 constituting the construction account was depleted. At that time the residence was approximately 90 percent complete. Thereafter, by Agreement dated February 18, 1977, Respondent and owners agreed that an additional $25,000 would be necessary to complete construction of the residence. Respondent acknowledged that he was in default under the terms of the original Building Agreement, and agreed to reimburse owners for the additional $25,000 needed to complete construction of the residence, subject to certain adjustments. Respondent agreed to complete construction of the residence within 40 days, and further agreed that the financial institution holding the mortgage on the residence was authorized to disburse the additional $25,000 directly to subcontractors, materialmen and laborers for work performed for services rendered on the property. Respondent executed a note in the amount of $25,000, secured by certain property belonging to him as evidence of his obligation to complete construction. However, shortly after execution of the February, 1977, Agreement, Respondent and owners had a dispute over payment of certain laborers. As a result, Respondent was advised by owners not to return to the job site. After this notification, evidence in the record establishes that Respondent contacted the financial institution which held the mortgage on the property and advised them that he would not be completing construction of the residence. It is clear from the record that the owners had more than ample cause for dissatisfaction with both the quality of workmanship and the timeliness with which work was performed by Respondent. Those matters are not, however, at issue in this proceeding. It is also abundantly clear that both Respondent and owners conducted their dealings with one another in a most informal fashion. With the exception of the original Building Agreement, and the February, 1977, agreement, most of the dealings between Respondent and the owners were verbal. Additionally, the absence of detailed documentary evidence makes resolution of many of the factual disputes in this proceeding difficult at best. However, the record clearly establishes that Petitioner failed to request that official notice be taken of any of the provisions of the building codes or other laws of the City of Jacksonville, and that none of these codes or laws were offered into evidence in this proceeding. As a result, a motion to dismiss that portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging violation of applicable building codes was granted by the Hearing Officer at the close of Petitioner's case. Further, although the owner testified as to his belief that certain building materials were "floating" between the project which is the subject of this proceeding and other projects being constructed by Respondent, there is no direct evidence to establish that Respondent, in fact, diverted any funds or property improperly. Finally, as to the question of abandonment, it appears from the record that the owner dismissed the Respondent prior to the expiration of the 40-day period contemplated in the February, 1977, Agreement, and that Respondent advised both the owner and the financial institution financing construction of the project that he would not complete construction of the residence as contemplated in the various agreements between the parties.
