The Issue Whether Respondent's professional engineers' license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Lester M. Maples, P.E., has been registered as a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE 10214. He has been licensed since 1964. There was no evidence that Respondent had been disciplined by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers in the past. Panhandle Fire Protection, Inc. (Panhandle) is owned by Chris Thomas and is in the business of designing and constructing fire protection systems. Respondent is the engineer for Panhandle. Respondent is the engineer of record for the fire protection plans for Longleaf Elementary and McArthur Elementary in Pensacola, Florida. Both plans were prepared in conjunction with Panhandle, the eventual contractor for the construction of the fire protection systems at both schools. The fire protection plans for both schools were signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent, with some revision dates also listed. The date does not appear immediately under Respondent's signature. However, the technicality of placement of the date is at best a de minimus violation which does not warrant discipline. Since the plans are dated, the portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent failed to date the plans should be dismissed. Both plans were drawn by using data generated by a generally recognized computer program used for designing fire protection systems and generating the hydraulic calculations for such a system. Both plans show a fairly detailed layout of the fire protection piping and sprinkler heads at each school. Lengths of pipe, as well as diameter are shown. By looking at the plans, a person can generally trace the route of the pipes planned for each school and determine each system's construction. Both drawings are drawn to scale and otherwise appear to meet rule and building code criteria for such drawings. See Florida Building Code 104.2.1 and Rule 61G15-32.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Indeed, both school's fire safety systems have been constructed and are in place at each school. However, prior to construction, Gene Schmidt, P.E., was the engineer of record for the Escambia County School Board. Fire protection systems is not his area of specialty. While he was not responsible for the fire safety plans for the two schools, he performed a courtesy review of the fire protection drawings and hydraulic calculations for Longleaf Elementary and McArthur Elementary. After review, Mr. Schmidt felt that the hydraulic calculations could not be reconciled with the drawings. He felt the plans did not comply with NFPA 13 with which fire protection plans must comply in Florida. NFPA 13 6-1.1.1 only requires that the hydraulic reference points or nodes shown on the plan correspond or correlate with comparable reference points on the hydraulic calculation sheets for the drawings. Hydraulic reference points or nodes are any intersection of piping where the flow of water through the pipes can change. Nowhere in NFPA, rule or statute, is the manner for describing these intersections or sections of pipe prescribed. Mr. Schmidt had difficulty in identifying the node points and section of pipe listed in the hydraulic calculations on the drawings. Once the method of description used by Respondent to describe these nodes and sections of pipe was explained to Mr. Schmidt, he could identify the reference point calculations on the drawings. Indeed, at the hearing, Mr. Thomas, a contractor, and another independent witness with expertise in engineering design principles, had no problem in tracing through the hydraulic reference points on the drawings. Both witnesses were of the opinion that the drawings contained sufficient information and continuity so that a person could trace through or determine how the water would flow throughout the sprinkler system. On the other hand, Petitioner's expert witness had great difficulty in so doing. He was of the opinion that Respondent's drawings lacked continuity and a person could not trace through or follow the flow of water through the system because the hydraulic reference points were not all defined or locatable on the drawings. What was clear from the evidence was that these various experts had real disagreements over the terminology to be used for describing hydraulic reference points and the theory underlying one method of description over another. In any event, the evidence showed that Respondent's descriptive methods were valid even if somewhat unique and that the hydraulic reference points did correlate to the hydraulic calculations for the two projects. As indicated, both systems were built and accepted by the owner. Therefore, the portions of the Administrative Complaint related to the lack of detail or clarity in the drawings and the relation of the hydraulic reference points to the drawings should be dismissed. The drawings do show pipes penetrating rated walls in corridors and around the kitchen at angles other than at 90 degrees. However, there is nothing in any rule, building code, or NFPA provision which prohibits such a design. Indeed, Petitioner's expert, who decried the angled design, has designed piping in such a manner. Additionally, the drawings do not specify the type of sealant the contractor should use when a pipe penetrates a firewall. However, there is no code or rule requiring such a specification. Indeed, proper sealing of the pipes in the area of penetration of a firewall, as is proper sealing of windows and doors, is required by Section 104.2 of the Florida Building Code. However, such standard building code requirements are not required to be specified in the drawings since all such construction requirements must be met by the contractor and is not otherwise a special design detail to be specified on the drawings by an engineer. Therefore, the portions of the Administrative Complaint related to the sprinkler systems' pipes entering the wall at an angle other than 90 degrees and the failure of Respondent to specify the type of sealant to be used where pipes penetrate a firewall should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvin L. Peters, Esquire Peters & Scoon 25 East Eighth Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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 At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Farrall was licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida, and held license number CG C040234. In addition, the Respondent was licensed as a certified roofing contractor and held license number CC C024398. Mr. Farrall was the qualifying agent for Sunmaster Roofing Company. On May 25, 1987, Sunmaster Roofing Company entered into a contract with Clarence A. Miller and Emily Miller to reroof their residence in Naples, Florida. After the project was completed, Mr. and Mr. Miller filed a complaint with the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board on December 7, 1987. Essentially, the complaint alleged as follows: 1) that the contractor abandoned the job without adequately completing construction; 2) that the roof materials were incorrectly installed; 3) that the contractor failed to obtain a building permit; and 4) that the contractor failed to adequately perform the contract due to his failure to correct faulty workmanship on the job. On December 11, 1987, copies of the complaint and a notice of hearing was sent to Respondent Farrall by certified mail to two different addresses. The items were promptly received at both locations. On January 15, 1988, the Respondent acknowledged that he was personally aware of the hearing scheduled for January 20, 1988. The Respondent requested a continuance until after January 29, 1988, because he had to attend to urgent family matters which required his presence in Canada. A continuance was not granted, and the hearing proceeded as scheduled. The Respondent was aware that the hearing was not continued prior to his departure for Canada. On January 20, 1988, a hearing was held, and the local board received evidence regarding the Miller complaint. As a result of the hearing, the local board found that the Respondent violated specific county ordinances in the following manner: by abandoning the job without legal excuse; disregarding or violating the building code by failing to obtain a building permit; and by failing to make good, faulty workmanship obviously performed in evasion of performance of the contract. The Respondent was disciplined by the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board on January 20, 1988. His permit privileges were suspended in Collier County until the contractor makes restitution and appears before the Board for reinstatement. The Respondent was given fifteen days to appeal the decision. The Respondent personally received a copy of the disposition of the hearing by certified mail on January 28, 1988. An appeal was not taken of the decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, John W. Farrall, in Case No. 89-3291 be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3291 The proposed findings of fact set forth in Petitioner's proposed recommended order are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #1. 2. Accepted. See HO #2. 3. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2 4. Accepted. See HO #8 and #9. 5. Accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges filed. Rejected. Irrelevant to the charges filed. The proposed findings of fact filed by the Respondent are addressed as follows: Accept the first two sentences. See HO #1. The rest of paragraph 1 is rejected as improper argument which is not based upon material evidence presented at hearing. Accepted. See HO #2. Rejected. The issue in this proceeding involves the discipline by the local government board and not the underlying facts upon which the board based its findings. Immaterial. 4. Rejected. Immaterial. See above. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Contrary to fact. See HO #6. Rejected. Rejected. Contrary to Irrelevant. fact. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John W. Farrall 316-2 Tudor Drive Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
