The Issue May Respondent's contracting license be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined? EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Randall F. Patterson; Bob R. Pope; Roberta Ballenger; Joel A. Dean; and Victor F. Boucher. Petitioner's exhibits number one through fourteen were admitted into evidence. Respondent was not present, put on no evidence, and submitted no after- filed proposals. Petitioner filed the transcript of proceedings on October 17, 1985, and filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law styled "Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order" on November 8, 1985. Although additional time for filing proposals was neither applied-for nor granted, these proposals have been considered, and are ruled on within the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, was a registered residential contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RR 0032683. On August 7, 1982 Respondent d/b/a Future Homes of America Construction Company, Inc. contracted with Victor Boucher for the construction of a single family residence at 822 Fairview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Section 14.5 of the Fixed Price Construction Agreement provided: The owner will, as agreed to by the contractor, request the contractor to obtain payment and performance bonds, issued by a surety and in amounts acceptable to owner, guaranteeing the full performance of contractor's payment and performance obligations hereunder. (Pet. Exh. 1, Pet. Exh. 9). Article 14.5 of the construction contract required Respondent to obtain a payment and performance bond. Respondent failed to obtain a payment and performance bond. During the construction of the home, Boucher asked Respondent whether a payment and performance bond had been obtained. Boucher wanted to see the bond because he was concerned about Respondent actually finishing the project. In response to Boucher's request, Respondent indicated a bond had not been obtained; however, Respondent assured Boucher that a payment and performance bond would be obtained. On April 7, 1953 Respondent and Boucher obtained a construction loan in the amount of $54,400.00 from the American Savings and Loan Association of Florida, Winter Park, Florida. The construction loan was secured by a mortgage on the property located at 522 Fairview Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The proceeds of the construction loan were paid out in draws. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida paid the contract draws directly to Respondent. On August 29, 1953 Respondent executed an affidavit in support of final construction draw. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida required the affidavit as a precondition to making final disbursement to Respondent of the $4,338.50 remaining on the construction loan. The affidavit provided in pertinent part: 4. The undersigned swears that construction of the improvements to the PROPERTY has been fully completed in accordance with the plans and specifications therefore,...that all persons furnishing labor or materials, engaged as subcontractors or contracting directly with the owner of the PROPERTY in connection with said improvements, except the following, identified by name, address and amount due: [none known] have been paid in full and no person, firm or corporation has or holds any claim or lien against the PROPERTY for labor or material in connection with said improvements. Boucher was also required to sign the affidavit referred-to in Paragraph 5, above, in support of the final construction draw. Boucher's signature was required in support of the affidavit for final construction draw because Boucher had previously contacted the savings and loan association with regard to freezing the disbursement of construction funds. His request to freeze disbursements was made because Boucher was under the impression Respondent had moved to Miami and Boucher's attempts to contact Respondent had proven unsuccessful. Prior to executing the affidavit, Respondent told Boucher that certain subcontractors had not been paid. Nonetheless, Boucher, contrary to advice of legal counsel signed the affidavit knowing that certain subcontractors had not been paid and therefore knowing he was making a false affidavit. Respondent convinced Boucher that the final draw would be utilized to satisfy the remaining subcontractors and materialmen. Respondent's Answer pleads accord and satisfaction as an affirmative defense that Boucher agreed to pay off all bills of Overhead Door Co., Future Plumbing, Quality Fiberglass, and Patterson Well Drilling but Boucher's testimony that he, Boucher, insisted Respondent meet him to pay off all subcontractors out of the final draw and Respondent did not do so, overcomes any burden of proof problems raised by this affirmative defense. (See "Conclusions of Law.") On November 29, 1983 Patterson Well Drilling Company filed a claim of lien against Boucher's property. The claim of lien represented materials and labor furnished to Respondent in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. The claim of lien was in the amount of $1,510.00. Although the claim of lien under oath of President Randall F. Patterson states that the services were provided between September 9 and September 12, 1983, Boucher testified that Patterson's services were actually provided prior to the August 29, 1983 execution of the affidavit in support of final construction draw. Randall F. Patterson's testimony tends to support this timeframe set out by Boucher, and although the difference in dates between Mr. Patterson's affidavit within the claim of lien and his oral testimony at formal hearing might otherwise present a credibility issue, his explanation at hearing coupled with Boucher's explanation of how he relates the dates persuade the undersigned that Patterson Well Drilling Company installed the well prior to August 29, 1983. Respondent failed to pay Patterson prior to executing the bank affidavit. Respondent also failed to pay Patterson from the funds received in the final construction draw. Boucher paid Patterson Well Drilling Company for the services represented by the claim of lien. A check substantiates that Boucher actually paid Patterson the amount of $1,562.40. Respondent contracted with Quality Fiberglass Industries to provide materials and services in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. Respondent failed to fully reimburse Quality Fiberglass for the services and materials provided. On August 19, 1953 Quality Fiberglass Industries filed a claim of lien against the Boucher property for $219.00. Mr. Pope, Quality's representative, testified he was actually owed $325.00 and he has never been paid. Boucher testified he was required to pay the Quality Fiberglass lien prior to the closing on the home. There is no documentary evidence to reconcile this issue and in the absence of clear evidence that Boucher paid the fee, payment of the lien or the difference in amount is not proved. Overhead Door Company provided services to Respondent d/b/a Future Homes of America, Inc. in connection with the construction of the Boucher residence. On July 11, 1983 Overhead Door Company installed a garage door. Although contacted on several occasions, Respondent failed to pay Overhead Door Company $356.00 for the services provided. Overhead Door Company has not otherwise been reimbursed for the services provided. The construction plans for the Boucher home indicated a tar and gravel roof would be constructed over the patio. However, with the acquiescence of Mr. Boucher, Respondent placed rolled roofing rather than tar and gravel roofing on the patio. The construction plans were submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. According to Joel A. Dean, the county building department currently relies upon the construction plans in issuing the building permit. A contractor currently is required to notify the building department of any change or deviation from the submitted plans. This requirement enables the building department to control the type of building construction, the occupancy and use of the building, and ensures the buildings are constructed safe and watertight. Respondent did not notify the building department concerning the agreed roofing change as would be required by current requirements and requirements at the pertinent times under Section 114 of the Standard Building Code.
Recommendation That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending Respondent's contracting license for a period of two (2) years and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, provided, however, if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of payment to Overhead Doors Co. of $356.00 and payment to Quality Fiberglass of $219.00, the period of suspension shall be reduced to one (1) year. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 31st day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3835 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact According To the Paragraph Number assigned by Petitioner. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set out more fully in Finding of Fact Paragraph 9. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Anguelo James Linnan 1415 West 28th Street Executive Director Apartment 4 Construction Industry Hialeah, Florida 33010 Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified building contractor holding license number CB C032007. In May, 1985, he contracted to build a residence for Daniel Drigger for a price of $98,400. This is the first residence constructed by the Respondent under his license. The Driggers moved into the house in February, 1986. As a part of the contract to build the residence, the Respondent was responsible for the construction of a "greenhouse" window along the wall of the kitchen. The window is depicted in P. Ex. 3 on the left side of the house. The top portion of the window that slants on a 45 degree angle from the wall of the house began to leak in heavy rain storms shortly after the Driggers moved in. Water would pour in from the top seams of the window, damaging the drywall and wallpaper, and resulting in large pools of water on the floor. Mark Nasrallah was qualified as an expert in proper methods of construction and responsibilities of a contractor in Florida. Based upon the opinion of Mr. Nasrallah, it is concluded that the window had been improperly constructed by Mr. Allison. Mr. Allison's method, reliance upon caulking to seal the top glass, was defective because the glass would change size in heat and cold, thus loosening the seal, causing leaks. The proper method to prevent leaks was to rabbet the frame, laying the glass on a bead of caulk within the rabbet, and to construct a system of double flashing as indicated in the sketch which is Petitioner's Ex. 7. Mr. Allison agreed in his testimony that the method he chose to construct the window was not correct. He relied upon the carpenters he had hired to properly construct the window. The carpenters he hired had told him that they had constructed windows of this type many times before. Mr. Allison relied upon their representations, but did not know himself how the window should properly be constructed. At the hearing, Mr. Allison accepted full responsibility for the incorrect window, and was willing to spend the money needed to repair the window to the standards set forth by Mr. Nasrallah. The cost of correction of the window will be approximately $300. When Mr. Driggers first discovered that the window leaked, he called Mr. Allison and asked him to fix it. Mr. Allison told Mr. Driggers that he had lost a lot of money under the contract, and that he (Mr. Allison) believed that Mr. Driggers still owed him money. Mr. Allison told Mr. Driggers that he would fix the window if Mr. Driggers paid him the money that was owed, but that otherwise Mr. Driggers would have to have the window repaired using the money Mr. Driggers owed Mr. Allison. Since Mr. Driggers refused to pay the money claimed by Mr. Allison, Mr. Allison refused to correct the window. Mr. Driggers tried several methods to correct the leaky window, including caulk and after-the-fact flashing (without reconstruction), to no avail. The window still leaked. At the end of the job, there were still a number of corrections to be made. In order to release liens and to allow the bank to release funds, the parties agreed to allow the retention of $1500 by the Driggers, to be paid to Mr. Allison upon completion of the corrections on the "punch" list. P. Exs. 5A and 5B are the letters exchanged between the parties that established the agreement regarding the punch list and the retained $1500. The Driggers agreed that if all the items on the punch list were not completed by February 16, 1986, then the Driggers would have the option to hire someone to take care of the uncompleted items. Implicitly, payment was to be made from the retained $1500. R. Ex. 5B. Mr. Driggers testified that the following items on the punch list were not completed by Mr. Allison: rehang door to guest bathroom to open to outside; remove stain from living room ceiling; replace cabinet drawers upstairs; remove smudge on wallpaper in upstairs bathroom; center cabinet doors, master bathroom; and deliver all guarantees and warranties. This testimony is not credible, and is rejected. On May 6, Mrs. Driggers wrote to Mr. Allison. P. Ex. 6. The letter is clearly intended to itemize all remaining deficiencies under the contract. It states that $1,273.30 of the retained $1,500 is enclosed as "final payment," and itemizes $226.70 in matters claimed as offsets by the Driggers. None of the items listed are matters that Mr. Driggers at the formal hearing testified were uncompleted items on the punch list. The letter concluded that "this concludes our contract." Based on the letter of May 6, 1987, Mr. Allison reasonably and justifiable thought that the retained amount of $226.70 was used by the Driggers to satisfy all remaining claims by the Driggers under the contract. At the conclusion of the contract, Mr. Allison had a claim against the Driggers for the following, which Mr. Allison asserts was never paid to him: $75 for the utility deposit; $362 for landscaping; and $101.07 for appliances in excess of contract allowance. None of these amounts were denied by Mr. Driggers. The effect of this claim, however, cannot be determined on this record due to the findings of fact which follow. Mr. Allison originally presented Mr. and Mrs. Driggers with an estimate of $112,000 to construct the house. The bank would loan only $98,400. Thus, the parties agreed that the contract would be for the lower amount, but that Mr. Driggers would bring the cost down by supplying labor and materials for certain jobs. This agreement was not reduced to writing, and there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that either Mr. Allison or Mr. and Mrs. Driggers breached any of these oral agreements, resulting in money owed to either party. This is Particularly true in light of the letter of May 6, 1987, P. Ex. 6. As a consequence, it is impossible on this record to conclude that after consideration of all claims and counter claims, that the Driggers owed Mr. Allison anything further, or that Mr. Allison breached any duty to the Driggers other than in the construction of the leaky window. On June 25, 1986, the Driggers sent a letter to Mr. Allison. The letter lists a number of grievances. It ends by saying that formal complaints were being filed against Mr. Allison. On the last page, the Driggers state that "we, personally, have taken the appropriate steps to have the leaks fixed." After receipt of the June 25, 1986, letter, Mr. Allison did not offer to fix the leaky window because he believed it had already been fixed based upon the Driggers' letter. He was not contacted again by the Driggers. The window had not been fixed as of the date of the formal hearing. Mr. Allison offered to fix the window, as discussed above.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint against Frank D. Allison. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 18th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2959 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: The proposed finding that the "punch list items were not complete" has been ejected for the reasons set forth in finding of fact 15. The second sentence is true and adopted by reference, but is subordinate. This proposed finding is true and adopted by reference, but is subordinate. This proposed finding is true and adopted by reference, but is subordinate. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: The last sentence of the first paragraph is rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 18 and 19. The second paragraph is rejected. Although the proof was inadequate during the formal hearing that Mr. Allison failed to complete punch list items, this does not, in itself, prove that Mr. Driggers "deceived the contractor" about the punch list items. Mrs. Driggers explicitly listed the items for which money was withheld in the May 6, 1986, letter. Mr. Allison thus knew exactly why the money was withheld. Whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Driggers were correct in the withholding of the money has not been determined on this record. The last sentence of paragraph 3 is true and adopted by reference. It is not sufficient, however, the change the conclusion that the construction of the window was improper. Mr. Allison agreed during the hearing that the Nasrallah method was the proper method. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Frank D. Allison 1004 East South Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Willian O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Mr. Hill, as a certified general contractor, is guilty of gross negligence or misconduct in the practice of contracting, and of failing to discharge his supervisory duty as a qualifying agent by qualifying the firm Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. when he was not actively involved in the operation of that firm, but merely obtained permits for the firm's work.
Findings Of Fact Robert C. Hill is a certified general contractor and holds license CG C028519. Mr. Hill had been hired as one of four or five salesmen for Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. by its owner, Eugene Weiner. That company sold rolldown, accordion, panel, and awning metal shutters. Gulfstream acted as a procuring agent for Seaview Manufacturing, Inc., which fabricated and installed the shutters. A homeowner who wanted shutters would contact a salesman for Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. The salesman would measure the area to be covered for the purpose of estimating a price and give the homeowner a price. If the price was accepted, the shutters would be ordered from Seaview Manufacturing through a purchase order. Engineers from Seaview would then visit the property again to take exact measurements for fabrication, and Seaview would install the shutters. After the homeowner accepted the installation, the homeowner would pay for the shutters. Payment usually had been financed, and upon acceptance by the homeowner, the financing entity would release the proceeds of the home improvement loan which would be paid to Seaview for the product, and to Gulfstream for its sales commission. The average job sold by Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. was about $2,400 per home. Because of the way in which the sales transactions for shutters were structured, the only party which had any contractual relationship with the homeowner was Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. Mr. Hill was also able to handle work in addition to shutters, such as window replacements, because he had a contracting license. About 85 to 90 percent of Gulfstream's business was shutters and 5 percent windows or other work. The owner of Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. assumed that Seaview Manufacturing, which had been in the business of fabricating and installing shutters for more than 30 years, obtained any permits that were needed for the installation of the shutters. In fact, no permits were obtained by Seaview, Gulfstream, or Mr. Hill for those installations. Mr. Hill agreed to become qualifying agent for Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp. so that he could pull permits for spin-off jobs he obtained for window work or other small remodeling jobs, such as porches, which arose in connection with contracts for awning work he obtained. Gulfstream had no other qualifying agent. This qualification took place in August 1985. When Mr. Hill qualified as the agent for Gulfstream Shutter and Import Corp., he had no oversight of the finances of the company or supervision over the shutter fabrication or installation performed by Seaview Manufacturing on contracts procured by Gulfstream's salesmen. Eventually, Mr. Hill left Gulfstream Shutter and Improvement Corp., and began his own business, Contractors Marketing, which he qualified with the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that a final order be entered finding Mr. Hill guilty of violating Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (1985), which make out a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1985), and that he be fined $250. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of April, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 22nd day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Robert C. Hill Department of Professional 5766 Northeast 15th Avenue Regulation Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely William O'Neil, Esquire Executive Director General Counsel Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation Post Office Box 2 130 North Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 23, 2007, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for registering and regulating motor vehicle repair shops. See §§ 559.904, .920, and .921, Fla. Stat. Ms. Gore is the current president and sole shareholder of American Auto Glass. She is also its only employee. American Auto Glass's physical address is 873 Orchid Drive, Plantation, Florida 33317, which is Ms. Gore's residence. American Auto Glass's business records are kept at this address, and its invoices and billings to various insurance companies are prepared there. All business correspondence and payments go to Post Office Box 17484, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33318; and its the business telephone is Ms. Gore's cell phone. American Auto Glass is a "Sub-Chapter S" corporation. Prior to June 2006, Ms. Gore and Ana Diaz jointly owned American Auto Glass; Ms. Gore purchased the business in June 2006, and Ms. Diaz has not been involved in the business since that time. American Auto Glass is an approved vendor of automobile glass replacement claims for several insurance companies, and it acts as a broker handling automobile glass replacement claims for persons insured by those insurance companies. When an insurance company receives a claim from an insured for replacement of damaged automobile glass, the insurance company assigns the claim to American Auto Glass. American Auto Glass receives the assignment either through a telephone call from the insurance company's claims department or in a facsimile transmission from a glass vendor, that is, an administrator under contract with the insurance company to sub- contract automobile glass replacement claims to other agents in the field. The insurance company or glass vendor tells its insureds that it will handle the assignment of the claims and does not refer its insureds to American Auto Glass. Rather, it advises the insureds that they will be contacted by the person who will do the work of replacing the glass. Once American Auto Glass receives the claim referral, Ms. Gore contacts an independent sub-contractor who will do the installation of the automobile glass replacement. The sub- contractors used by American Auto Glass also work for other companies. As part of the assignment, American Auto Glass receives complete information regarding the type of vehicle, the damages, and the materials that need to be replaced, which Ms. Gore transmits to the sub-contractor. The sub-contractor assigned the installation job contacts the insured and arranges an appointment with the insured to bring in the car to the sub-contractor for the replacement installation. American Auto Glass does not, at any time, have possession of the vehicles for which it arranges automobile glass replacement installations, nor does it share a business location with the sub-contractors it engages to do the automobile glass replacement installations. Some sub-contractors used by American Auto Glass for automobile glass replacement installations furnish both parts and labor. If the sub-contractor does not furnish the parts but only the labor, the sub-contractor orders the necessary parts from AGS Auto Glass Export or another parts supplier. American Auto Glass has an account with AGS Auto Glass Export. The sub-contractor picks up the necessary parts for a job, and AGS Auto Glass Export bills American Auto Glass directly for these parts. Once the glass replacement installation is completed, the sub-contractor either sends an invoice to American Auto Glass or contacts Ms. Gore and provides the vehicle information required by the insurance company and the cost of the installation. American Auto Glass bills the insurance company for the work done, and the insurance company pays American Auto Glass. American Auto Glass pays the sub-contractors for parts and labor if the sub-contractor has furnished the parts necessary for the replacement or for labor only if the sub- contractor has ordered the parts from AGS Auto Glass Export, the cost of which are billed directly to American Auto Glass. Ms. Gore adds a certain percentage to these charges when she bills the insurance company. American Auto Glass's primary sub-contractor does not furnish parts, and he has a negotiated price with American Auto Glass for each installation. American Auto Glass acts exclusively as a broker arranging with independent sub-contractors for the automobile glass replacement installations on behalf of insurance companies.2 American Auto Glass at no time has any contact with the insurance company's insureds or their vehicles. At one time prior June 2006, when Ms. Gore purchased sole interest in the business, American Auto Glass employed an "installer" who did the actual work of installing automobile glass replacements. During this time, American Auto Glass was registered with the Department as a motor vehicle repair shop. The registration expired on May 29, 2007.3 The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that American Auto Glass is a motor vehicle repair shop whose business is motor vehicle repairs. Rather, American Auto Glass acts as a middleman between insurance companies and motor vehicle repair shops that do the actual glass replacement installation. Its only physical location is Ms. Gore's residence, and the business activities that take place at that location do not include any activities related to the actual work of motor vehicle repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against American Auto Glass Network, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 11th day of March, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for failure to renew his registration as a motor vehicle repair shop for the current year.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, Sections 559.901 through 559.9221, Florida Statutes, the Department regulates the repair of motor vehicles in this state. Mr. Flowers held a motor vehicle repair shop license issued by the Department which was valid through February 8, 2000. On January 9, 2000, Mr. Flowers was provided with notice that his license was required to be renewed by February 8, 2000. In order to have his license renewed, Mr. Flowers was required to pay a renewal fee of $50.00. He did not pay the renewal fee by the due date. During the period January 9, 2000, through September 21, 2000, in a continuing effort to persuade Mr. Flowers to renew his license, the department sent Mr. Flowers four letters, made three visits to the premises, and contacted the business at least nine times telephonically. Subsequent to his failure to renew his license, Mr. Flowers has continued to operate his vehicle repair facility and has, on at least three occasions, operated his motor vehicle repair shop by working on motor vehicles for compensation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of operating a motor vehicle repair shop without a license on three occasions, imposing a fine of $3,000, and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist engaging in the repair of motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 22nd day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Flowers Tallahassee Truck Service 3321 Garber Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold McLean, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
