Findings Of Fact In February of 1990, the Petitioner filed an application to take the unlimited electrical contractor examination. To be eligible to take the examination, it was necessary for the Petitioner to demonstrate that he had at least three years of management experience in the field of electrical contracting. The information in the application and the evidence submitted at the hearing demonstrate that the Petitioner has had more than three years of experience in the field of electrical contracting. However, the information in the application and the evidence submitted at hearing are insufficient to demonstrate how much, if any, of that experience was "management experience in the trade." 1/
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board enter a Final Order in this case denying the Petitioner's application to take the licensure examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of September 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of September 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is an officer and registered agent for GT Handy Solutions, Inc. Neither he nor his company is registered or certified to perform electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of Palm Coast. On or about May 17, 2006, in DBPR Case No. 2006-005919, Respondent was issued a Notice to Cease directing Respondent to immediately cease and desist from all unlicensed electrical contracting work. Sometime after that point, the Jacksonville investigative office of DBPR received a tip from the City of Palm Coast that Respondent was still in the area engaging in unlicensed activity. The Department set up a sting operation with the assistance of the Volusia County State Attorney's Office and the Flagler County Sheriff's Office. Leslie Floyd Walker is employed as an investigator in the Volusia County State Attorney's Office. As part of the sting operation, Ms. Walker posed as a homeowner and called unlicensed people asking them to give estimates for electrical work to be performed at 11 Floyd Court, Palm Coast, Florida. The names of the unlicensed persons to be called were provided by the City of Palm Coast and were persons who advertised in the Palm Coast area or who had been cited previously for performing work without a license. Mr. Torres was one of the unlicensed persons called by Ms. Walker. On January 23, 2007, Mr. Torres was contacted at the telephone number contained in an advertisement in the Service Directory of the Flagler Pennysaver. In response to Ms. Walker's call, Mr. Torres came to the house at 11 Floyd Court, and Ms. Walker told him she wanted to replace three ceiling fans with new ones, and a light fixture, remove an existing light and add a light at the home. Mr. Torres and Ms. Walker's conversation was preserved via videotape. Mr. Torres was concerned about the wiring at the home, and asked to see the attic space. After doing so, he gave Ms. Walker an estimate of $800 to do the work, indicating that he would have to do some rewiring in order to put in the new ceiling fan she wanted. The estimate contemplated Ms. Walker providing the new ceiling fans. Ms. Walker asked Mr. Torres for a written proposal, which he started to prepare. However, he asked her if it was possible to mail it to her, because he needed to be able to make a copy for himself. He asked her about scheduling for the job, and indicated that he would be available the next week. He also stated that while the fans could be changed out in a few hours, the wiring would be more extensive and made the job a two-day job. Mr. Torres never provided the written proposal, and when Ms. Walker called and said he could do the work, he did not go back. At hearing, he said that he did not do so because he knew doing the electrical work was beyond the scope of what he was allowed to do. He claimed that he never actually offered to do the work, but instead had merely said that this type of work could be done for $800. The undersigned has viewed the videotape of Mr. Torres' conversation with Ms. Walker, and carefully listened to the conversation. At no time did he indicate to Ms. Walker that he was unable to perform the work she described. To the contrary, he discussed with her the aspects of the job that would make it more extensive, and what efforts he would have to make regarding the rewiring. While he may have ultimately determined not to perform the work, the evidence is clear that he provided a verbal proposal to perform the work at the time that he met with Ms. Walker at 11 Floyd Court. The Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $164.23.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and imposing investigative costs in the amount of $164.23. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 3rd day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 George Torres GT Handy Solution, Inc. 43 Russo Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32164 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent should be subjected to disciplinary sanctions based upon alleged violations of Sections 489.127(1) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the business or capacity of a general contractor, and as an electrical or alarm system contractor, without being certified or registered.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and enforcing the statutes and rules pertaining to the licensure and practice of contracting, including construction contracting and electrical contracting. The Petitioner is also charged with regulating and enforcing statutes concerning the unauthorized practice of such contracting, including practicing without proper certification or registration. At all times material hereto the Respondent, Kevin Davidson, d/b/a Wise and Davidson Construction and Davidson Contracting and Construction (Davidson or Kevin Davidson) was not licensed, certified or registered to engage in construction contracting or any electrical or alarm system contracting in the State of Florida. On or about December 21, 2004, the Respondent, doing business as Davidson Contracting and Construction, contracted with Mr. Hanson, a witness for the Petitioner, to install and erect a 50-foot by 60-foot by 17 and one-half foot airplane hanger on a concrete foundation. He also contracted to install a 200 amp electrical panel box on Mr. Hanson's property in conjunction with construction of the building. The property was located in Morriston, Florida. The contracted price for the work described was $47,597.30. Mr. Hanson paid the Respondent the total of $20,514.30 as part of the contract price. The Respondent never finished the project, but only laid the concrete foundation. At the insistence of the Respondent, Mr. Hanson rented a backhoe which the Respondent agreed to operate in constructing a driveway. The work was never finished, and Mr. Hanson had to obtain other help in constructing the driveway. The Respondent also damaged the rented backhoe while he was operating it. These factors caused Mr. Hanson an additional economic loss of $4,830.38. On or about December 13, 2004, the Respondent, doing business as Wise and Davidson Construction, contracted with Ms. Crowell, a Petitioner witness, to install and erect a 50- foot by 60-foot by 17 and one-half foot steel building on a concrete foundation, also in Morriston, Florida. The Respondent also contracted to install a 200 amp electrical panel box in conjunction of construction of that building. The total amount of the contract price was $47,047.30. Ms. Crowell paid the Respondent at least $35,251.35 in partial payment for the contract. After laying the foundation, however, the Respondent abandoned this project as well. The Respondent's abandonment of the project cost Ms. Crowell $29,943.00 in additional economic damage in order to obtain completion of the project by another contractor. The Department incurred certain investigative costs in prosecuting these two cases. It was thus proven by the Petitioner that the Department expended $510.06 for the prosecution of DOAH Case No. 06-2308. The Petitioner also established that it spent the sum of $944.13 in costs for Case No. 06-2307. This represents total investigative costs expended by the Agency of $1,454.19, for which the Petitioner seeks recovery. The Petitioner is not contending that any attorney's fees are due.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order determining that the Respondent has violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2004), as alleged in the earlier-filed Administrative Compliant in Case No. 06-2308, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 for the violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), and an administrative penalty of $5,000.00 with regard to the electrical contracting violation, as provided for by Section 455.228, Florida Statutes (2004). It is further recommended that the final order determine that the Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2004), as alleged in the later-filed Administrative Complaint in Case No. 06-2307 and that an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00 for the violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), and that an administrative penalty of $5,000.00 be imposed for the electrical contraction violation, as provided for by Section 455.228, Florida Statutes (2004). It is further recommended that costs be assessed against the Respondent for investigation and prosecution of both cases, not including costs associated with attorney's time and efforts, in the total amount of $1,454.19, payable to the Petitioner Agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kevin Davidson Post Office Box 131 LoveJoy, Georgia 30250 Nancy S. Terrel Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting as defined in Sections 489.105(3) and 489.105(6), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006); (b) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting as defined by Sections 489.505(9) and 489.505(12), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006); and (c) if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Respondents were married and doing business together as "B and P Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc." The "B and P" stands for Brenda and Phillip. Respondents are not and never have been licensed to engage in contracting or electrical contracting in Florida. In March 2006, Carla Adams had recently purchased her first home and sought to refinance it. The lender required an inspection of the home. The lender also required that any work on the home be performed by a licensed person or entity. In March 2006, an inspector employed by Pillar to Post, Inc., conducted an inspection of Ms. Adams' home. The inspection report, dated March 10, 2006, listed a number of areas that needed work and made recommendations for correction of those problems. In July 2006, Ms. Adams saw an advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of a used car. Ms. Adams and Rev. Tracey Davis went to Respondents' property with the objective of purchasing a used vehicle. While on the property, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis entered the Respondents' home. Because both women admired the home, Respondents gave them a tour. During the tour, Respondents stated that Henley had performed the work himself. While in Respondents' home, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis told Respondents that Ms. Adams needed work done on her home. Ms. Adams also told Respondents that her lender required that the work be done by a licensee. Henley, both upon his own volition and after being asked, told Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis that he was a licensed contractor. Henley removed a picture-ID card from his wallet and stated this was his license to practice contracting. Respondent Carpenter condoned this statement. Ms. Adams showed Respondents the March 10, 2006, inspection report. Henley assured Ms. Adams that he could do everything on the report that needed to be done. Henley further stated that his license was issued by “DBPR” - the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Carpenter affirmatively agreed with this statement. Henley warned Ms. Adams that she should never have work done by anyone that was not licensed or certified and that she could check licensure status with DBPR. Respondent Carpenter affirmed this warning. Before speaking with Respondents, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis had never heard of DBPR. It was only due to Henley’s reference to DBPR that Ms. Adams knew she could contact Petitioner regarding the issues in this case. Respondents advised Ms. Adams that they were willing to go to Ms. Adams’ home and give her an estimate of what they would charge to perform the needed work. Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis left Respondents' property expecting to see Respondents in the near future. In August 2006, Respondents went to Ms. Adams’ home in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Adams told Respondents she needed electrical, structural and plumbing work done as set forth in the Pillar-to-Post report. Respondents then inspected the home, took measurements, and made a verbal offer to perform the needed contracting work. Respondents returned to Ms. Adams’ home later in August 2006. At that time, Respondents presented Ms. Adams with a written estimate of what they would charge to do certain contracting work on her home. The proposal included, but was not limited to, structural, plumbing and electrical work. Respondents' proposal stated as follows in relevant part: REMOVE ALL OLD FLOOR COVERING Carpet Padding Lineoleum (sic) Square Stick tile Tack strip All of the above, but not limited to just above 1,470 Sq. Ft. @ $1.10 Sq. Ft. INSTALL NEW FLOOR COVERING 1,470 Sq. Ft. of tile on floor @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. and install Durarock (sic) or hardi (sic) backing board, if needed KITCHEN Remove wall and old 1/2 bathroom and put back to finished product Not including finishing drywall and painting drywall Remove all old plumbing and re-route Electrical wires HALL BATHROOM Remove bathtub, and tub walls Install durarock (sic) and new plumbing fixtures [a]s provided by homeowner Install 100 Sq. Ft. of wall tile around old tub area @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. [m]aking a new shower in the room Build a curbing, and drypack and install shower floor tile Install drain and rubber pan REMOVE OLD RAILING FROM FRONT PORCH The total price listed for the above referenced work was $5,234.50. Ms. Adams had received other estimates for the work. Therefore, Ms. Adams was pleased with the price and sought assurance that it would not increase. Respondents promised Ms. Adams that the cost would not increase. To further assure her, they both signed the contract in her presence. During the hearing, Henley admitted that he contracted with Ms. Adams to perform the labor as listed on this contract. In an attempt to ascertain Henley’s skill as a contractor, Ms. Adams decided to begin with the renovation of the bathroom located in the entrance way to the master bedroom. Ms. Adams agreed to buy the construction, plumbing, or electrical materials that Henley needed to do the work. Ms. Adams works two jobs and was not always home when Respondents performed the contracted work. As a result, Rev. Davis, who lived nearby, was present at the home to let Respondents in and observe the work. In order to enlarge the bathroom adjoining the master bedroom, Henley demolished a wall between the old bathroom and a walk-in closet. Henley also removed the door into the old bathroom and constructed a single wall with the entrance to the enlarged room through the door to the old closet. In the course of this alteration and expansion, Henley damaged the adjoining wall to the living room. He subsequently repaired the damage. In the enlarged bathroom, Henley removed a sink from the old bathroom area and installed it in the area that had been a closet. The area of the old closet had no plumbing. The removal and installation of the sink required Henley to remove old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow. During the hearing, Henley admitted removing the sink and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley installed the custom-built shower as described in the contract in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. During the hearing, Henley admitted cutting a hole in the floor of Ms. Adams’ bathroom and installing a shower drain pan. Henley removed and replaced the toilet in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Additionally, Henley, with Carpenter's help, removed the old bathtub. Henley admitted removing the bathtub and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley then installed a replacement Jacuzzi bathtub at the location of the previously-removed bathtub in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Henley had to remove the old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow for the replacement Jacuzzi. The toilet, sink, and bathtub removal and the shower- installation required plumbing work that made it necessary to turn off the water to the home. During the course of installing the Jacuzzi bathtub, Henley discovered that his work resulted in drainage problems he could not correct. For the first time, he told Ms. Adams that his license did not allow him to perform plumbing work. Henley then told Ms. Adams that, as the contractor on the job, he could subcontract the needed plumbing work. In early September 2006, Henley called Roto-Rooter as a plumbing subcontractor. Roto-Rooter performed the following plumbing work at Ms. Adams' home: Hooked up all the basic [drain] lines and the toilet in new bathroom to the m/l [main line]. Also ran water lines for the new sink, but found problem with shower valve. It was put in wrong and will not work until it's moved. Note: Everything else is working at this time. Price includes parts and labor. ( * * * out the tile and fix shower valve, not everything is working.) The Roto-Rooter invoice indicates a total cost in the amount of $1,432.78 for the work performed in Ms. Adams' home. Ms. Adams and Respondents had a financial dispute about which party had to pay Roto-Rooter. The dispute ultimately led to a falling out regarding the completion of the contracted work. Ms. Adams’ bathroom currently is inoperable because the toilet and Jacuzzi bathtub do not work. There is raw sewage underneath her home. In order to repair her bathroom, Ms. Adams received an estimate of approximately $5,000.00. Ms. Adams’ decision to begin with the renovation of her bathroom also involved ascertaining Henley’s skills as an electrical contractor. Based on his assurances that he could do the work, Ms. Adams allowed Henley to remove and relocate electrical light fixtures and switches in the bathroom, closet, and hallway. During the course of this work, Henley left hot wires exposed. On or about September 14, 2006, Carpenter came to Ms. Adams’ home and presented an invoice for $1,200.00 for the contracted work that had been performed pursuant to the initial contract. The invoice was on the letter head of “Brenda & Phillip, Phillip Henley, Inc." It stated as follows in relevant part: Remodel Master Bathroom Take out all fixtures-sink, cabinet, cast iron tub, toilet and replace with new Jacucci (sic) tub, new sink and cabinet, new shower and put back old toilet. Take out old tile on walls and drywall, take out two closets to enlarge bathroom. Re-wire and re-plumb all fixtures and installed durarock (sic) on floor, walls and wet areas and installed blueboard on balance of walls. Built a custom shower and installed custom tile design on walls and floor. Cost: $1,900.00 Less cash advances: 8/9 $100 8/16 $300 8/22 $300 $700 -700.00 $1,200.00 Plus: Materials & receipts: 8/11 $ 81.19 8/17 23.67 8/19 26.84 8/24 108.51 $240.21 +$240.21 Balance Due: $1,440.00 Other labor -240.00 $1,200.00 The invoice was signed by Henley and Carpenter and included the following statement: "Thank you for doing business with Brenda & Phillip!" The invoice stated that the check should be payable to Carpenter. Excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, Petitioner has expended $554 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2541 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2545 against Henley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that each Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, imposing a total administrative fine in the amount of $11,000 against each Respondent, and assessing costs in the amount of $554 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 against Henley. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brenda Carpenter Phillip Henley 5209 Southwest U.S. 221 Greenville, Florida 32331 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides “handyman” services through BK and H Corporation. Respondent is not licensed by the Department as a contractor or an electrical contractor, and his corporation is not licensed by or registered with the Department in those fields. Respondent’s corporation has an occupational license from Collier County. The classification listed on the license is “handyman repair service (no contracting).” The occupational license includes the notation “HIGHLY RESTRICTED” in bold type. The license also states that it “is not a certification that the licensee is qualified” and that it “does not permit the licensee to violate any existing regulatory zoning laws of the state, county or cities nor does it exempt the licensee from any other license or permits that may be required by law.” On or about April 11, 2005, Respondent presented a written “Estimate” to Robert Brown for a variety of work that Mr. Brown wanted done to his home. The Estimate was on the letterhead of Respondent’s corporation. Respondent testified that the Estimate was not a proposal for work to be performed, but rather was an itemized list of the work that he and others hired by Mr. Brown had already performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for. Respondent’s testimony regarding the purpose of the Estimate was not credible. First, if, as Respondent claims, the Estimate was intended to be an itemization of work that had already been performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for, there would have been no reason for Mr. Brown to pay additional money to Respondent after April 11, 2005, as he did (see Findings of Fact 12 and 13), and there would also have been no reason for Mr. Brown to execute a power of attorney after that date to give Respondent authority to “pull” building permits on Mr. Brown’s behalf (see Findings of Fact 15 and 16). Second, Respondent’s characterization of the Estimate is inconsistent with that of his fiancée, Kimberly Frye, who credibly testified that she prepared the document “based on some handwritten notes after Mr. Brown and [Respondent] first initiated [sic] at the home, and they made a list of items that Mr. Brown solicited from [Respondent] to do services.”1 The more persuasive evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the Estimate was a proposal by Respondent to perform the work listed on the Estimate at Mr. Brown’s home for compensation. The work listed on the Estimate included electrical work (e.g., installation of a 200 Amp service outlet box and two lights in the front yard); structural work (e.g., repairs to Mr. Brown’s roof and the removal and replacement of a pool deck); and other miscellaneous remodeling work inside and around Mr. Brown’s home. The price listed on the Estimate was $8,500. That amount did not include the cost of materials, which according to the Estimate, were to be paid for by Mr. Brown. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown paid Respondent $2,000 in cash “toward labor” and $500 in cash “toward materials.” Mr. Brown paid Respondent an additional $2,000 in cash on May 15, 2005, and another $2,000 by check on June 16, 2005. Respondent acknowledged receiving $6,000 from Mr. Brown related to the work listed on the Estimate.2 Respondent claimed that he was only serving as a conduit for the money and that he paid the money to other people that Mr. Brown had hired to perform work on his home at the same time Respondent was working there. Respondent did not present any evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is not found credible. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown executed a document titled “Specific Power of Attorney for Collier County and City of Naples.” The document purports to give Respondent “power of [Mr. Brown’s] signature for any and all necessary permits, inspections and permit pick up” related to the work on Mr. Brown’s home. According to Respondent, the document was prepared and given to him by Mr. Brown so that he could “pull” owner-builder permits from the Collier County and/or the City of Naples on Mr. Brown’s behalf. An owner-builder permit allows the work to be performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by the owner (through a power of attorney or otherwise) to an unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent. Mr. Brown testified that he asked Respondent whether he was a licensed general contractor and Respondent told him that he was. Respondent testified that he told Mr. Brown on several occasions that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by Ms. Frye. Mr. Brown’s testimony on this issue was not credible, and it is more likely than not based upon the totality of the circumstances -- cash payments, preparation of the power of attorney, Mr. Brown’s overall demeanor while testifying, etc. -- that Mr. Brown knew, or had reason to believe, that Respondent was not a licensed contractor. Respondent testified that the only work that he personally performed at Mr. Brown’s house was the installation of flooring, drywall, and closet doors. He claimed that the other work listed on the Estimate, including the electrical work, was performed by other persons hired by Mr. Brown. Respondent denied that he was responsible for supervising the other persons that he contends were working on Mr. Brown’s home, although he testified that Mr. Brown gave him money to pay those workers. Respondent did not identify any of the other workers who, according to him, performed work on Mr. Brown’s home and that he allegedly paid on Mr. Brown’s behalf. Mr. Brown was at work while Respondent was working on his home. He did not provide direct on-site supervision of Respondent. Mr. Brown did not observe other persons working with Respondent on his home, except for one occasion that Respondent had a “helper” with him. The identity of that person, and the work that he or she performed, is unknown. Mr. Brown did not personally see Respondent performing all of the work listed on the Estimate. He did, however, see Respondent working on the water heater, an electrical switch in the laundry room, and the ceiling fans. Respondent’s testimony regarding the limited scope of the work that he performed on Mr. Brown’s home was not credible or persuasive, and the totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent offered to perform and did perform contracting and electrical contracting work at Mr. Brown’s home. At some point after Respondent stopped working at Mr. Brown’s home, Mr. Brown was advised by an electrical contractor that some of the electrical work needed to be redone because it posed a fire risk. Mr. Brown had the work redone by an electrical contractor, which cost him $2,400. He was also required to pay $400 to Florida Power and Light for some reason. Thereafter, Mr. Brown filed complaints against Respondent with the Department and with Collier County. After investigating the complaints, Collier County issued two citations to Respondent and imposed fines totaling $900. The fines were not based upon the performance of unlicensed contracting or electrical contracting, but rather were based upon Respondent advertising his ability to provide those services through the Estimate. Respondent did not contest the fines imposed by Collier County. He paid the fines in full. The Department provided its investigative file related to this incident to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in Collier County, as it was required to do by Section 455.2277, Florida Statutes. The SAO makes the decision whether to file criminal charges against an individual for unlicensed contracting. The Department is not involved in that decision. The SAO brought criminal charges against Respondent for the unlicensed contracting that he performed at Mr. Brown’s home, but the case was “nol prossed” by the SAO. Respondent is in the process of applying for a general contractor’s license from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He testified that he took and passed the licensing exam on August 16, 2006. The Department incurred investigative costs of $296.99 related to Complaint No. 2005-042280, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1929. The Department incurred investigative costs of $307.45 related to Complaint No. 2005-042281, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1934.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000, with $500 payable upon entry of the final order and the other $500 payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides satisfactory evidence to the Department that he obtained a state contractor’s license within that period; finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 455.531, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; and requires Respondent to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $604.44. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 9th day of October, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
