The Issue The issues in this case are whether each of the two respondents practiced contracting and electrical contracting without a license in violation of Subsections 489.113(2), 489.127(1)(f), 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed pursuant to Subsections 455.228(1) and 489.13(3).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency defined in Subsection 489.105(2) that is responsible for regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Subsection 455.228(1). Neither of the respondents has ever been licensed as either a contractor or an electrical contractor. On April 14, 2005, Mr. Adams and Bay Breeze Maintenance, LLC (Bay Breeze), practiced contracting and electrical contracting within the meaning of Subsections 489.105(3) and (6) and 489.505(9) and (12). Mr. Adams, as agent for Bay Breeze, submitted to Mr. Christopher King, as agent for Dome Flea Market in Venice, Florida, a written proposal to remodel part of the Dome Flea Market for a cost not to exceed $60,000. The proposed remodeling involved an upgrade of a snack bar into a grill and bar to be known as the Sawmill Grill. In relevant part, the proposed remodeling required performance of plumbing, carpentry, and electrical contracting, including the installation of electrical wiring and electrical fixtures. Between April 14 and May 20, 2005, Mr. King paid approximately $39,350 to the respondents for the proposed remodeling job. On April 14, 2005, Mr. King paid $8,000 and $1,500 by respective check numbers 7725 and 7726. On April 19, 2005, Mr. King paid $8,000 and $1,700 by respective check numbers 7730 and 7731. On May 3 and 20, 2005, Mr. King paid $5,150 and $14,000 by respective check numbers 7742 and 7770. The respondents never actually performed any remodeling work. Mr. Adams testified that Mr. King forged the written proposal and that neither Mr. Adams nor Bay Breeze submitted a proposal for the remodeling project. That testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. The financial harm to the public was substantial. Mr. Adams and Bay Breeze have not paid any restitution. Petitioner incurred investigative costs, excluding attorney fees and costs, in the amount of $844.07. The investigative costs are reasonable within the meaning of Subsection 489.13(3).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Mr. Adams and Bay Breeze guilty of committing the violations alleged in each Amended Administrative Complaint and imposing an aggregate administrative fine against Mr. Adams and Bay Breeze, collectively, in the amount of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 12th day of March, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Claude Janson, is a registered electrical contractor. He holds license number ER005208 and is the qualifying agent for J.R. Electric, Inc., which is the firm under which he practices electrical contracting. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and related rules as they relate to electrical contractors. At all times material hereto Bob Sangelo was not licensed as an electrical contractor. The Respondent was aware that Sangelo was not so licensed. On or about April 27, 1984, the Respondent authorized Sangelo, who was then unlicensed, to obtain electrical contracting permits on behalf of the Respondent's firm, J.R. Electric, Inc., from the Cape Coral, Florida building department. On or about January 15, 1985, Sangelo, d/b/a Sangelo's Electric, submitted a written bid proposal to Mr. Bill Sutherland to perform electrical contracting at Sutherland's residence In Cape Coral, Florida. The two parties agreed to a contract price of $1750 for the work. Thereafter on February 28, 1985, Sangelo submitted a second written proposal containing revisions to the proposed contract, and work to be done, which provided for a contract price of $1875. All negotiations leading to the contract for the electrical work occurred between Sangelo and Sutherland. Sutherland had no contact with the Respondent, Claude Janson, and at the time did not even know him. The Respondent provided no assistance and had no part in the preparation of the estimate or bid involved in the performing of the electrical contracting work for Mr. Sutherland. The electrical work proposed to be performed by Sangelo required an electrical permit to be obtained by a licensed electrical contractor from the City of Cape Coral. On March 8, 1985, Sangelo obtained the electrical permit numbered 0329685 from the City of Cape Coral using the firm name J.R. Electric, and the contracting license number ER005208. The permit was for the electrical work to be performed by Sangelo for Mr. Sutherland at his residence, but the permit was issued because of Sangelo's representation that the contractor would be J.R. Electric, Inc., using the Respondent's license number. Sangelo Electric was never qualified by the Respondent as a business entity under which he practiced electrical contracting under his own license. Sangelo Electric was Bob Sangelo's independent business with no connection, other than friendship, with the Respondent or the Respondent's electrical contracting business. The Respondent and Sangelo had an informal friendly relationship in which Sangelo would help the Respondent with his electrical contracting jobs in exchange for the Respondent referring him electrical service work. Sangelo did not receive an hourly wage from the Respondent and the informal friendly relationship was never reduced to writing. Sangelo was not a regular employee of the Respondent, but rather functioned much like a subcontractor. The Respondent had previously authorized Sangelo to obtain electrical permits on the behalf of and in the name of the Respondent and J.R. Electric, Inc., the Respondent's firm. The Respondent was also aware that Sangelo did electrical contracting work on his own without being licensed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found GUILTY of the violations as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that he be fined the sum of $1,000. DONE and ORDERED this 18th August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esq. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claude Janson 925 Country Club Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pat Ard, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2003),1 by engaging in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed or had ever been licensed to engage in electrical contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc., did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as an electrical contractor qualified business. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the sole owner/operator of Sundance Home Remodeling, Inc. Respondent has an occupational carpentry license from Hillsborough County, Florida, and uses the general contractors’ licenses of others. In April 2003, Respondent contracted with Phyllis Price to do the following work at Ms. Price's residence in Riverview, Florida: enclose her back porch, add on a screened room, change the French doors in some of the bedrooms, and install electric ceiling fans, an electric outlet, and an exterior light. On or about April 17, 2003, Respondent contracted with Ms. Price to install and hook up four electric ceiling fans and install one exterior light for $130.00. On or about April 26, 2003, Respondent submitted a proposal to Ms. Price for the installation of one electric outlet at her residence for $25.00. Respondent completed the work that he contracted to do for Ms. Price, including the electrical work. Ms. Price paid Respondent at least $5,240.00 for the work that he performed. Of that amount, Ms. Price paid Respondent a total of $180.00 for the electrical work he performed at her residence. The electrical work contracted and performed by Respondent required a permit. No evidence was presented that, prior to this time, Respondent has been subject to disciplinary action for the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting. The total investigative costs to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $313.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that (1) finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in Count One of the Administrative Complaint; (2) finds Respondent guilty of the charges in Count Two and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; (3) imposes on Respondent an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for each violation, for a total administrative fine of $2,000; and (4) assesses Respondent costs of $313.00, for the investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent (“Ricky Lee Diemer”) offered to engage in unlicensed contracting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 489, part I, Florida Statutes. The Department initiated an undercover operation by gaining access to a house needing numerous repairs. The Department employees then utilized websites, such as Craigslist and HomeAdvisor, to identify people offering unlicensed contracting services. The Department employees found an advertisement posted by “RLD Handyman Services” on December 26, 2017, offering to perform multiple types of contracting work. This advertisement caught the Department’s attention because it did not list a contracting license number. Section 489.119(5)(b), requires every advertisement for contracting services to list such a number.2/ The advertisement listed a phone number, and the Department utilized the Accurint phone system to ascertain that the aforementioned phone number belonged to Mr. Diemer. The Department examined its records and ascertained that Mr. Diemer was not licensed to perform construction or electrical contracting in Florida. The Department contacted Mr. Diemer and approximately 12 other people offering contracting services and scheduled appointments for those people to discuss contracting work with an undercover Department employee at the house mentioned above. An undercover Department employee told Mr. Diemer and the other prospective contractors that he had recently bought the house and was hoping to sell it for a profit after making some quick repairs. An undercover Department employee met Mr. Diemer at the house and described their resulting conversation as follows: A: We looked at remodeling a deck on the back, the southern portion of the home. We looked at cabinets, flooring and painting that are nonregulated in nature, but also plumbing and general contracting services such as exterior doors that needed to be replaced, and the electrical, some appliances and light fixtures. Q: All right. So was there any follow-up communication from Mr. Diemer after your discussion at the house? A: Yes. We walked around the house. He looked at the renovations that we were asking. He took some mental notes as I recall. He didn’t make any written notes as some of the others had done. He did it all in his head, said that he was working on another project in the Southwood area at the time and just left his work crew there to come and visit with me and was rushed for time. So he was in and out of there in 10 to 15 minutes. It was pretty quick. Q: Okay. A: But he took the mental notes and said that he would go back and write something up and send me a proposal through our Gmail. . . . On February 7, 2018, Mr. Diemer transmitted an e-mail to the Department’s fictitious Gmail account offering to perform multiple types of work that require a contracting license: kitchen sink installation, bathroom remodeling, construction of an elevated deck and walkway, installation of light fixtures, and installation of front and back doors.3/ Mr. Diemer proposed to perform the aforementioned tasks for $13,200.00.4/ The work described in Mr. Diemer’s e-mail poses a danger to the public if done incorrectly or by unlicensed personnel.5/ The Department incurred costs of $118.55 for DOAH Case No. 18-6578 and $91.45 for DOAH Case No. 18-6579. The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer advertised or offered to practice construction contracting without holding the requisite license. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Diemer practiced construction and electrical contracting when he transmitted the February 7, 2018, e-mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order requiring Ricky Lee Diemer to pay a $9,000.00 administrative fine and costs of $210.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of its attorneys' fees and costs under section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, from its successful prosecution of a rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 12-1944RX.
Findings Of Fact In DOAH Case No. 12-1944RX, Petitioner challenged Florida Administrative Code Rules 69O-170.017 and 69O-170.0155 and incorporated forms OIR-B1-1699 (Form 1699) and OIR-B1-1655 (Form 1655). These rules generally relate to fixtures and construction techniques that mitigate wind loss and earn homeowners a discount on the wind portion of their homeowners' insurance premium. The most important of these rules, Form 1699 consists of two matrices: one matrix provides discounts for mitigative fixtures and construction techniques applied to existing residential construction (i.e., predating the 2001 Florida Building Code), and the other matrix provides discounts for mitigative fixtures and construction techniques applied to new residential construction (i.e., subject to the 2001 Florida Building Code or any of its successors). The Final Order invalidates the matrix applicable to existing residential construction, but not the matrix applicable to new residential construction. The Final Order concludes that the omission from Form 1699 of discounts for increased wind resistivity for doors modifies and contravenes the law implemented and is arbitrary. The Final Order finds other omissions from Form 1699--i.e., discounts for increased wind resistivities for windows and increased impact resistivities for doors--but these findings served the purpose of partly justifying the invalidation of the entire form for the omission of a single set of discounts substantially affecting Petitioner--i.e., the discounts for increased wind resistivities for doors. (Findings as to the interdependency of all of the discounts provided the remaining justification for invalidating the entire form for the omission of a single set of discounts.) Form 1655 advises homeowners of the availability of discounts applicable to the wind portion of their homeowners' insurance premiums for various mitigative fixtures and construction techniques. The Final Order invalidates Form 1655 in its entirety. The main reason is that Form 1655 fails to notify homeowners about the availability of discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increase the wind resistivity of windows and doors. An additional reason is that Form 1655 mentions shutters as the sole fixture to increase the impact resistivity of windows and doors, misleadingly implying that shutters are the sole fixture or construction technique for increasing the impact resistivity of windows and doors. Rule 69O-170.017 incorporates by reference Form 1699. The Final Order denied Petitioner's request to invalidate rule 69O-170.017 because the rule incorporates the still-valid, existing-construction matrix in Form 1699. Rule 69O-170.0155 incorporates by reference several forms. The Final Order invalidates only rule 69O-170.0155(k), which is the subsection that incorporates Form 1655. Petitioner commenced its rule challenge to obtain a wind-premium discount for homeowners who purchased and installed its bracing system on their existing, nonglazed garage doors in order to increase their wind resistivity. The thrust of Petitioner's challenge was thus to the omission from Form 1699 of any discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increase the wind resistivity of doors. Obviously, the shortcomings of Form 1655--and its adopting rule, rule 69O-170.0155(k)--were almost entirely derived from this omission from Form 1699. Respondents' liability for attorneys' fees and costs thus requires consideration only of its adoption of Form 1699 without any discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increase the wind resistivity of doors. As noted in the Final Order, the establishment of discounts for all mitigative fixtures and construction techniques is a complicated process. The actuarial expertise necessary to complete this task resides in Respondent Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), but is itself dependent on engineering expertise that is not found within either respondent, or at least was not in 2006 when Form 1699 was adopted. The engineering work underlying Form 1699 featured computer modeling, among other things, to project the salient features of storms that may be expected to strike various parts of Florida over thousands of years; as for impact resistivity, to project the trajectories and momentum of missiles that will be launched by these storms; to place in the path of these storms and missiles various forms of residential construction with relevant combinations of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques covering several factors, including the protection of windows and doors from impacts and the protection of windows and doors from wind (without regard to impacts); to project the damage states that will result from these modeled storms upon individual hypothesized residential buildings; and to project the economic losses--with particular emphasis on insured losses--that will result from these damages. The relevant timeframe for this case begins with Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As the Final Order describes, the Florida legislature and other federal and state agencies and organizations reacted swiftly and comprehensively to this storm and the catastrophic damage and loss that it caused. FEMA quickly published its analysis of, among other things, the relationship between construction and storm damage. In 2001, the legislature adopted the Florida Building Code (FBC), which required, among other things, new construction to meet wind loads specified in the code, based on projected wind speeds in different regions of Florida. Almost at the same time that the 2001 FBC went into effect, in March 2002, Applied Research Associates, Inc., published the Development of Loss Relativities for Wind Resistive Features of Residential Structures (2002 ARA Report). Procured by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, which, at the time, had considerable responsibilities in the adoption of the 2001 FBC, the 2002 ARA Report was a groundbreaking achievement in modeling the effects, in terms of reduced damage and loss, from various forms of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques, alone and in almost countless combinations. For present purposes, the focal point of the 2002 ARA Report were tables of loss relativities, which provided factors by which to calculate how different combinations of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques reduced wind losses. Taking these data, OIR's actuaries issued in January 2003 an informational memorandum and a precursor to Form 1699, which suggested premium discounts to be used by homeowners' insurers when filing insurance rates. (Then and now, insurers are permitted to use other data sources in setting their rates, but all but two of them use the suggested discounts in Form 1699.) In August 2004, Hurricane Charley struck Florida. A design wind event, like Hurricane Andrew, the timing of Charley, after the adoption of the 2001 FBC, proved the effectiveness of the 2001 FBC in requiring fixtures and construction techniques that demonstrably mitigated wind damage and loss. In 2006, respondents issued Form 1699 in its present form, eliminating a dampening factor that they had included in the precursor form three years earlier. (To allow insurers to adapt to the new rate-setting environment, respondents had halved the discounts in the precursor form.) The 2002 ARA Report claims to adhere to the statutory mandate contained in section 627.0629(1), to determine discounts for fixtures or construction techniques that "enhance roof strength, roof covering performance, roof-to-wall strength, wall-to-floor-to-foundation strength, opening protection, and window, door, and skylight strength." For reasons explained in the Final Order, "opening protection" is limited to the impact resistivity of windows and doors, and the "strength" of windows and doors (skylights being treated as windows) is limited to their wind resistivity. Unfortunately, the 2002 ARA Report collapsed opening protection and the strength of windows and doors into one category--opening protection--so ARA never developed loss relativities for fixtures and construction techniques that increased the wind resistivities of doors or, for that matter, windows. As noted above, respondents were entirely dependent on the work of ARA due to its specialized knowledge of the FBC and, more generally, its expertise in engineering and computer modeling. ARA, not respondents, possessed this highly specialized knowledge, which was necessary to generate the loss relativities, on which respondents, in turn, could rely to generate the legislatively mandated premium discounts. The omission of loss relativities for the strength of windows and doors--as a standalone category or within the category of opening protection--is not apparent in the richly detailed 2002 ARA Report. The above-described facts--coupled with the time- pressured nature of the task assigned to respondents--provide the reasonable basis in fact for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated. The factual justification for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated is greater than any legal justification that respondents may claim. The statute truly is a model of clarity--and succinctness. Reduced to its plainest terms, the statute calls for discounts for six categories of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques, and ARA and respondents addressed only five. However, some legal justification exists for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated. First, the legal mandate of section 627.0629(1) does not exist in a vacuum; it operates in the complex facts of engineers, computer programmers, and actuaries whose work is necessary to lend meaning to the statutory mandate. To this extent, respondents find some legal justification for the same reason that they find ample factual justification for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated. Second, the legislature itself missed a clear, early opportunity to remind respondents of their failure--obvious, perhaps, only in hindsight--to address the omitted sixth factor enumerated in section 627.0629(1). The precursor of Form 1699 likewise omitted discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increased the wind resistivities of doors and windows. When, in 2006, the legislature mandated the adoption of full discounts, without any dampening, it easily could have forcibly reminded respondents that they--and their contractor-- had missed one of the six statutory discounts. The subtlety of respondents' legal error seems to have eluded the legislature, as well. Third, even in hindsight, the legal underpinning of the invalidation of the existing-construction matrix of Form 1699 is sometimes elusive, given the temptation to join ARA and respondents in analyzing wind resistivities under the factor of opening protection. As disclosed at the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge spent a considerable amount of time, in preparing the Final Order, misanalyzing respondents' treatment of the wind resistivities of doors from the perspective of opening protection. Repeated, close readings of section 627.0629(1), in the context of the complex materials presented in the 2002 ARA Report, eventually revealed the now-clear legal principle that the omitted sixth statutory factor--the strength of windows and doors--applied to wind resistivity (and opening protection was restricted to impact resistivity). And Petitioner itself joined in exactly the same misanalysis, both in its pleading and proof at the hearing in the rule challenge. Seeming to yield once more to this misanalysis, even in the fee hearing, Petitioner cross-examined OIR's lone witness with an emphasis on respondents' flawed decision, as described in the Final Order, to omit a discount for doors under opening protection.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Lamar "Marty" Campbell was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Mr. Campbell readily acknowledges that he has not had training or education in construction or contracting and has never held any licenses related to any type of construction or contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Johnston Handyman Services did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Lamar Campbell, resides in Gulf Breeze, Florida. After Hurricane Ivan, he and his roommate took in Jeff Johnston, who then resided in Mr. Campbell's home at all times material to this case. Mr. Johnston performed some handywork in Respondent's home. Mr. Johnston did not have a car, a bank account, or an ID. Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston wherever he needed to go. At some point in time, Mr. Campbell drove Mr. Johnston to obtain a handyman's license in Santa Rosa County. Mr. Campbell did not apply for the license with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Campbell's name does not appear on this license. The license is in the name of Johnston's Handyman Services. Mr. Campbell is a neighbor of Kenneth and Tracy Cauley. In the summer of 2005, which was during the period of time when Mr. Johnston resided in Mr. Campbell's home, the Cauleys desired to have repairs done on their home to their hall bathroom, master bathroom, kitchen and laundry room. With the help of Mr. Campbell and others, Mr. Johnston prepared various lists of repairs that the Cauleys wanted performed on their home. In August 2005, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Campbell went to the Cauley's home and the proposed repairs were discussed with the Cauleys. There are documents in evidence dated August and October, 2005, which the Cauleys perceive to be contracts for the repairs to be done in their home. However, these documents are not contracts but are estimates, itemizing both materials and labor. The documents have the word "Estimate" in large bold type at the top and "Johnston Handyman Services" also at the top of the pages. The list of itemized materials includes electrical items, e.g., light fixtures and wiring. Also in evidence are documents dated August and October, 2005, with the word "Invoice" in large bold letters and "Johnston Handyman Services" at the top of the pages. Both Mr. and Mrs. Cauley acknowledge that Mr. Johnston performed the vast majority of the work on their home. However, at Mr. Johnston's request, Mr. Campbell did assist Mr. Johnston in working on the Cauley residence. Between August 5, 2005, and October 11, 2005, Mrs. Cauley wrote several checks totaling $24,861.53. Each check was written out to Marty Campbell or Lamar Campbell.1/ Mr. Campbell acknowledges endorsing these checks but asserts that he cashed them on behalf of Mr. Johnston, who did not have a bank account or identification, and turned the cash proceeds over to Mr. Johnston. Further, Mr. Campbell insists that he did not keep any of these proceeds. The undersigned finds Mr. Campbell's testimony in this regard to be credible. Work on the project ceased before it was finished and Mr. Johnston left the area. Apparently, he cannot be located. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $419.55 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-2764, and $151.25 regarding the allegations relating to case No. 06-3171, for a total of $570.80.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $500 for a violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and requiring Respondent, Lamar Campbell, to pay $570.80 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 March, 2006.
