Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, Petitioner was licensed as a general contractor in Florida, holding license number CG CO20660, under which license he had qualified Custom Retail Contractors, Inc., and the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. On February 12, 1986, the Board entered a Final Order in its case number 0058164 in which it suspended Respondent's license to practice contracting for five years. This action was based on a finding that Respondent had violated several sections of the Standard Building Code in a contract to build several commercial buildings in Largo, Florida, and also had exhibited gross negligence or incompetency in several aspects of the job. Respondent was first made aware of the action of the Board in late March or early April, 1986 when his attorney, Mr. Gordon, told him he had received a copy of the Final Order. At that point, Respondent did not know there had been a hearing on his case, though he knew an action had been filed. Correspondence extracted from the files of DPR relating to Respondent, indicates that between March 11, 1986 and June 25, 1986, several phone calls and letters were exchanged between DPR legal personnel and Respondent's counsel regarding whether Respondent had been given notice that the initial Administrative Complaint against him had been filed. The complaint had been served by an investigator with DPR on Mr. Gordon who declined to accept service since he was counsel for Respondent's corporation and not Respondent, individually. The evidence further indicates that subsequent pleadings in that case were misdirected and misaddressed due to faulty addresses used by the Department which included erroneous street addresses and erroneous ZIP codes. The upshot of all this was that Respondent failed to submit an Election of Rights regarding the initial Administrative Complaint, and, after numerous attempts at communication by DPR, which included the posting of a notice of the Board hearing in the Clearwater, Florida newspaper, the Board ultimately held Respondent in default and entered the Final Order suspending his license as described above. In the Spring of 1986, however, while the communication and correspondence between DPR and Mr. Gordon was going on, Respondent was led to believe, he contends, that the Final Order was not dispositive of his status, that the status of his license was still undecided, and that he could continue to practice his profession. His reliance on advice of counsel was misplaced and works to his detriment here as it does not excuse his improprieties. Consistent with that understanding, on May 1, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Clarence P. Foster, owner of Clarence's, a lounge, restaurant and package store located in Clearwater, Florida, to remodel a patio outside the facility. Work was to include pouring a concrete slab in the drive- thru, constructing a block wall around the patio, installing lattice panels on top of the block wall, and placing planter boxes on two of the walls. The total contract price was $4,730.00 and on May 15, 1986, the manager of Clarence's issued a check in the amount of $1,730.00 payable to Tom Morgan, Respondent's associate. At the time of Respondent's negotiations with Mr. Foster, Mr. Foster indicated he was utilizing a contractor for the complete remodeling of his facility who did not want to do the patio work, and Respondent agreed to do it. After their contract was signed, Respondent dealt with Mr. Foster's manager who showed him the plans for the entire remodeling which, according to Respondent, included the patio. They were stamped by the contractor and had a permit number on them. Respondent contends he asked if that indicated permit included the entire project and claims he was told it did. Respondent also claims he advised Foster's manager that there was some problem with his contractor's license but was assured that the master permit already issued would cover any work done by him under the terms of the individual contract. After receiving the down payment from the manager, Respondent purchased the required materials, paying cash therefore, and started work. Respondent relates that at the very beginning, a violation was written by building inspectors for the failure of the electrical contractor to procure a permit for his portion of the work. When this was done, the contractor immediately got the required permit after the fact and continued with his work. This concerned the Respondent, however, and he requested the manager to bring the existing permit for the remodeling around to the area where Respondent was working where he posted it and covered it with cellophane. When the inspector subsequently came by to check Respondent's work, he asked where the permit for that portion of the construction was and Respondent pointed to the master permit. The inspector then indicated that that permit was only for exterior siding and when Respondent protested that decision, called his office and verified that fact. Upon being advised of this development, Respondent then took the plans he had been furnished and a copy of the permit to the building office and asked the clerk on duty what he had to do. According to Respondent, he was advised that he needed to get more plans prepared with a certificate that the work already done had been done to code. Respondent relates that in response to these instructions, he procured an architect to come and look at the job as it then stood. The architect reportedly thereafter drew up plans and certified the quality of the work already accomplished by Respondent and Respondent allegedly took this information to the building department where, on June 25, 1986, he applied for a building permit to do the work. At that time, according to Respondent, he advised the clerk he had a problem with his license and that all he wanted was a supplemental permit to finish the job. Approximately two weeks later, when passing the County building, Respondent stopped in at the building department office to check on the status of his permit. It was at this point that he first discussed the matter with Mr. Palmer, the plans examiner, who told him that his license had been suspended and that he could not receive a permit to do the work requested. Respondent returned to Mr. Foster and explained the situation to him. Mr. Foster turned the matter over to his manager who arranged for someone else to get the permit and complete the job. Respondent contends he was not trying to trick anyone or to contract without a license. He claims that at the time he entered into the agreement with Mr. Foster, he was unsure of the status of his license and he thought he had made that clear to everyone, including Mr. Foster and the people at the building office. Respondent contends that in his dealings with Foster he was attempting to deal as a subcontractor and not as a general contractor. The fact is, however, that the contract he entered into was a separate contract with Mr. Foster and failed to indicate any reference to subcontractor status. The agreement called for Respondent to be paid directly by Foster and not by the general contractor and his claim is, therefore, not believed. Respondent's protestations in this regard are without merit. Further, his story regarding the permit status is equally as unbelievable. As a qualified contractor, Respondent knew, or should have checked on, the limits of the permit issued and whether it would cover the work he was to do. Reliance on the representations of the non-contractor manager of Mr. Foster's facility as to the status of the permit was unreasonable and constituted gross negligence. Consequently, he was thereafter operating in violation of the local law which required a permit for this work. As a result of the ongoing negotiations between Respondent's counsel and counsel for the Board, on July 10, 1986, after the contract between Mr. Foster and Respondent had been entered into, Respondent and the Board entered into a Settlement Stipulation which called for amendment of the Final Order entered in the prior case and which provided for the payment of a fine of $1,000.00 within 30 days with the further stipulation that when the fine was paid, the previously imposed five year suspension would be set aside. In the event the fine was not paid, however, then the Respondent's license was to be relinquished to the Board. The Amended Final Order was sent by certified mail to the Respondent but was unclaimed because the address used by the Department was, again, incorrect. It must also be noted, however, that at the time the Board agreed to the settlement stipulation, it had available to it the report of investigation relating to the current Administrative Complaint. The Board either failed to consider it or chose to ignore it when it agreed upon a settlement to the former Administrative Complaint. It is also noted that the Board was aware of the difficulties involving service of process as early as August, 1986. At that time, Respondent received a certified letter from the Board Attorney indicating that final action on his license would be taken by the Board at its September, 1986 meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Respondent attended that meeting where, after discussion, counsel for the Board convinced the Board to reopen the case due to the questions involving proper service of its former actions. A year later, in July, 1987, Respondent was advised that the reopened case would again be considered at the Board's meeting in Tampa, and at the 1987 meeting of the Board, it entered its Amended Final Order. Though regrettable, these factors are not controlling and do not affect this current action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a general contractor in Florida be suspended for two years. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 11th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1999 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 10 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that Palmer refused to issue the permit because Respondent's license had been suspended. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected that Respondent willfully violated local building code. Evidence shows more of gross negligence than willfulness. Accepted. For the Respondent: No submittal. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0758 Fred H. Moore 12687 - 97th Street, North Largo, Florida 34643 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether Petitioner, William P. Pearson, Jr., is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111 Florida Statutes and Rule 221-6,35. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of William P. Pearson, Jr. and had admitted five exhibits. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Richard Hartog, Investigator, and Douglas A. Shropshire, the Department of Professional Regulation's senior attorney for the prosecution of all Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board cases, and had admitted five exhibits. At close of formal hearing, Petitioner elected to make oral closing argument and to file no post-hearing proposals. Respondent elected to file a transcript of proceedings and written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 10 days of filing transcript. Respondent's proposals are ruled on within the appendix to this recommended order pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs associated with his defense against charges contained in an administrative complaint filed and prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation which was styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industrv Licensing Board v. William P. Pearson, Jr., DOAH Case No. 85-0672. The administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 85-0672 contained two counts. Count I alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(c) through violation of Section 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes (1983), which statutory section addresses making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in the practice of the profession of construction. Count II alleged a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes (1983) by not complying with the specific escrow requirements imposed by the consumer protection Statute, Section 501.1375(2) Florida Statutes and violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), which latter statutory section addresses gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The state agency was therefore not a nominal party only but was an accusing and principal party. Petitioner seeks an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $3,568.75 together with costs of $11.10. Respondent, in its Amended Response to Petitioner's Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs, did not challenge the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs set forth in Petitioner's affidavit attached and incorporated in his Amended Motion and specifically stipulated to reasonableness and necessity at formal hearing. Accordingly, the foregoing amounts are found to be necessary and reasonable. Pearson Construction Co., Inc.'s domicile during the whole of DOAH Case No. 85-0672's initial prosecution was Charlotte County, Florida. It had no employees other than William P. Pearson, Jr. and his wife, who worked without compensation. William P. Pearson, Jr. was the president and qualifying agent of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. which was a Florida corporation at all times material to the initial prosecution. The combined net worth of William P. Pearson, Jr. and of Pearson Construction Co., Inc. never exceeded two million dollars and presently petitioner Pearson's personal net worth does not exceed two million dollars. In early 1986, prior to initiating this instant fee and costs recovery case, Mr. Pearson failed to update payment of his corporate fees and Pearson Construction Co., Inc. was automatically dissolved by the secretary of State. Respondent Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) notified John Vlasek of its intent to investigate his complaint against Petitioner in late July 1984. DPR's investigation was conducted by Investigator Richard Hartog. Mr. Hartog has been employed by the Respondent since November 1982 and has been its investigator since March 1983. He has a degree in criminal justice and 23 years prior experience as a detective with the Police Department of Nassau County, New York. Investigator Hartog was first made aware of vlasek's complaint against Pearson Construction Co., Inc. by way of a memorandum dated July 16, 1984 received directly from the State Attorney's Office for the 20th Judicial Circuit. Attached to the State Attorney's memorandum was a 6 page consumer complaint form signed by John A. Vlasek. Hartog determined that William P. Pearson, Jr. was the qualifying agent for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. and then telephoned DPR's complaint section in Tallahassee, giving the complaint section the basis of the information received from the State Attorney's Office and statutory citations for alleged violations of sections 489.129(1)(m), 455.227(1)(a) and 501.1375 Florida statutes. His purpose was to obtain a complaint number to continue the investigation. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Petitioner William P. Pearson, Jr. regarding the allegations underlying Vlasek's complaint. Upon completion of the investigation the Department's investigator prepared an investigative report. The investigative report includes a narrative summary of the investigator's interview with Pearson. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the investigator's interview of Pearson: Mr. Pearson states he built a good number of homes a year. Last year he built thirty-nine (39) homes. Mr. Pearson was readvised of the allegations made by Mr. Vlasek, a prospective buyer of one of Pearson's spec homes. Mr. Pearson maintains the reason the house was not completed on June 12, 1984, the date originally stipulated in the contract, was the fact Mr. Vlasek was not in a hurry to have the house completed. Mr. Pearson stated he is not aware of the requirements of P.S. 501.1375, therefore, he did not handle the deposit according to the requirement set forth. The money was used to complete the spec house for Vlasek. Mr. Pearson states he received a letter from the First Federal Savings and, Loan of Charlotte County indicating Mr. Vlasek obtained an extension of his loan commitment with the bank. Mr. Malone, who was present, verifies that such a letter was received by Mr. Pearson. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Barbara Lowe, a loan officer for the First Federal Savings and Loan of Charlotte County. The investigator interviewed Ms. Lowe to determine "whether the bank had, in fact, sent a letter to Mr. Pearson indicating that an extension to Mr. Vlasek's 45-day loan had been extended." The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following findings with regard to the interview of Ms. Lowe: Barbara Lowe, who states she handled the transaction, states no such letter was mailed to Pearson Construction. It would not be appropriate to grant an extension in this type of action. Mr. Vlasek would be required to enter into a separate agreement for an additional forty-five (45) days thereby nullifying the original commitent. This was not done by Mr. Vlasek, therefore, the original commitment expired 5/31/84. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Tom Hannon, a loan officer with the First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Charlotte County. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation contains the following finding: Mr. Hannon contacted this office to relate that the loan commitment obtained by Vlasek was for a period of forty-five (45) days between 4/19/84 and 5/31/84. There is no record a thirty (30) day extension was asked for or granted according to the records. Investigator Hartog personally interviewed Jack R. Malone who was a salesman for Pearson Construction Co., Inc. The investigative report prepared at the conclusion of Hartog's investigation relates that Malone stated the deposit money was not required to be deposited in an escrow account but when referred to section 501.1375 Malone stated money might have been given to an attorney, presumably for escrow, and further Malone related that: Mr. Vlasek became very impatient because he said very little was being done to complete his house. He was concerned because the terms of his loan agreement was a commitment which expired June 1, 1984. The completed investigative report as forwarded by the investigator to the Department's legal section consisted, in part, of the following: a three page narrative summary of the investigator' s findings; a copy of the memorandum and accompanying executed consumer complaint form; a First Federal savings and Loan Association loan transfer commitment to John and Madelyn Vlasek; a copy of section 501.1375, Florida statutes; a copy of the April 1984 contract between Pearson Construction Company and John and Madelyn Vlasek reflecting a completion date altered from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Douglas A. Shropshire was the DPR attorney responsible for reviewing the investigative report with regard to making a recommendation to the probable Cause Panel of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The complaint against Petitioner was a "case of first impression" in that DPR had not previously investigated a complaint alleging a violation of the escrow requirement of Chapter 501, Florida Statutes. As a result of the complaint against Petitioner, Mr. Shropshire requested that a law clerk prepare a memorandum of law with regard to the relationship between Section 501.1375, Florida Statutes and the regulation of licensed contractors under Chapter 489 Florida Statutes. On or about September 21, 1984 the law clerk provided Mr. Shropshire with a two page memorandum of law exploring the relationship between Chapter 501, Florida Statutes and the regulation of the construction industry. The memorandum reached the general conclusion that licensed contractors were subject to the provisions of Chapter 501 Florida Statutes. In preparing his recommendation to the Probable Cause Panel, Shropshire reviewed both Hartog's investigative report with all attachments and the law clerk's memorandum of law. On January 10, 1985 DPR, through Mr. Shropshire, made a probable cause recommendation to the Construction Industry Licensing Board Probable Cause Panel. Prior to January 10, 1985 DPR had provided each panel member with a copy of the DPR's probable cause package. The probable-cause package as reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel consisted of the following: a cover sheet setting forth the Subject's name, case number and statutory violations; a proposed administrative complaint; a copy of the narrative portion of the Department's investigative report. The Probable Cause Panel did not review a copy of the Vlasek-Pearson contract which provided it was not contingent on financing, which provided for forfeit to Pearson of Vlasek's deposit upon Vlasek's default, and which provided for escrow of Vlasek's deposit pending closing of the transaction. However, this item was reviewed by the DPR attorney before making the probable cause recommendation and the copy of this item reviewed showed that the completion date had been altered, allegedly by Malone. Petitioner stipulated to the correctness of the procedure employed in impaneling the Probable Cause panel. Each panel member had the opportunity to review the probable cause package before the Probable Cause Panel was convened. Each panel member had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the probable cause materials prior to the meeting. The Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel was Mr. Roy Adams. Mr. Adams is a certified general contractor. The other probable cause member was Mr. Joseph Richards. Mr. Richards is a pharmacist and is a public member of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Neither Mr. Richards nor Mr. Adams is an attorney. The Construction Industry Licensing Board is not involved in the investigation or prosecution of a complaint. In making the determination of probable cause the panel members discussed the allegations contained in the complaint with both DPR's prosecuting attorney and their independent advisor from the Department of Legal Affairs. On January 10, 1985 the Probable Cause Panel found probable cause to believe Petitioner violated Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The panel's finding of probable cause included, but was not limited to, the violations alleged by DPR in its recommendation. The Probable Cause Panel directed DPR to file a formal complaint. On January 16, 1985 DPR's Secretary signed a formal administrative complaint charging Petitioner with violating the provisions of Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes reviewed by the panel plus Section 489.129(1)(d) Florida Statutes. Petitioner denied all the allegations in the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On August 20, 1985 a formal hearing was conducted before the undersigned hearing officer. Petitioner interposed the defense that Section 501.1375 Florida Statutes did not apply to him because he had constructed less than 10 houses in the year 1984 despite constructing more than 20 homes per year in most years. Section 501.1375 provides in pertinent part as follows: "Building Contractor" means any person who, for compensation, constructs and sells one-family or two-family residential dwelling units, except for a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. "Developer" means either a building contractor who offers new residential dwelling units for sale or any person who offers a new one-family or two-family dwelling unit for sale except a person who sells or constructs less than 10 units per year state wide. The Recommended Order entered December 20, 1985 found as fact that: On April 12, 1984 John and Madelyn Vlasek contracted with Pearson Construction Company for the purchase of a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. . . .The contract specified a $2,000 escrow deposit on the purchase price of $68,500. On April 12, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearson Construction Company with $200 in cash toward the escrow deposit. On April 13, 1984, the Vlaseks provided Pearso Construction Company with a check in the amount of $1,800 toward the escrow deposit. The contract specified the deposit was to be held in escrow pending closing of the transaction. . . .The contract referred to above was not contingent on the buyer obtaining financing. However, the deposit was not placed in escrow as specified in the contract and as required under the terms of the contract. Instead, it was used by the Respondent in purchasing lighting fixtures, carpeting, tiling and other accoutrements in colors and styles selected by John R. Vlasek. On April 23, 1984, the Vlaseks executed the loan transfer commitment. . . .After executing the loan transfer commitment, Vlasek realized that the commitment would expire prior to the June 12, 1984 closing date. Vlasek then notified Pearson Construction Company of the discrepancy between the expiration date of the loan commitment and the actual closing date. Upon being informed of the discrepancy, Jack R. Malone agreed to modify the closing date. Malone expressly modified the contract by changing the closing date from June 12 to June 1, 1984. Vlasek subsequently informed the Respondent of the change of the closing date. When informed of the change, Respondent indicated the home would be substantially completed by June 1, 1984. . . .Vlasek was repeatedly assured by Malone and other members of the construction team (not Pearson) that the home would be completed by June 2, 1984. . . .the Vlasek contract was rescinded . . .Pearson Construction Company, Inc. and William P. Pearson constructed a total of 8, possibly 9 houses during the calendar year of 1984. In most previous years he has constructed in excess of 20 houses per year. The findings and conclusions of law of the recommended order are replete with analyses of credibility of witnesses. The conclusions of law discuss such diverse legal concepts as the differences in actual versus apparent authority and ratification of an agent's/employee's misrepresentations by his employer, reasonable reliance thereon, and whether section 501.1375 should be applied annually (10 houses constructed per year) or upon a pattern of annual house construction (8-9 houses in 1984 versus more than 20 houses each previous year). The recommended order determined that DPR had failed to establish Count I (misleading, deceptive or fraudulent representations) by clear and convincing evidence and found only a "minimal" violation of Section 429.129(1)(m) had been established within Count II due to the petitioner's failure to escrow. By Final Order dated March 17, 1986, the Board adopted the findings of fact in toto. The final order rejected the conclusions of law and dismissed the administrative complaint. No evidence was introduced to indicate or otherwise explain why the Board rejected the hearing officer's conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carl F. Doyle, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, is licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB C015518 in the State of Florida. At all times material to this action the Respondent was licensed, and his address of record is Palm Harbor, Florida. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was and is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent has never been the qualifying agent for Plantara Building Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Plantara. Janet Lee Valente was the qualifying agent for Plantara from December 1986 until October 1987. Respondent is and was the registered agent and director for Plantara at all times material to this action. Respondent negotiated the construction contract between Plantara and Jackie Evans and her daughter, Michelle Renee Evans. Respondent's license number was used to obtain the building permit for the Evans' home. The Evans and Plantara entered a contract to construct a new home in Pinellas County on March 29, 1986. In August 1986, construction of the Evans home began. Mrs. Jackie Evans noted a discrepancy in the plumbing which was corrected prior to pouring the slab. The plumbing discrepancy related to changes in the kitchen and bathroom requested by Mrs. Evans. Mrs. Evans had presented her request for changes to Respondent in March 1986. As construction proceeded, Mrs. Evans noted that her kitchen had a wall where an "island" should be. This was not corrected. A tub was put in the master bathroom and had to be removed because Mrs. Evans had requested a shower. In May of 1987, Mrs. Evans "closed" on the house but submitted to Respondent a list of several items to be repaired or completed. Plantara had access to Mrs. Evans home to complete the job but would often not keep appointments as scheduled. Prior to closing on her home in May 1987, Mrs. Evans had advised Plantara of items she desired to be corrected. After the May 1987 closing on the home, Mrs. Evans wrote Plantara again regarding items to be corrected or finished on her home. The gas dryer vent terminated in the attic, and not through the roof; a leak in the fireplace and the reversal of hot and cold water in the guest bathroom were three of the items to be corrected. Plantara corrected the problem with the water in the guest bath, a code violation, immediately. However, they failed to correct the gas dryer venting violation. As of the date of the hearing, there were numerous items still not corrected or repaired by Plantara. However, Mrs. Evans and Plantara reached a monetary settlement in April 1989 in which Plantara waived its claim of $5,000 under the contract in exchange for the Evans' release from liability. A letter of commitment for FHA financing was not received until December 23, 1986. The home received a certificate of occupancy on February 24, 1987. (T. pg. 20). There were numerous items to be corrected as of the closing date in May 1987 and as of the hearing date there remained items from the "list" which had not been corrected and/or repaired. Larry Wilson, Pinellas County Department of Consumer Affairs, observed leaks in the fireplace, uneven tile in the bathroom shower, closet doors not fitting properly, sloppy painting, bedroom windows not closing properly, siding loose, and patio concrete cracked when he inspected the home in November, 1987. Mr. Wilson stated that Mrs. Evans complaints were legitimate. Mr. Jerry Hicks, an expert in construction practices in Florida, testified that a "punchlist" such as Mrs. Evans list is usually completed within 30 days or sooner after the "closing" The contractor is responsible to complete the punchlist as the contractor is "charged with supervising the work.' Mr. Hicks opined that Respondent should have immediately responded to the problem with the dryer vent. In fact, when Mrs. Evans contacted the subcontractor, the problem was immediately corrected by the subcontractor. This indicates that Respondent had exercised little supervision over the subcontractors. (T. pg. 104, 116). Respondent had from February 1987 (the date of the certificate of occupancy) until May 1987 (the date of the "closing") to correct the punchlist. Respondent was unresponsive to the customer, and was not reasonably timely in completion of the punchlist. Respondent did not supervise the job as industry standards require. Respondent has been previously disciplined twice by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent offered in mitigation that the job was undertaken as a "favor" to the Evans and therefore they should have expected low priority treatment. However, as a mitigation gesture, the Respondent waived his right to receipt of the remaining $5,000 payment from the property owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and 489.119, Florida Statutes by failing to qualify a firm and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Rule 21E-17.001(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by gross negligence and misconduct in the practice of contracting which caused monetary or other harm to licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $1,500, and that his contractor's license be suspended for three (3) months. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1166 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,4,15,16,17,18,19 (1st sentence), 20, 22,23,24,25,26,27 (in part), 29 are accepted, except as is irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 21, 28 are not supported by the evidence Paragraph 27 (in part is rejected as a conclusion of law. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraph 1 and 3 accepted and incorporated in findings Paragraph 2 rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 accepted in part as grounds for mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Carl F. Doyle 5 Stiles Lane Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32301 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Pedro P. Landera, was a certified general contractor having been issued license number CG C005371 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), in March 1973. In January 1986 the license was suspended by the Board for three years and, except for the charges pending in this proceeding, Landera would be eligible to have it reactivated in early 1989. Thus, Landera has been without authority to use his license for the last three years. Landera did not contest the Board's suspension action and, in a settlement stipulation, admitted he violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (m), Florida Statutes (1981), by certain conduct taken in December 1983. On August 11, 1986, an individual using the name of James Burke entered into a construction contract with Charlie E. Mincey, the owner of Charlie Tires Service, 1700 N. W. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. The contract, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4, called for Burke, "in a timely manner," to make the following additions to Mincey's tire shop: construct a 34' X 40' room onto the existing building, erect an aluminum shed across the front of the building, including a four foot concrete slab floor, and add a five foot wall across the back side of the building. Burke represented on the contract that he held license number 254514-4. However, a search of the Board's records revealed Burke held no state license. The total price for the work was $15,650. On August 13, Mincey paid Burke $3,000 as a down payment on the job. According to Mincey, Burke began work on the additions several weeks after the contract was executed and continued to do so on and off for a few months. Eventually, a concrete block wall for the 34' x 40' room was built, but it had no roof, windows, doors, electric wiring, plumbing or paint. The aluminum shed was never built nor did Burke construct a five foot wall at the rear of the building as required by the contract. During October and early November 1986 Mincey made additional payments to Burke in the amount of $3,175, 1,000, $500, $400, $300, $300, and $40. This made a total of $8,715 paid by Mincey to Burke. Despite these payments, several subcontractors came to the job site during the same time period to unload materials but requested payment from Mincey before they would release them. Mincey paid the subcontractors $2,593.64, as evidenced by receipts received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. When Burke did not return to the job site, and the project was still far from completed, Mincey attempted to contact Burke but could not find him. When he left the job site for the final time, Burke gave Mincey no notice of his intention to leave the job unfinished or any reason for doing so. Burke's whereabouts are still unknown, and there is now pending an outstanding warrant for his arrest. On September 30, 1986, a building permit application was filed with the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department seeking a permit for work to be done on Mincey's business. The application was filled out with three different colors of ink and in more than one person's handwriting. A carbon copy of the application has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9. The document was authenticated by a permit clerk of the Metropolitan Dade building and zoning department who identified the cashier's validation stamp, issuance date and permit number affixed to the document, all being indicia that the application was received and processed by that department. Further, the clerk attested to the fact that the carbon copy was a document normally kept in the regular course of business by her department. The application carries the signature, license number and social security number of respondent. The authenticity of respondent's signature was confirmed by a questioned document examiner whose testimony has been accepted as being credible and persuasive and was corroborated by respondent's own admission that the signature was his own. The author of the remaining writings on the document is unknown. Pursuant to the above application, a building permit was issued on October 1, 1986, for the work performed by Burke. The inspection record, which has been received as petitioner's exhibit 8, reflected that the job site was inspected by a Dade County inspector on October 1 and November 12, 1986. Also, the inspection record reflected that Gila Construction Company (GCC) was the contractor on the job. GCC is a Miami firm that Landera qualified in March 1984. Its owner is Gilbert Castillo. Mincey's building remains unfinished as of this date, and he contends the value of the work is less than the $11,308 that he paid to Burke and the subcontractors. In attempting to resolve the matter, Mincey learned that Landera's license number was on the permit application, and a complaint was eventually filed with the Board. However, prior to hearing, Mincey had never seen or talked to Landera, knew nothing of GCC, and considered the business transaction to be between he and Burke. Landera denied knowing Burke or authorizing him to use his license. Also, he maintained that he has not used his suspended license since the Board's action in early 1986. He denied signing the application in question and had no explanation as to how his signature got on the application except to suggest that someone may have obtained one with his signature and then fraudulently used the same to obtain a permit. Even so, there was no reason for Landera to sign an application during this period of time since his license was under suspension. Castillo, who owns GCC, denied knowing Burke or Mincey or having any knowledge of or participation in the Mincey job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law, that he pay a $3,500 fine, and that his license be suspended until January, 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 3. and 5. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 1. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 5. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 5. 4-5. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 2, 5 and 6. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 9. Covered in finding of fact 6. 9 Covered in findings of fact 9 and 10 COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis F. DeLaCruz, Jr., Esquire 300 Sevilla Avenue Suite 313 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues presented are as follow: Did the Respondent allow his registration to be used by an unlicensed and unregistered person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes? Did the Respondent combine and conspire to allow his registration to be used by an unlicensed or unregistered person to evade the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes? Did the Respondent engage in contracting in a name other than set forth on his certificate? Did the Respondent engage in contracting in a name of a business entity without first qualifying that business entity with the Construction Industry Licensing Board? The parties submitted post hearing findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order and correspondence. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Damian C. Davis, is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C007059 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board through the Department of Professional Regulation. On or about August 29, 1980, the Respondent obtained building permit number B 45383 from the City of Tampa Building Department for construction to be performed by George Lacey at 910 East Osborne Street, Tampa, Florida, the residence of Martha Smith George Lacey was at that time uncertified and unregistered and was the contractor in fact on the work to be done for Martha Smith at 910 East Osborne Street in Tampa. The Respondent arranged for all building inspections by inspectors of the City of Tampa and was on the building site when said inspections were conducted. All work was approved by building inspectors of the City of Tampa, and there were no code problems. Subsequent to the completion of the work by Lacey, the owner had a problem with a leak over a sliding glass door which Lacey had contracted to repair. When this matter was brought to the Respondent's attention by officials of the Tampa Building Department, the Respondent fixed the leak to the owner's complete satisfaction. The building permit obtained by the Respondent was issued in the Respondent's name. All work the Respondent performed was done in the Respondent's name. The Respondent and Lacey frequently worked together in joint ventures; however, this was not such a project.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Damian C. Davis, guilty of one count (one offense) of violating Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes, and considering the Respondent's prompt action to satisfy the owner, it is recommended that the Respondent be given a letter of reprimand and assessed a civil penalty of $500. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 28th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Damian C Davis 1310 West Charter Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AMENDMENT TO AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 19791 DOAH CASE NO. 83-1230 DAMIAN C. DAVIS DAVIS & SEXTON, INC. 1302 West Sligh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604, Respondent. / AMENDMENT TO FINAL ORDER The Final Order entered on September 22, 1983 in this cause incorrectly stated the fine imposed upon the Respondent. The correct amount is $250.00, to be paid within 30 days of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 30th day of November , 1983. FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD Henry Bachara, Chairman
