Findings Of Fact James Wells is a registered building contractor having been issued license number RB 0008753. In June, 1985, Christiane J. Guignard hired James Wells to do repairing and rebuilding on parts of her home, including roofing work. The roofing work consisted of building a roof extension with hot tar and gravel roofing and a shingle roof. Guignard maintains that Wells agreed to guarantee his roof work against leaks for five years. Wells maintains that there was no explicit warranty, but he understood that he was responsible for "about a year" for leaks in his work. Wells did the work agreed on and completed it at the end of July, 1985. Guignard paid Wells a total of $4,575 for all of the work he had done. Prior to Wells' roofing work, Guignard had three leaks in her roof. Wells' work eliminated those leaks. According to Guignard, she had five leaks after Wells completed his work: 3 leaks around chimneys, 1 leak in a valley, and 1 leak in the overhang roof. Guignard called Wells and he came to perform repairs at the end of August, 1985. He applied silicon in the valley, around the chimneys and around a picture window, and he inserted extra shingles in the valley. According to Guignard, none of the leaks stopped. According to Guignard, she called Wells incessantly from the end of August, 1985, to March, 1987, regarding the leaks. Wells came back several times to inspect the roof for leaks. Wells determined that one leak was the result of an electrician who put a hole and two nails in the roof. Wells repaired this leak even though it was not the result of his work. Wells flashed two chimneys. In June or July, 1985, Wells replaced the shingles in the valley. Wells repaired all the leaks except the one in the overhang. Wells never found any evidence of a leak in that area. Guignard believes that area is leaking because the siding has become discolored and because she saw rain water running around the siding when she stood under the overhang in a heavy rain. Wells says that he told Guignard that the possibility existed that excess rain water from a heavy rain could run down the siding because of the slant of the roof. He saw the discoloration of the siding and says it results from the tree buds of a nearby tree falling on the roof, mixing with rain water, and running over the siding. Wells told Guignard that she needed to treat the siding with a water sealer to seal the wood. Sealing the wood was not part of his job and Guignard said she would do it, but never has. No independent or expert testimony was offered to show that a leak exists in the overhang or that any leak which is alleged to exist is the result of Wells' work.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against James Wells. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5603 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 4-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Wells Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 11. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted as a Conclusion of Law. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9-11 are rejected as being unnecessary for the resolution of this matter. Proposed findings of fact 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold S. Richmond, Esquire 227 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 695 Quincy, Florida 32351 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed professional engineer, holding license number PE 36170. On May 14, 1998, Phil and Kate Kribbs hired Al Pestana to replace a roof on their home, which was located at 7903 St. Andrews Road in Lake Worth. By July 20, 1998, Mr. Pestana completed the installation of a new shingle roof over the pre- existing shake roof, and, on the same date, the Palm Beach County Building Inspector inspected the work and issued a Certificate of Completion. A dispute later developed between the Kribbses and Mr. Pestana concerning the quality of the work that he had performed. The Kribbses hired a consultant, who opined that the work contained serious defects. The Kribbses, Mr. Pestana, and the Building Department engaged in periodic discussions over a relatively long period of time. On April 12, 2001, Mr. Pestana hired Respondent to examine the roof and issue a report. Respondent conducted a physical examination of the visible portions of the interior and exterior of the roof, accessing as much of the roof as he could from the attic and walking upon as much of the roof as he could. The parties addressed at length the issue of the structural integrity of the roof. However, for the purpose of determining whether Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of engineering, it is unnecessary to address the condition of the roof. Respondent's report, alone, constitutes misconduct in the practice of engineering. The report states that the roof would withstand winds of 70 miles per hour and a "major storm." As Respondent knew at the time, the applicable design wind speed is 100 miles per hour over a specified interval. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged, as he did in the report, that he mentioned 70 miles per hour because this is the maximum wind speed that shingles must withstand before detaching from the sheathing. However, the perils of detached shingles and a detached roof are entirely different in gravity. The issue of concern to the Building Department and the Kribbses was the peril of an inadequately attached roof detaching from the house during the design storm event--a far more dangerous contingency than detached shingles. Respondent's references to "major storm" and 70 miles per hour, in the absence of any mention of the design storm and whether the roof meets this more demanding standard, constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead the Kribbses and possibly the Building Department concerning the adequacy of the means by which Mr. Pestana had attached the roof to the Kribbs' house. This deliberate attempt to mislead constitutes misconduct in engineering.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand, an administrative fine of $1000, two years' probation, and costs. If the costs cannot be stipulated within a reasonable period of time, the Board may provide Respondent with a new point of entry for a hearing at the Division of Administrative Hearings on costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 4th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry D. Goldman 2155 South Ocean Boulevard, Unit 21 Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Douglas Sunshine Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring general contractors. Department headquarters are in Tallahassee, Florida. Part and parcel of the Department's duties is the sanctioning of persons who practice general contracting without a license. Respondent is an individual living in Tampa, Florida. Respondent did not appear at final hearing and has not filed any post-hearing motions concerning his failure to appear. The Administrative Complaint filed by the Department makes the following allegations: Respondent was not registered or certified to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent, doing business as J.D.S. Roofing, contracted with Vivian Virgil to perform certain roofing work, specifically, to remove and replace shingles and related work to reconstruct the roof on Virgil's home. A contract between the parties dated April 21, 2006, was signed by Virgil and Respondent (or his authorized representative). Virgil made two payments to Respondent in the amounts of $2,500.00 (via check number 1037) and $1,564.46 (via check number 1040). She also made a payment of $2,860.54 to The Home Depot to pay for materials ordered by Respondent for Virgil's roofing repairs. Respondent then made the contracted-for repairs and replacement of Virgil's roof pursuant to the contract.2 Virgil, however, was not pleased with the quality of the work. She is unable to get a warranty on the roof because Respondent's work was inferior. Virgil must have another contractor re-do the roof in order to get a warranty. Neither Respondent nor his company, J.D.S. Roofing, is or has ever been licensed by the State of Florida as a contractor. However, Respondent held himself out as a general contractor in his dealings with Virgil.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that Respondent, James Delaughter, is guilty of the unlicensed practice of contracting and imposing a fine of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 8th day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with responsibility for regulating and disciplining, among others, licensed registered general contractors in the State of Florida. Section 20.30, and Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Ernest E. Lee, was licensed as a registered general contractor in the State of Florida. Mr. Lee holds license number 0052441. Mr. Lee was registered to do business as an individual. DPR exhibit 1. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Mr. Lee licensed as a roofing contractor. Mr. Lee's First Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. On or about February 14, 1991, Joyce A. Rogero accepted a proposal dated February 11, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Contract"), from Mr. Lee for construction management on a building owned by Albert L. and Joyce Rogero. DPR exhibit 3. The Rogero's building is located at 142 King Street, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Rogero Property"). The Rogero Property was being used as an automobile parts retail shop and jobber's outlet. There was also a mechanic's shop in the rear of the Rogero Property which the Rogero's leased. Pursuant to the First Contract, Mr. Lee was to be paid $150.00 upon acceptance of the proposal and $10.00 per hour for all work performed by Mr. Lee, with a minimum of one hour per work day until the First Contract was fulfilled or cancelled. DPR exhibit 3. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed a Notice of Commencement with the St. Johns County Planning and Building Department concerning the First Contract. In the notice Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as "[r]eplace decayed wood repair roof as necessary." DPR exhibit 5. On or about February 21, 1991, Mr. Lee filed an Application for Building Permit with the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed on the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 18. See also DPR exhibit 20. Mr. Lee described the work to be performed as follows: Remove all roof gutters - 2. Remove decayed wood & replace 3. Frame in gable ends - 4. Point up cracks in masonry exterior walls 5. Install new garage door (See plans) On or about March 6, 1991, the City of St. Augustine issued a building permit to Mr. Lee for the Rogero Property. DPR exhibit 19. The only roof work mentioned by Mr. Lee in the permit and permit application was incidental work caused by the demolition of part of the Rogero Property. Work was performed on the Rogero Property pursuant to the First Contract by Mr. Lee and Jim Rogers. For these services, Mr. Lee was paid $848.39 between February 14, 1991 and March 15, 1991. Mr. Rogers was paid $1,432.00 between February 14, 1991 and March 22, 1991. DPR exhibit 4. Work Performed by Jim Rogers. The evidence in this case failed to prove whether Mr. Rogers was an employee of Mr. Lee or was acting as an independent contractor. While Jim Rogers performed work pursuant to the First Contract under the supervision of Mr. Lee, Mr. Rogers was paid directly by the Rogeros for the hours he worked. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Jim Rogers was not licensed to perform construction contracting in the State of Florida. See DPR exhibit 2. Mr. Lee's Second Contract with Mr. and Mrs. Rogero. While performing the work called for by the First Contract, Mr. Lee attempted to repair leaks above a store room in the Rogero Property without much success. The roof did not leak over the mechanic's shop at the time that Mr. Lee was performing the work on the First Contract. During the summer of 1991 the Rogero Property roof still leaked. Upon inquiry by the Rogeros, Mr. Lee informed the Rogeros that the roof would have to be replaced to prevent further leaking. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Lee submitted a proposal to Mr. Rogero for completion of the following work: Install 1 x 4 P.T. purling over existing roof. Install V crimped roofing to purlings. Flash three sides - south - west - east to existing structure. Refill pitch pockets. DPR exhibit 7. Pursuant to this proposal, Mr. Lee offered to construct a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof of the Rogero Property. Mr. Lee assured the Rogeros that the metal roof would correct the leaking problem. The June 10, 1991, proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Contract"), which was accepted by the Rogeros, provided for the payment to Mr. Lee of $2,000.00 upon acceptance and $500.00 upon completion of the work. DPR exhibit 7. Mr. Lee did not apply for, or obtain, any permit from the City of St. Augustine for the work to be performed pursuant to the Second Contract. Nor did the permit issued for the First Contract authorize the roof work Mr. Lee was to perform, or that he actually performed, pursuant to the Second Contract. Mr. Lee proceeded to begin construction of a metal roof over the existing flat portion of the roof on the Rogero Property. As work progressed on this portion of the roof, heavy leakage from the roof over the mechanic's garage began for the first time. After leaks in the roof occurred in other parts of the Rogero Property, Mr. Lee suggested that it would be necessary to construct the metal roof over the rest of the roof of the Rogero Property. It was agreed, therefore, that the entire roof of the Rogero Property would be covered by a metal roof. As Mr. Lee began to sheath over the hip portion of the roof of the Rogero's Property, the leakage became worse. The Rogeros paid Mr. Lee a total of $6,000.00 for the work he performed on the roof. DPR exhibit 8. Stop Work Order. Following receipt of a complaint by the City of St. Augustine Building Department from a general contractor about the construction at the Rogero Property, a City of St. Augustine inspector visited the Rogero Property. As a result of this site visit, the City of St. Augustine issued a Stop Work Order for Violation form ordering that construction on the Rogero Property be stopped. DPR exhibit 9. Work was ordered stopped because Mr. Lee had failed to obtain a permit for the "new roof over existing roof." DPR exhibit 9. Following issuance of the work stop order, Michael Griffin, Chief Building Inspector for the City of St. Augustine, became concerned about the appropriateness of the metal roofing material being used by Mr. Lee to re-roof the Rogero Property and the fact that Mr. Lee was not a licensed roofing contractor. The City of St. Augustine building code required that the type of work Mr. Lee was performing be performed by a licensed roofing contractor. The building code also required that metal roofing material for a building such as the Rogero Property be of a minimum gauge of 29. The metal being used by Mr. Lee was 31-32 gauge, a lower, and unacceptable, gauge for such roofing material. On August 2, 1991, Mr. Griffin informed Mr. Lee that the grade of the metal roofing material he was using on the Rogero Property was in violation of the City of St. Augustine's building code. See DPR exhibit 26. Rather than correct the deficiency, Mr. Lee filed an application for a variance from the code's metal roofing material requirements. DPR exhibit 27. As a result of the stop work order, and after being told that the metal roofing material was inadequate and learning that Mr. Lee had requested permission to continue to use the material, the Rogeros terminated Mr. Lee's work on the Rogero Property by letter dated August 15, 1991. DPR exhibit 10. Completion of the Roof on the Rogero Property. Following the termination of Mr. Lee's work on the roof, the Rogeros contacted two licensed roofing contractors. Mr. Lee did not, however, subcontract with a licensed roofing contractor. On August 20, 1991, the Rogeros contracted with Arnett Roofing (hereinafter referred to as the "Arnett Contract"), to remove the roofing material installed by Mr. Lee and to construct a built-up, shingled roof. DPR exhibit 11. The Arnett Contract provided that the Rogeros were to pay $16,000.00 for the agreed work. The Rogeros ultimately paid a total of $20,565.00 to Arnett Roofing for work associated with the roof on the Rogero Property: $1,836.00 for removal of the roof material Mr. Lee had placed on the Rogero Property; and $18,729.00 for the installation of a new roof. See DPR exhibits 12, 13 and 14. The roofing material Mr. Lee placed on the Rogero Property had to be removed. The roof work performed by Mr. Lee suffered from the following deficiencies: The material used on part of the roof (the flat portion) was improper in light of the slope of the roof; The gauge of the metal roofing material used by Mr. Lee was insufficient for the Rogero Property; The flashings were improperly installed and would not prevent leaking; There was a substantial amount of rotten wood underneath portions of the new roof Mr. Lee had already installed. Strips of 1 x 4 wood that Mr. Lee planned to attach the metal roof to had been nailed to areas of the roof with obviously rotten wood. The rotten wood on the Rogero Property should have been noticed and replaced by Mr. Lee. Because of the amount of rotten wood on the roof of the Rogero Property, and Mr. Lee's failure to remove it, the Rogero Property would have been dangerous had Mr. Lee completed his roof work. The roof that Mr. Lee was installing also would not have prevented further leaking. The Rogeros were also required to contract for the services of a general contractor in order to obtain a permit from the City of St. Augustine to complete the roof work and to complete other work which Mr. Lee had begun during the First Contract. The total amount paid for these services by the Rogeros was $3,222.61. See DPR exhibit 15. The evidence failed to prove what portion of this amount was caused by Mr. Lee's improper conduct in performing the Second Contract. Mr. Lee's Code Violations. The City of St. Augustine has adopted, and requires compliance with, the 1988 Standard Building Code. DPR exhibit 21. Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code provides the following: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. DPR exhibit 22. Mr. Lee violated Section 103 of the 1988 Standard Building Code, and, therefore, violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Section 706 of the 1988 Standard Building Code adopts the "SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings." DPR exhibit 23. Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings provides the following: Galvanized sheet metal shall be 0.0172-inch (29 ga) thick or heavier, .90 oz (total weight both sides) zinc coating per sq. ft. DPR exhibit 24. The metal used by Mr. Lee on the Rogero Property roof did not comply with Section 111.1.2 of the SBCCI Standard for the Installation of Roof Coverings and, therefore, Mr. Lee violated the building code of the City of St. Augustine. Mr. Lee's Reaction to His Dismissal by the Rogeros and the Rogero's Complaint to the Department. In June of 1991, after the Rogeros had filed a complaint with the Department concerning Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee sent a letter to the Rogeros and several building department officials of the City of St. Augustine threatening the following: THIS INSTRUMENT IN PRESENTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 770 AND 836 FLA. STAT. 1989. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF MY INTENT TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE TIME ACCRUAL PERIOD WILL COMMENCE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. ACTION WILL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, CONTAINED HEREIN AND WILL BE RELATED TO THE TORT OF DEFAMATION AS PER CHAPTERS 770 AND 836, FLA. STAT. 19189. DPR exhibit 16. By letter dated August 16, 1991, Mr. Lee requested the following action be taken by the City of St. Augustine: I HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT 142 KING ST. I REQUEST THAT YOU ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER ON ALL ACTIVITIES. DPR exhibit 28. Mr. Lee has made no effort to make restitution to the Rogeros for any damages incurred by them. I. Costs. The Department incurred $4,319.41 in costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for certification as a roofing inspector should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has worked in the construction industry since 1973. He was trained as an electrician, but he has “worked in about every trade” over the years, including roofing. Petitioner is certified by the Board as a building code inspector (all trades), plans examiner (all trades), and building code administrator. Petitioner is not, and never has been, a state or locally certified roofing contractor or a general contractor. Petitioner has worked as a building code inspector and plans examiner for Nassau County since May 2003. He previously worked as a building code inspector for Seminole County and the City of Oviedo, and as a plans examiner for a private inspection and engineering company. Inspecting roofs is part of Petitioner’s job as a building code inspector for Nassau County, but it is not the only trade that he inspects. Unlike larger jurisdictions where inspectors specialize in particular trades, Petitioner and the other building code inspectors in Nassau County are “combination inspectors” responsible for inspecting all aspects of the building. Petitioner typically conducts 80 to 100 inspections per week, but less than 10 percent of those inspections -- approximately six per week -- are roof inspections. Petitioner credibly testified that even though roof inspections are a relatively small portion of his job, he looks at roof design and construction on a daily basis when he is on- site inspecting other aspects of the building and when he is reviewing building plans as a plans examiner. The current and former building official in Nassau County credibly testified that Petitioner “regularly” inspects roofs and that they have had no problems or concerns with his roof inspections. Their testimony concerning the competency of Petitioner’s roof inspection work was corroborated by a building code inspector who works with Petitioner and who has been a certified roofing contractor since 1983. In September 2008, Petitioner submitted an application to the Board for certification as a roofing inspector. The Board considered Petitioner’s application at its regular meeting in October 2008. The Board determined that Petitioner’s application should be denied because he does not have the “four (4) years of roofing experience” required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G19-6.016(3). The Board construes this and other similar experience requirements in its rules to require full-time experience. The Board’s interpretation of the rule is based, at least in part, upon its reasonable and logical expectation that a person who performs a job on a full-time basis gains more knowledge and expertise than a person who performs the job only occasionally. Petitioner does not have four years of full-time roofing experience, and he does not inspect roofs on a full-time basis as a building code inspector. Petitioner does not need to be certified as a roofing inspector to inspect roofs in the course of his work as a building code inspector. Petitioner wants to be certified as a roofing inspector “to protect [himself] in the future from changes in the law” because he is concerned that at some point certification as a roofing inspector may be required in order to inspect roofs. There is no basis in the record for Petitioner’s speculative concern. The Board chairman, Robert McCormick, credibly testified that he was unaware of anything under consideration that would require certification as a roofing inspector in order to inspect roofs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for certification as a roofing inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2009.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaints.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent, Ruth Ogen, was a licensed roofing contractor, license no. CC CO27471. A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. Respondent is the sole qualifier and licensee associated with the company, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. Respondent is married to Avraham Ogen who presents himself as the president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. On or about November 9, 1986, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. doing business as Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing entered into a contract with Ardee Yuran to replace the entire roof of a commercial structure located at 14951 N.E. 6th Avenue, North Miami Beach (6th Avenue). The contract provided, among other things, that the top row of tiles around the parapet wall would be removed and reinstalled upon completion of the roof. In negotiating the contract described in paragraph 4, Mrs. Yuran was mindful of the work Avraham Ogen had performed at her residence. Mr. Ogen had supervised the reroofing of Mrs. Yuran's residence which had been satisfactorily performed. The residential job had required the removal of the tiles along the parapet wall and Mrs. Yuran expected the same process would be utilized in completing the commercial roof. The purpose intended to be accomplished by removing the tiles was to allow the roofers to extend the roofing materials up the sides of the parapet and over the crest. The roofing material is then sealed to the wall and the tiles replaced. This procedure results in a waterproof barrier so that when rain accumulates on the flat roof (and the water level rises) it cannot seep through the sealed perimeter. During the time Mr. Ogen was negotiating and performing the roof work for the 6th Avenue building, he was also retained to paint the structure (which was to be completed after the roof was finished). There came a time when Mrs. Yuran and Mr. Ogen disagreed regarding aspects of the roof work and the painting that was to be done. Eventually, the parties reached an impasse where neither was willing to concede: Mr. Ogen was not willing to perform the work as specified by Mrs. Yuran, Mrs. Yuran was not willing to pay Mr. Ogen any more on the contracts. At this point, Ruth Ogen, Respondent, had not been involved in the daily work progress made at the site. To make matters worse, a leak developed at the 6th Avenue property which resulted in a waterfall pouring down through the overhang of the building. As a result of the disagreement, both parties retained lawyers and, understandably, the issues escalated. Mrs. Yuran retained three individuals to review the work performed by Mr. Ogen. On March 4, 1987, Walter H. Scott, Scott Roofing & Repair, Inc., determined that water accumulating on the 6th Avenue roof was draining behind flashing which had not been properly sealed to the perimeter walls instead of running through the outlets. Mr. Scott recommended that the flashing be resealed along the wall. Had the tiles been removed and the work been performed as stated in the contract, the leak would have been avoided. A second licensed roofing contractor, Gary Carruth, Falcon Roofing Co., inspected the property on June 23, 1987, and recommended reflashing the walls along the perimeter of the 6th Avenue building. Mr. Carruth observed that the tiles had not been removed along the wall and that the roofing materials had not been properly sealed along the perimeter. James Rodgers, a consulting engineer performed a third inspection of the roof at 6th Avenue on June 25, 1987. According to Mr. Rodgers, several items of the contract work completed by Mr. Ogen were inadequately performed. Mr. Rodgers found that the pitch pans were not installed properly around the air conditioning units and that the flashing along the parapet wall was not properly completed nor performed as described in the contract. Respondent also retained a licensed roofer to review the work at 6th Avenue. Bill Mathews, Bill Mathews Roofing, completed a roof inspection report on November 21, 1988. According to Mr. Mathews, the flashing along the parapet wall required repair because it had been improperly sealed. Mr. Mathews noted that the top row of tile should have been removed so that flashing could have been taken up and over the parapet wall. Mr. Mathews also noted that the flat roof had buckles or "fish mouths" which should have been corrected as the roof was being installed. Mr. Mathews recommended that the flashing be resealed and that the buckles be cut and sealed with membrane and roofing cement. Finally, Mr. Mathews determined that the pitch pans under the air conditioning units should be filled with an asphalt cold process to prevent further cracking and potential leaks. A final inspection report was completed by Robert B. Hilson, Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., on August 18, 1988. Mr. Hilson is a consultant for the Department and made the inspection at the request of its attorney. Mr. Hilson's findings and recommendations mirrored those suggested by Mr. Mathews. The work performed by Mr. Ogen on the 6th Avenue property did not meet the terms of the contract and did not meet performance standards acceptable in the roofing industry. Mr. Ogen failed to properly seal all flashing materials along the parapet wall, failed to correct the buckles or "fish mouths," and failed to meet the contractual obligations (removing the tiles and extending the flashing over the crest). Because of the substandard work, Mrs. Yuran incurred additional expenses and inconvenience. Respondent did not view the 6th Avenue structure either before or during the time that her husband supervised the work performed. Respondent's role with the company was as secretary, bookkeeper, and office manager. Mr. Ogen supervised or performed all work at the 6th Avenue job. Respondent did not supervise Mr. Ogen or the workers under his supervision. "Ogen Roofing & Waterproofing" has not been qualified by the Department as a roofing contractor. On or about April 28, 1987, A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc. was requested to perform a roofing inspection at 1180 N.E. 204 Terrace. The subject property was under contract for sale and was ultimately purchased by Rose Zenar. According to the inspection report filed by Mr. Ogen, the roof and roof covering were in satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks. Mr. Ogen signed the inspection report as president of A. R. Ogen Construction, Inc., state license no. CC CO27471. During the first rain after she had moved into the house, Mrs. Zenar observed water leaking through the ceiling into the kitchen. She immediately called Mr. Ogen who came out, observed the problem, but did not repair the leak. Mr. Ogen did not return Mrs. Zenar's subsequent calls. Ultimately, she contacted James Rodgers to perform a second roof inspection. As a result of Mr. Rodgers' inspection, Mrs. Zenar discovered that the leak was of long duration as it had completely rotted and decayed the roof rafters and sheathing in the area of the leak. Mr. Rodgers took pictures of the area which clearly showed the discolored wood. Evidence of the discoloration was visible from the attic entrance located in the garage adjacent to the kitchen. Mr. Ogen's failure to discover the rotted roof was due to an inadequate inspection of the crawl space between the ceiling and the roof rafters. It is the normal practice of qualified roof inspectors to examine the crawl space between the ceiling and roof supports. Respondent did not perform the roof inspection at Mrs. Zenar's home, did not supervise the inspection performed by Mr. Ogen, and did not have a checklist of items to be reviewed by him in making the inspection. The erroneous inspection performed by Mr. Ogen resulted in expenses and inconvenience to Mrs. Zenar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth above and, based upon the penalties recommended by rule, impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $3000.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 20th day of April , 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. With the correction to reflect Mrs. Yuran not Mr. Yuran, paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted with the correction that the witness' name was Gary Carruth. With the deletion of the last paragraph of paragraph 15 which is rejected as argument or comment, the first five paragraphs of paragraph 15 are accepted. Petitioner is warned not to subparagraph statements of fact or to restate testimony, but to simply set forth the fact deduced from such testimony. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 17 is accepted to the extent that it finds the reroofing work performed on the 6th Avenue building was a poor quality which was not done under the supervision of a qualified, licensed roofing contractor. Further, it was gross negligence not to properly supervise the job. No conclusion is reached as to whether Respondent is able to supervise a job. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as a recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33--none submitted. With regard to paragraph 34, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as conclusion of law, argument, or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 36-38 are accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or recitation. The first two sentences of paragraph 40 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as comment, conclusion of law, or argument. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant, conclusion of law, or argument. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether a competent inspection was performed. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument, speculation, or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by this record. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. The following are rulings on case no. 88-1776 as submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is accepted but is irrelevant, immaterial. Paragraph 5 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Petitioner, the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, filed an administrative complaint dated May 20, 1986. Thereby, it has charged Respondent with violations of Sections 489.119, 489.129(1)(g), (j), and Florida Statutes, for which violations it seeks to impose, according to its post-hearing proposal, the requirement of $5600 restitution to Mr. Kenneth Jessell, a fine of $1500, and a one year suspension of Respondent's contractor's license. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE The parties' Joint Prehearing Statement was admitted as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Kenneth A. Jessell, Richard P. Scanlon, Gene O. Seymour, and Robert D. Hilson, and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Exhibit P-3 was marked for identification and proffered but not admitted. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Sheldon Israel and Respondent and had admitted Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, and 4. Exhibit R-3 was marked for identification and proffered but was not admitted. At the close of hearing, Respondent moved for dismissal for failure of Petitioner to establish a prima facie case. That motion was taken under advisement and is addressed in the following conclusions of law. Upon the filing of a copy thereof as a post-hearing exhibit, judicial notice was taken of Section 3401.1(a)(3) South Florida Building Code, without objection. Petitioner filed transcript herein, and the parties' timely filed their respective post-hearing proposals within the time extensions agreed-upon and granted. The parties' respective proposed findings of fact are ruled upon pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC02955I, whose address of record is 2311 N. E. 35th Street, Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064. On or about June 6, 1985, Respondent, doing business as Great Southern Industries, contracted with Mr. Kenneth Jessell to install a roof on Jessell's house at Lighthouse Point, Florida. The contract price was $5,600. At no time relevant to the charges herein did Respondent or anyone else qualify Great Southern Industries nor did that name appear on Respondent's license. At hearing, Respondent admitted a violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than that appearing on his state certificate, and further admitted violation of Sections 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119, Florida Statutes, by failing to qualify a legal entity through which he was contracting. The parties stipulated those allegations of the complaint were to be considered proven. In mitigation, Respondent established that no fraud or deceit concerning who was actually performing the roofing work was perpetrated against Mr. Jessell, that Respondent's omissions were due to his misunderstanding of the legal requirements involved, and that at all times since its incorporation, August 31, 1984, Respondent has been sole shareholder, officer, and director of Great Southern Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation. Upon being made aware of his violations, he has ceased to do business as Great Southern Industries. There is no evidence of prior misconduct. Respondent, as Great Southern Industries, partially completed work on Jessell's house and Jessell partially paid for said work when a dispute arose between Respondent and Jessell relative to the work. Respondent began work on Jessell's roof on June 17, 1985. On June 18, 1985, a pitch fire broke out. The pitch fire resulted from a tar kettle which had not been appropriately handled by an employee of Respondent who had been assigned to tend it. Such fires are not uncommon in the industry. After the fire was put out, work ceased for the day, but Respondent appeared the very next day and continued with the roofing project. There is expert testimony that leaving such a pitch or tar fire unattended was negligent and that if the overly hot pitch or tar had then cooled overnight, been reheated, and used on Jessell's roof it would have been inadequate for the job. However, there is no direct credible testimony or documentary evidence that this is what actually occurred. Mr. Jessell was not present on the site the next day and approximately 60-70 percent of the base layer of the roof had been tarred over before this event occurred. Mr. Jessell is a college professor in finance and real estate. He has no expertise in contracting, roofing, or inspection of such jobs or the material used therein, but upon observation from the ground, without going onto the roof, Jessell decided the roof was not being properly constructed. On June 25, 1987, at Mr. Jessell's insistence, Gene O. Seymour, the Chief Building Inspector of the Broward County Building Department inspected the job, which he did not approve at that time. Respondent came back to conform the job to the inspector's concerns. Seymour did not approve the job at reinspection on July 1, so Jessell withheld payment. Respondent again returned and did some additional work. On July 9, the job again did not pass inspection. Respondent did further repairs on July 29. There were numerous other inspections but the job did not pass for one reason or another. On each occasion, Respondent came back to address the inspector's concerns. Seymour's testimony can be synopsized that he made an extraordinary number of inspections (at least 20) at Mr. Jessell's urging, and that the roof often failed to pass, mostly because the work was not yet fully completed. Inspector Seymour noted that sometimes the job would pass one inspection only to have Jessell call him back and show him new problems which had appeared in the interim. Seymour could not explain how this could be. He termed the job "jinxed." Respondent maintains, and Jessell denies, that Jessell frequently would go up on the roof and make suggestions to Respondent and his employees on how the roofing should be done, that Jessell pulled up on the felts, and that Jessell otherwise damaged the work done by Respondent and his crew. Having observed the respective candor and demeanor of Jessell and Respondent, and after considering and weighing the foregoing comments of Inspector Seymour and of all the witnesses' peripheral testimony on how rapid deterioration and excessive patching occurred, I find Respondent's explanation of the problems up to this point to be the more credible explanation, if a somewhat exaggerated one. Up until August 22, 1985, Respondent came and fixed anything Jessell complained of or that had been noted by an inspector. Finally, on August 22, Inspector Seymour approved the job as ready for the addition of tiles. Jessell was still dissatisfied with the roof.. By this time, he had been up on it several times with and without Seymour. Jessell took photographs and sought out Seymour in his office. Seymour rescinded his approval due to the appearance of new water blisters. Both Jessell and Seymour concur that at this point there were no leaks. On August 30, Seymour inspected again. He cut deeply into the roofing material in three places; in each place, he cut down to the base plywood sheeting and found no evidence of any water. This type of testing is considered "destructive testing." He also observed gouges, slashes, and nails working out. He proposed that Jessell get an independent consultant to resolve the problems between them. Respondent obtained a visual inspection by Sheldon Israel who wrote a letter which was signed off on by a certified architect and which confirmed that the roof as completed by Respondent thus far complied with the intent of the South Florida Building Code, which Code has been adopted in Broward County. On September 20, Seymour gave final approval for the stage the job had reached based on the letter from Israel and the fact that the waterproof membrane which Respondent had installed was intact at that time. Thereafter, Jessell hired Richard Paul Scanlon, a licensed and certified roofer, who eventually tore off what had been done by Respondent and did a complete "reroof" at a cost to Mr. Jessell of $6500. Scanlon, qualified at hearing to give expert evidence in roofing contracting, saw the roof in January 1986, approximately six months after Respondent had left the job. During those six months, the unfinished roof had been sitting exposed to the elements, without tiles, and with numerous patches, gouges, and cuts in it. He opined that Respondent's work constituted poor work and gross negligence. His opinion is based on his visual inspection without any tests whatsoever. Errors in Respondent's work which he noted included mopping the tar the wrong way, improper water lapping, and use of some rag felts and some fiberglass felts as opposed to the use of fiberglass as required by the Jessells' contract with Respondent. (However, rag felts and fiberglass felts both meet Code requirements.) Scanlon felt there was a possibility the roof would slide if tiles were added atop Respondent's work but declined to say this was a probability. In order to give a roof warranty, Scanlon felt he had to tear off Respondent's work and "reroof." Whatever he may have found when he tore the roof off later was not explored. Robert D. Hilson, a licensed and certified roofing contractor was also qualified as an expert witness. He also did not inspect the Jessell work until January 1986. He stated the number of patches over the base layer was excessive and unusual and the consistency of the tar was far too "runny," thin, and "gooey." As opposed to this thin consistency being clearly connected to the kettle fire and base coat mopping, Hilson indicated the consistency of tar he was objecting to was a last attempt at overpatching the base layer. He also testified that the roof patches had been lapped the wrong way and occasionally had been mopped inadequately or the wrong way, and he assumed the base layer was also lapped the wrong way, but he never "eyeballed" the base layer to verify this. He found water present at that time. He indicated 6 months exposure would have caused insignificant deterioration. Contrariwise, Sheldon Israel, also accepted as an expert, opined that possibly 6 months could have caused the deterioration Scanlon, Hilson and Jessell all described as existing in January 1986. The contract between the Jessells and Respondent is ambiguous. One portion provides: "5. Install Spanish Style, cement tile roof over 90 lb. roof surface." Another paragraph provides: "8. Owners to select specific colors of Gory Spanish S by 6/12/87 at 12:00 p.m." Printed instructions (specifications) for installation of Gory roofing tile require water laps on 90 pound felt. The Southern Building Code requires prepared roof coverings to be applied in accordance with manufacturers' printed instructions for the products used. Respondent used 90 lbs. rag felts and some fiberglass felts. Both meet Code. Respondent admits he also installed a waterproof membrane or tile underlayerment that was manufactured especially to go underneath Genstar cement tile. This waterproof membrane can only be exposed to the elements without covering for 6-8 months before it is too damaged for use. Respondent planned to install Gory tile on top of the membrane but according to the best expert testimony Gory tile cannot competently be installed over such a waterproof membrane and its ability to be installed over fiberglass felts is questionable. The dispute between Jessell and the Respondent was resolved and Mr. and Mrs. Jessell executed and tendered a full release dated March 20, 1986, for all work performed on their house by Respondent and Great Southern Industries, Inc.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 489.129(1)(g), 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119, Florida Statutes, assessing a penalty of $1000 administrative fine therefor, and dismissing the charge of fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct brought under Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of July 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-2552 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF. 1-2. Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Sheldon Israel was accepted as an expert witness upon other qualifications of record. Accepted but alone is not dispositive of any issue at bar. Rejected as out of context and as not constituting an ultimate material fact. The topic as a whole is covered in FOF 9-11 and the conclusions of law so as to conform to the credible record as a whole. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue at bar. Topic covered in FOF 5 and 10. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue at bar. Contrary to the parties' belief, lack of supervision was not alleged with specificity in the administrative complaint. I accept Respondent's testimony that the employee assigned to the kettle, improperly oxygenated its contents but had not abandoned it. See FOF 5 and 10. Rejected as covered in FOF 11 which conforms with the evidence of record. Rejected as covered in FOF 9 which conforms to the evidence of record. Respondents Proposed FOF. Covered in "Issues." Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 3. Rejected as covered in FOF 11, which conforms with the evidence of record. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted as modified in FOF 6-7 to conform to the evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Gary I. Blake, Esquire 3111 University Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Dixon, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1987), by willfully and deliberately violating the locally applicable codes for installation of drip edge and, because of the violation and inadequate supervision, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1988.
