The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department or Respondent), should pay Petitioners’, Stephen Ogles, LLC, or RL Ogles Roofing, LLC (Petitioners), attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ for initiating Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Nos. 13-2448 and 13-2517.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees and officers, pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Petitioners are in the business of roofing, within the construction industry, as defined by subsection 440.02(8), and are Florida employers over whom Respondent has jurisdiction to enforce the payment of workers' compensation premiums for the benefit of Petitioners' employees. Petitioners are the sole members of their respective limited liability companies, each with one employee. An officer of a corporation may elect to be exempt from chapter 440, Workers' Compensation, by filing a notice of election with the Respondent. § 440.02(15)(b)1., Fla. Stat. An officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from Florida's Workers' Compensation Law is not an employee. § 440.02 (15)(b)3., Fla. Stat. Jonas Hall is employed as an investigator for the Division of Workers’ Compensation. He has been conducting workers’ compensation compliance investigations for approximately five years, and during that time has been involved in between 2,000 and 3,000 investigations. On June 12, 2013, Respondent issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Stephen Ogles, LLC, and RL Ogles Roofing, LLC, and a Stop Work Order For Specific Worksite Only to Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Findings of Fact 8 through 18 below set forth the specific facts and circumstances known to Respondent at the time the SWO was issued. These facts are based upon the testimony at hearing of Jonas Hall, which is found credible, as well as documentary evidence offered by Respondent, which is corroborative of Mr. Hall’s testimony. Mr. Hall began a random site investigation on June 12, 2013, after he noticed construction work about to be performed at a single-family dwelling located in Live Oak, Florida. Upon investigation, four men were found to be installing roofing at a private residence. One of those workers, Robert Ogles, advised Respondent's investigator that he was working with his three sons, Stephen, Matt, and Robert, Jr. Investigator Hall first spoke to the elder Robert Ogles who advised Investigator Hall that he was the general contractor on the job and that his sons were working as subcontractors. At no time during the interview did Robert Ogles state that his sons were employees of his company, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Investigator Hall next spoke to Stephen Ogles who stated that he owned his own business and had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. Investigator Hall then spoke to the younger Robert Ogles who also advised him that he owned his own business and had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. Finally, Investigator Hall spoke to the third son, Matt Ogles, who also stated that he owned his own business and had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. At no time during the interview of June 12, 2013, did any of the three sons state that they were employees of their father’s business. After interviewing the four Ogles, Investigator Hall left the jobsite in order to gain access to a wireless internet connection for his computer. Once he obtained a connection, Investigator Hall accessed the Division of Corporations website to look up the correct names of the businesses owned by the four Ogles. With respect to the two Petitioners, the website revealed that Stephen Ogles was the sole member of Stephen Ogles, LLC, and that Robert Ogles, Jr., was the sole member of RL Ogles Roofing, LLC. Investigator Hall then accessed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to ascertain the status of workers compensation coverage for the four individuals. CCAS revealed that while both Petitioners had at one time held exemptions, both exemptions had expired at the time of Investigator Hall’s site visit on June 12, 2013. Based upon this information, Investigator Hall reasonably concluded that both Petitioners were not in compliance with Florida workers’ compensation coverage requirements. With respect to the third son, Matt, Mr. Hall’s investigation revealed that his company, Matt Ogles, LLC, held a valid exemption, and was therefore compliant with the workers compensation coverage requirements. As such, Investigator Hall did not issue an SWO to Matt Ogles, LLC. After accessing information about Petitioners’ status on his computer, Investigator Hall returned to the jobsite. Upon his return, he observed all four of the Ogles working at the jobsite, with two actively working on the roof of the home. Investigator Hall then called those on the roof down, and served the SWOs on Petitioners. The facts uncovered in Investigator Hall's investigation on June 12, 2013, provided the Department with a reasonable basis to issue the SWOs to Petitioners. On June 17, 2013, Petitioners timely filed a Request for Hearing alleging the affirmative defense that Petitioners had valid workers' compensation exemptions. The Request for Hearing filed on behalf of Stephen Ogles, LLC, specifically stated: The Respondent disputes the SWO, to wit: The Owner’s exemption was not expired. And although worded somewhat differently, the Request for Hearing filed on behalf of RL Ogles Roofing, LLC, stated: The Respondent disputes the SWO, to wit: The WC Exemption was current. The Requests for Hearing filed by Petitioners on June 17, 2013, are consistent with the representations made to Investigator Hall on June 12, 2013, to wit, both Petitioners were subcontractors on the job, and held valid exemptions. On September 10, 2013, Petitioners filed an Amended Request for Hearing disputing the penalty assessment, and contending that Petitioners were employees of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. The Amended Request for Hearing stated in pertinent part: The Respondents disputes the SWO, to wit: Ogles Construction and Roofing LLC disputes the penalty assessment. RL Ogles, LLC contends that he was an employee of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Stephen Ogles, LLC contends that he was an employee of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. On October 8, 2013, Respondent issued an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation) to Stephen Ogles, LLC, and RL Ogles Roofing, LLC. Two witnesses testified as to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees being sought by Petitioners. Petitioners’ witness on the subject, John Middleton, is a Jacksonville attorney with eight years’ experience in handling workers’ compensation defense matters. Mr. Middleton opined that the $5,000 in fees being claimed by each Petitioner was not excessive, particularly in view of the successful outcomes for Petitioners in the underlying cases. Respondent’s witness, Ralph Paul Douglas, Jr., is a Tallahassee attorney who has concentrated his practice on workers’ compensation matters for twenty years. Mr. Douglas testified that Petitioners’ attorney in the underlying cases claimed 13.3 hours per case for legal services. However, according to Mr. Douglas, at least 1.3 hours of the total hours should be deducted as not awardable due to those hours relating to the preparation of a motion in response to an order to compel. Such fees “cannot be related to any delay, any confusion caused by that party claiming the fees, . . . obfuscation, . . . anything that does not move the case along in the docket.” It was Mr. Douglas’s opinion that 12 hours of legal services is a reasonable number for the underlying cases. However, since the same itemized list of services was submitted for both cases, Mr. Douglas concluded that the second itemized list was duplicative and mostly amounted to only ministerial work. The second itemized list should be, therefore, apportioned. Mr. Douglas testified that a $10,000 fee for the work done on the underlying cases would not be appropriate or reasonable based on the pleadings, the deposition testimony of the attorney performing the work, and the itemization of services. Rather, a reasonable fee would be 12 hours at $200 per hour for one case ($2,400) and $1,200 on the second case. Thus, the total fees that should be awardable for both cases would be $3,600. While the testimony of both Mr. Middleton and Mr. Douglas is credible, the undersigned gives greater weight to the testimony of Mr. Douglas due to his greater experience in the field of workers’ compensation law, and his more detailed analysis of the legal services performed in the underlying cases. The unrebutted testimony presented by Stephen Ogles and Robert Ogles, Jr., established that their respective LLC’s employ fewer than 25 full-time employees and have a net worth of less than $2 million each.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Respondent is and at all material times has been licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida. He holds license number CC C026475. He is the qualifying agent for B & P Roofing, Inc. In July, 1986, B & P Roofing, Inc. performed a pre- closing roof inspection of the 1029 McKean residence at the request of the real estate broker handling the sale. The report, dated July 31, 1986, estimated that it would cost $1400 to reroof the flat roof areas and replace the skylights and $300 to replace some cracked tiles on the main, sloped roof. Noting that it was impossible to examine the roof membrane under the tiles, the report concludes that the repairs should be minimal. Chris and Heather Peterson purchased the 1029 McKean residence on August 9, 1986. In late December, 1986, or early January, 1987, the Petersons contacted B & P Roofing, Inc. and requested that they perform the roofing repairs identified in their earlier estimate. The parties agreed that B & P Roofing, Inc. would also replace two skylights for an additional $300. By Final Order filed on April 22, 1983, Petitioner reprimanded Respondent, as qualifying agent for B & P Roofing, Inc., for failing to obtain a permit and inspection in connection with a residential roof installation. By Final Order filed January 23, 1984, Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent, as qualifying agent for B & P Roofing, Inc., for failure to obtain building permits on three different roofing jobs. As a result of these disciplinary actions, B & P Roofing, Inc. adopted a procedure by which each job could be readily checked in the office as to whether a permit had been obtained. A chart is posted in the office and each job is marked as to whether it requires a permit and, if so, whether a permit has been issued. After the Peterson job had been obtained but before work had begun, Richard Francis Xavier McFadden, the president of B & P Roofing, Inc. noticed that the Peterson job had been posted in the office, but the "permit" column had not been checked. He asked Patricia McFadden, his wife who was performing clerical work in the office, why no permit was required for the job. She told him that she had been told by someone at the Winter Park Building Department that one was not required. Mr. McFadden immediately telephoned the Winter Park Building Department to confirm that no permit would be required for the job. He spoke with Karen Clayton, who is the secretary of the Winter Park Building and Zoning Department and handles the issuance of permits, which may be ordered by telephone. Using a Roof Work Sheet dated January 7, 1987, Mr. McFadden described the job to Ms. Clayton. Ms. Clayton placed her hand over the telephone, checked with a nearby building inspector, and informed Mr. McFadden that no permit would be necessary. In fact, the scope of the job required the issuance of a building permit. Ms. Clayton testified that she did not understand at the time that she spoke with Mr. McFadden that an existing roof was being torn off. She also testified that she had not previously heard the phrase, ??90 pound reroofing felt,!? which Mr. McFadden used to describe the job. It is apparent that Mr. McFadden accurately described the job, but Ms. Clayton misunderstood the description and gave him the wrong advice. Without a permit, B & P Roofing, Inc. began the work on or about January 17, 1987, and completed the work in late January or early February, 1987. No inspection of the job was performed by the Winter Park Building Department during the job or immediately after its completion. After Petitioner commenced its investigation, B & P Roofing, Inc., at the investigator's suggestion, obtained a permit on June 30, 1987, and the job passed a final inspection performed on that date or shortly thereafter. Respondent was never aware of the Peterson job until after it had been completed.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Findings Adopted, except that the last two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant, except that the last sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Poor workmanship or improper materials is generally not probative of the issues whether Respondent deliberately or through improper supervision failed to obtain a permit or inspection. The only situation in which poor workman- ship or improper materials might be relevant would be if the workmanship or material so deviated from the norm that Respondent and the employees of B & P Roofing, Inc. knew that the job could never pass an inspection. The evidence failed to prove such a deviation in this case. The testimony of Julian Garcia, Petitioner's expert witness, tended to prove such a deviation, but ultimately failed because of the inadequate familiarity of the wit- ness with the specifics of the Peterson job, such as the degree of scope present in the flat areas of the roof and the specific roofing material used in these areas. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence is adopted. Second sentence, although strictly speaking is true, is rejected to the extent that it implies that no inspection took place. Such an implication is against the greater weight of the evi- dence. Ms. Clayton's testimony explains the omission from the record. First, the building inspector whom Rich McFadden testified performed the inspection died shortly thereafter. Second, the inspector probably had no opportunity to record it before the file was closed because the inspection likely took place on the same day or within days of the closing of the file. Ms. Clayton's candid testimony in this regard offers little basis for inferring that the absence of a record entry means no inspection took place, especially in view of the positive testimony of Mr. McFadden that he accom- panied the inspector to the house for the final inspection. Adopted, except that two telephone contacts took place before the work began. Rejected as unnecessary and against the greater weight of the evidence. Mr. and Mrs. McFadden testified in detail to the circumstances surrounding why no permit was obtained. Against such detailed testimony, Respondent's questionnaire response is entitled to little weight. Adopted. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. There was an insufficient predicate for much of Mr. Garcia's testimony for the reasons set forth in paragraph 3 above. 11-12. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John Sunner, Esquire Post Office Box 1717 Casselberry, Florida 32707 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's contractor license number CG C022926, issued by the State of Florida, based upon the violations of Section 489.105(4), 489.113(3), 489.117(2), 489.115(1)(b), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), alleged in three administrative complaints filed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Richard Lee Melvin, was a licensed contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C022926, by the State of Florida. The Armstrong Job On or about February 26, 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong entered into a contract with Sunshine State Homes to do certain siding work and roofing work on two mobile homes owned by the Armstrongs located at 4605 and 4607 Orange Drive in Holiday, Florida. The cost of the repairs under the contract was $6,400. Although the Respondent did not sign that contract, his name and license number appeared on it, he applied for and was granted the necessary Pasco County permit for Sunshine State Homes using his licensure. At the time he applied for the permit, the Respondent knew that Sunshine State Homes was not licensed since he was considering qualifying that company. The permit that the Respondent received from Pasco County required, among other things, that all the Respondent's work conform with the requirements of state and county codes and regulations. The Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor for Sunshine State Homes even though his certificate did not contain the name Sunshine State Homes. After the signing of the contract, work began on both structures. The roof was replaced on the main structure, and the Armstrongs were informed that the Rainbow Roof System contracted for could not be installed. After work began, it rained and because of improper construction techniques, both mobile homes flooded. Representatives of Sunshine State Homes attempted to correct the problems, but when it rained again, there was substantial leaking in both mobile homes. A rug from the main mobile home had to be removed. Another attempt was made to correct the leaks at the rental unit by re-coating the roof with sealant. Again, it rained, and both mobile homes flooded. Both mobile homes had leaks where, prior to construction beginning, they did not have leaks. Insurance covered $1,200 of the damage to the main mobile home. There also was damage that was not covered by insurance. The type of roof put on the main coach resulted in leaks all along the seam between the roof over the main coach and the roof over the addition to the main structure. The water leaked through the walls of the mobile home, causing water damage. On or about April 7, 1987, the roofs supposedly were finished, and the contractor wanted the rest of his money. The Armstrongs refused to give the balance of the money until another heavy rain was experienced. After representatives from Sunshine State Homes made various threats, the owners paid Sunshine State all but $900 of the contract price. The $900 was withheld to cover the water damage sustained as a result of the leaks. The work that was done was required to be inspected by Pasco County. The work had not been inspected because neither the Respondent nor anyone else from Sunshine State had called for inspections. The work that was done deteriorated over the summer months. On October 14, 1987, the homeowners contracted with Holiday Aluminum to replace the two mobile home roofs in accordance with the contract previously entered into between the homeowners and Sunshine State Homes. It cost the homeowners $4,300 to have the two new roofs installed. They have not experienced any problems with the roofs installed by Holiday Aluminum. The work Sunshine State did under the Respondent's licensure was done in a grossly negligent or incompetent manner. The Respondent and Tropical Exteriors The Respondent was contacted by Jeff Gaston, in mid-November, 1986. Gaston wanted the Respondent to qualify Gaston's company, Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc. The Respondent met with Gaston and Gaston's attorney, and the Respondent understood that it would take time for all of the paperwork to be concluded. Towards the end of March, 1987, the Respondent started having concerns about his business relationship with Gaston and Tropical. However, the Respondent took no action to terminate that relationship or otherwise advise any governmental agencies involved or homeowners that he was not associated with Tropical until May 13, 1987. There was a continuous business relationship between the Respondent and Tropical for the period November, 1986, through May 13, 1987. The Respondent never qualified Tropical. The Respondent knew that Tropical was using his name in connection with its business after November, 1986. He also thought he would be given notice of any contracts Tropical entered into. But Tropical entered into contracts with the Clems and the Warzyboks and began work without telling the Respondent. The homeowners relied on Tropical's representations regarding the Respondent's association with the business. The Clem Job In November, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Clem knew that they needed a new roof on their residence located 10511 - 53rd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, because the shingles were curling. However, they did not have any leaks in the roof. In November, 1986, the Clems were contacted by Millie Morris regarding the roof repairs. Morris stated that she worked for Tropical and was representing U.S. Steel. She advised the Clems that she would like to use the Clem home in an advertising campaign. The Clems did not have the cash money to pay for the repairs and needed financing. As part of that financing, Morris stated that she would give the Clems a $300 rebate on contracting resulting from any leads the Clems gave her. The Clems were able to obtain a second mortgage on their home which provided for the financing of the needed improvements. On or about February 9, 1987, the Clems entered into a contract with Tropical. At the time of the signing of the contract, Morris again reaffirmed to the Clems that any leads the Clems gave Morris that resulted in a contract would result in the Clems being paid the sum of $300. The Clems put $1,000 down at the time of signing the contract and were to pay $1,500 during the course of the job and $2,500 on completion of the job. Before entering into the contract, the Clems relied on the information on the contract letterhead which contained the Respondent's name, type of state certificate, license number, number of years of experience and a representation that the Respondent was insured. Additionally, the Clems called the Better Business Bureau and checked on Tropical to see if any complaints had been filed. The contract provided for, among other things, the removal of the old roof, installation of a new roof, the installation of soffit and facia, the installation of doors and windows and a guaranty on all the work. Shortly after the contract was signed and work was started on the roof, the Clems told Morris the people across the street from them needed repairs. Those people signed a contract with Tropical to have their roof replaced. The work was done, but the Clems received nothing for giving Tropical the customer lead. After the work was done, the Clems dealt with Morris and Gaston. Several times after the job was started, the Clems tried to get Gaston on the job site because the roof was leaking, there was no flashing around the drain pipes and vents, the aluminum edging was bent in many places and the siding had fallen on the ground. Several times when a representative of Tropical was on the job site, Mrs. Clem pointed out to them that the aluminum was bent in places, the seams were cut crooked, there were unnecessary splices in the aluminum, there were bad cuts around certain pipes, there was an electric light left hanging, the wrong weather stripping had been installed around the door, other weather stripping was not put up right, the windows were not sealed, the roof leaked, there was unnecessary tar on the shingles and there were aluminum overlaps facing the street, among other things. From that point forward, representatives of Tropical assured the Clems on many occasions that those problems would be corrected by a date certain, but the deadline was missed in every base. During the construction, the Clems agreed to pay Tropical the $1,500 due during the construction and $2,000 of the $2,500 that was due at the end of construction because a representative of Tropical explained to them that the job was near completion, Tropical needed the money to cover expenses and that Tropical would put in a bedroom window in the Clems residence at no charge. After many telephone conversations and on-site inspections by Tropical, all to no avail, Tropical agreed to finish the job if the Clems would pay him the remaining $500 and if the Clems would pay him an additional $150 for the bedroom window Otherwise, Tropical threatened to forfeit the $500 and not complete the job. The Clems agreed because they knew that it would cost them more than $500 to have the job completed by someone else. The job still was not competed, and the complaints were not corrected. The Clems called another siding contractor, who told the Clems that he would charge $750 just to correct the siding problems, that no permits had been pulled for the job and that the Clems should not allow any further work to be done until the permits had been pulled for the siding and the roof. When the building department received the siding contractor's inquiry regarding the permits, it contacted Tropical. The Clems had several conversations with their attorney, who advised the Clems that it would be cheaper to attempt to solve the problem with Tropical than to get a new contractor. Several attempts were made to have Tropical complete the job, but Tropical continuously failed to honor its agreements. The last time anyone from Tropical was on the job site was April 17, 1987. As of the hearing date, the complaints had not been corrected, and the work had not been completed in accordance with the contract. On or about March 13, 1987, the Respondent obtained a building permit from Pinellas County, Florida, for the installation of the aluminum soffit and facia work, only. Later, after the Respondent had terminated his relationship with Tropical, the job was inspected by the Department of Building Inspections of Pinellas County and was cited for violations of the applicable local codes which never were corrected. The work that was done was done in a grossly negligent or incompetent manner. The Warzybok Case On or about January 14, 1987, Mr. and Mrs. Warzybok, entered into a contract with Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc., for the removal and replacement of the Warzyboks flat roof at their residence located at 6088 - 27th Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida. Before entering into the contract, the Warzyboks relied on the information on the contract letterhead which contained the Respondent's name, type of state certificate, license number, number of years of experience and the representation that the Respondent was insured. Additionally, the Warzyboks called the Better Business Bureau and checked on Tropical Exteriors and Services, Inc., to see if any complaints had been filed. Before entering into the contract, the Warzyboks' old flat roof was leaking on the outside of an exterior wall but was not leaking inside. Shortly after the contract was signed, Tropical tore off the old roof, mopped one coat of tar over it, and after it started to rain, put some visqueen over the roof and left. Sometime during the following week, representatives of Tropical finished mopping, put some roof paper down and did some other miscellaneous work. Approximately one week later, Warzybok had the tile roof over the main house pressure cleaned (this roof was connected to the flat roof). When the water from the pressure cleaning came off the tile roof onto the flat roof, the water flooded the room underneath the flat roof. The Warzyboks also discovered that there were broken tiles on the roof over the main house. The flat roof was now leaking inside as well as outside. The Warzyboks attempted on numerous occasions to contact Tropical and have Tropical correct the problems and finish the work. Numerous appointments were made to finish the work and correct the problems, most of which were not kept. Whatever work was done by Tropical did not complete the job or correct the problems. At one point, Tropical sent out a new roofer, Bill Vance, who told the Warzyboks that the roof needed to be totally redone. Several months after the job was started, the homeowners called the City to get an inspection and determined that no permit had been obtained for the job. The City of St. Petersburg Building Department went to the Warzybok property and determined that there had been no permit issued and that the persons who were working on the premises were not licensed roofers. The building department placed a stop order on the work and told the Warzyboks that they needed a licensed roofer to complete the job. The job still has not been completed, and the problems have not been corrected. As of the hearing date, the Warzyboks have problem with leaking skylights, skylights covered with tar, a leaking fireplace, plaster being separated from the sheetrock because of water damage, roofing tiles that were not replaced after they were broken by Tropical and tar on the bottom of the roof, among other things. The Warzyboks got an estimate of $275 just to replace one piece of plaster adjacent to the fireplace only. Tropical started the roof as a three-ply roof and then changed the roof to a one-ply roof. There has been leaking at the chimney and at the skylights, which were not properly installed Some of the tile removed from the main roof at the point of tie-in with the flat roof has not been replaced properly and, in some places, has not been replaced at all. The Respondent, under whose license the work was done, did not know of, and did not properly supervise, the installation of the roof. The roof was installed in an incompetent manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board find the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.105(4), 489.119, and 489.129(1)(d), (e), (g), (j) and (m) , Florida Statutes, and that, as punishment, impose on the Respondent a fine of $5000, suspend the Respondent's license for three years and place the Respondent on probation for one year after termination of the suspension conditioned on completion of continuing education designated by the Board and on such other terms that the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-5197, 88-5198 and 88-5199 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Sixth sentence, rejected because it was additional sealant, not fiberglass, that was put on the rental unit. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the "high ridge" rejected as not supported by the evidence but otherwise accepted and incorporated. Rejected that the owners held back $1,400 (they held back $900) but otherwise accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the owners' telephone calls to the inspection department and the inspection results rejected as not supported by the evidence. First and penultimate sentences, accepted and incorporated. 10.-11. Accepted and incorporated. 12. Subordinate and unnecessary. 13.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-33. Accepted and incorporated. 34. Proposed findings that the permit was pulled after the work for purposes of correcting the work rejected as not proven by the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 35.-45. Accepted and incorporated. The estimate was for plaster, not "plastic." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not supported by the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (These rulings relate to the unnumbered paragraphs in the Respondent's March 23, 1989, letter, starting with the third paragraph. They are assigned consecutive paragraph numbers for purposes of these rulings.) Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. First and last sentences, accepted and incorporated. Second and third sentences, rejected as contrary to facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as unclear. Accepted. First sentence, incorporated; second sentence unnecessary. First and third sentences, rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; second sentence, accepted but unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated (although the unlicensed companies using the Respondent's name also did work and assumed responsibility for the jobs over which the Respondent exercised no control at all.) Second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard Lee Melvin 12737 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a roofing contractor and held license number RC 0021620. Respondent has worked in the roofing business since 1947 and has been a licensed contractor since 1969. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the owner and qualifying agent for Dingle Roofing Company. There have been no previous disciplinary actions brought against the Respondent and he has never been sued. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At the time his deposition was taken Ted Matchett lived in Crescent City, Florida. At all other times pertinent hereto, Mr. Matchett was the owner and a resident of a duplex located at 2595 Tigertail, Miami, Florida. Mr. Matchett lived in one side of the duplex, which consisted of approximately two- thirds of the property, with his housekeeper, Daniel Lopez. The remainder of the duplex was rented to a tenant who was not identified by name. The roof of Mr. Matchett's duplex consisted of two pitched roofs which tied in to a flat roof. Prior to the work at issue in this proceeding, the pitched portions of the roof were covered with Spanish tile. The roof was approximately twenty years old, leaked in several locations, and was in bad repair. The evidence in this proceeding is consistent with the opinion expressed by the Respondent that Mr. Matchett's roof should have been replaced five years before he contracted with Respondent. At some date prior to contracting with the Respondent, Mr. Matchett hired a "handyman" to go up on his roof and repair the leaks that Mr. Matchett had detected. This handyman did not testify at the formal hearing and his qualifications as a roofer were not established. The handyman patched portions of the flat roof by covering the existing roof with slats and plywood, covering this with tar paper, and applying cold tar. The manner in which the handyman repaired Mr. Matchett's roof does not meet the South Florida Building Code and is not an effective method of repairing leaks. The only practical way to seal a flat roof is to mop it with hot tar. Mr. Matchett testified that the handyman had stopped the leaks and that his roof was not leaking when Respondent's company began its work. The greater weight of the evidence established that the roof was still leaking after the work by the handyman, and that these leaks could not be stopped until the roof was repaired by a roofer. The flat portion of the roof had an air conditioning unit on it. The vent areas of the air conditioner were still leaking after the handyman had done his work. On July 19, 1991, Dingle Roofing Company entered into a contract with Mr. Matchett to re-roof the subject duplex. The contract between Dingle Roofing Company and Mr. Matchett was on a form used by Dingle Roofing Company. The Respondent negotiated this contract and executed it on behalf of his company. The contract amount for the re-roofing portion of the job was in the amount of $5,460. The parties agreed that Respondent's company would add insulation to one portion of the property for an additional payment of $350. The contract required that debris be removed and that rotten wood be replaced. The amount specified in the contract contemplated that up to 200 feet of rotten wood would be replaced. Any rotten wood in excess of 200 feet that needed to be replaced would be replaced at the rate of $1.40 per foot. The contract was silent as to when payment would be due for replacement of rotten lumber exceeding 200 feet. The following appeared as paragraph two of the "General Terms and Conditions" of the standard form contract used by Dingle Roofing Company: 2. EXCEPTED LABILITY: Dingle Roofing Company shall not be responsible for damages or delay, either before commencement of or during the said work described herein on account of transportation difficulties, priorities, accidents, war, act of God, fire, sudden rains, storms, windstorms, other casualty or theft or other causes beyond its control. There was no beginning date for the work and no completion date specified by the contract. The contract was accepted by Mr. Matchett on July 19, 1991. Pertinent to this proceeding, the form contract contained the name, address and telephone numbers of Dingle Contracting Company and the following language that Petitioner asserts violates the provisions of Section 489.119(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1989): "ALL TYPES OF ROOFS" and "FREE ESTIMATES". The number, CC 000011956, appearing under the Respondent's signature on the contract with Mr. Matchett was not the Respondent's state contractor license number but was a county license number. The Respondent's state contractor license number RC 0021620 did not appear on the contract. On July 23, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $1,000. On August 15, 1991, Mr. Matchett paid Respondent the sum of $2,000. 3/ Respondent's company did not start the subject job right away because he was backed up with work. Mr. Matchett knew at the time he executed the contract that Respondent's company would not be able to immediately begin the work on the roof. On August 12, 1991, Respondent's company began the subject job. The South Florida Building Code, the code used by the City of Miami, required that a building permit be obtained for roof repairs. Respondent's company did not secure a building permit for this work until November 6, 1991. The Respondent's company worked on Mr. Matchett's roof between August 12 and August 16, 1991. There was a considerable amount of rain prior to and during the time Respondent's men started work on the roof. The work began on the pitched parts since a pitched roof is easier to seal off in the event of rain. After drying in the pitched portions of the roof, work began on the flat portion of the roof where most of the rotten wood was located. On August 14, 1991, Respondent's workmen opened a small section of the flat portion of the roof to replace rotten wood. Before they could complete the work, it began to rain. The workers covered the area with plywood and tar. The workmen returned on August 17, 1991, and placed a tarpaulin over this area. There was no evidence that the workmen failed to act within the standards of the industry in sealing this exposed area. Petitioner asserted at the hearing that the workmen tore holes in the roof and caused tile to be dropped through the ceiling of the duplex into the interior of the premises. Mr. Matchett testified that the interior of his home was damaged by these acts and by leaks caused by the workmen employed by Respondent's company. David Dingle and Edward Dingle, two of the workers who did the work on Mr. Matchett's roof, testified at the formal hearing as to the work that was done on the roof and as to the manner in which the work was done. Their testimony conflicts with that of Mr. Matchett. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that while the interior of the duplex was damaged by leaks and there was a hole in the ceiling, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent's workmen caused the leaks that damaged Mr. Matchett's property by the work they did on the duplex. Respondent presented credible evidence that the leaks that damaged the interior of the duplex were on the flat portion of the roof and existed before the Respondent's company began work on the roof. Respondent's company stopped work on Mr. Matchett's roof on August 16, 1991. On August 17, 1991, the workers returned to Mr. Matchett's property, but only to place a tarpaulin over an area of the roof they knew was leaking. Although there were conflicts in the evidence as to the reasons the work was stopped on August 16, 1991, these conflicts are resolved by finding that there were two reasons that work was stopped on that date. First, the workmen discovered that the job was more difficult and would be more expensive because of the amount of rotten wood that needed to be replaced. Respondent had asked Mr. Matchett for more money, but he refused to pay any more until the job was completed. Respondent asked Mr. Matchett for additional money to replace rotten wood since it became apparent that there was rotten wood in excess of 200 feet. 4/ Mr. Matchett had paid the Respondent $3,000, and he refused to make further payment until the work was completed. Second, the rainy season began in South Florida. To properly repair the flat portions of the roof, the Respondent's workmen would have to replace the rotten wood and replace the roof using a hot tar mix. The rotten wood could not be removed during rain because such removal would expose the interior of the house to rain. Additionally, hot tar cannot be mopped on during rain. Mr. Matchett's roof was leaking at the time that the Respondent's company discontinued work in August 1991. Respondent knew that most of the flat portion of the roof was rotten, and he should have known that it was not watertight. Petitioner did not establish what Respondent should have done knowing that the flat roof was not watertight. On August 19, 1991, a heavy rain revealed several leaks. Mr. Matchett made repeated efforts to reach the Respondent by telephone at the telephone numbers listed on the contract. Mr. Matchett talked to the Respondent by telephone on Sunday, October 6, 1991, and was told by the Respondent that he had underestimated the job and that he would finish when he could. After August 17, 1991, the Respondent's company did no further work on Mr. Matchett's roof until November 4, 1991. Thereafter, the Respondent's men worked steadily until they completed the dry-in on November 11, 1991. The dry- in passed inspection on November 22, 1991, and the Respondent finished the job in December, 1991. Petitioner failed to establish that the failure of Respondent's company to resume work on Mr. Matchett's roof prior to November, 1991, constituted fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The only expert testimony in this proceeding was that Respondent acted consistent with the industry practices considering the rainy season, the extensive amount of rotten wood that needed to be repaired, and Mr. Matchett's unwillingness to pay for the additional wood that the job required. Petitioner introduced no expert testimony to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which: Finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and which assesses an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of $100.00 for that violation. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Finds that Respondent did not violate the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1989), as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of July 1994.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C005171. Respondent was licensed as an individual and not as the qualifying agent of any corporation or other business organization. At all times material hereto, Henry Pena was the sole officer and director of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., a Florida corporation. Neither Henry Pena nor U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Pena"), were registered, certified, or otherwise qualified under the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent was clearly aware of Pena's lack of licensure.1 The Zapata job Pertinent to this case, Oscar and Consuelo Zapata owned a one-story commercial building located at 59 Beacom Boulevard, Miami, Florida. On August 1, 1996,2 Mr. Pena, on behalf of U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp., and Mr. Zapata entered into an agreement whereby U.S.A. Henry Roofing Corp. would replace the roof on the building in exchange for an agreed price of $18,200. A first payment of $8,000 was to be paid after the first inspection, and the balance of $10,200 was to be paid following the final inspection. Later in the month of August, Mr. Pena presented a building and zoning permit application, as well as a request for permit, to Mr. Zapata (as owner of the property) for signature. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8.) Following Mr. Zapata's signing, Mr. Pena delivered the forms to Respondent who signed as the contractor. Thereafter, on or about September 3, 1996, Respondent submitted the forms to the City of Miami to obtain a building permit for the re-roofing job. Respondent was not then, nor was he ever, under contract to make improvements to the Zapata property, and his sole involvement was to obtain a permit so Pena could proceed with the job. The permit was issued on or about September 5, 1996.3 On September 17, 1996, Pena began work on the roof, and ceased work the same day when the roof collapsed.4 With the discovery that Pena was not licensed or insured, Mr. Zapata ultimately contracted with another company (that was licensed) to re-roof the building for $16,000. That contract was duly fulfilled, and the re-roofing of the Zapata building was accomplished (notwithstanding the roof collapse) without financial loss to the Zapatas.5 Respondent's lapse of insurance coverage Respondent's liability and property damage insurance policy was terminated June 25, 1996, and was not reinstated until September 19, 1996. Respondent does not dispute the lapse in insurance coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 10, and Transcript, at pages 76-77, and 80-81.) The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, the Department offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totalled $306.09, as of January 27, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Previous disciplinary action On January 18, 1996, the Department entered a final order which found the Respondent guilty of the violations set forth in a two-count Administrative Complaint issued March 25, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) In that complaint, the Department charged (in Count I) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes, "by performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the cerfificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered," and (in Count II) that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, "by being found guilty of fraud, deceit, or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting." Such charges were premised on a renovation contract Respondent held wherein he "subcontracted Nelson Echeverria [who was not a state licensed electrical contractor] to perform electrical work at customer's home for approximately $4,500.00." The final order found Respondent guilty of the charges, and imposed an administrative fine of $1,500 and costs of $1,433.03, to be paid within 30 days. On March 8, 1996, Respondent's license was suspended for failure to satisfy the penalty imposed by the final order; however, the penalty was then apparently satisfied and on June 19, 1996, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violations, an administrative fine in the sum of $5,000; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $306.09; and, suspending Respondent's licensure for a period of one year, followed by a two-year term of probation subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Joseph J. Proctor committed violations of Chapter 489, F.S., relating to the practice of construction contracting, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Joseph J. Proctor has been a registered roofing contractor at all times material to this proceeding. His license number is RC 0026805. On or about June 13, 1985, Proctor contracted with Dawn Ladson to fix her roof and install two skylights at her home at 401 Basewood Avenue, Altamonte Springs, in Seminole County, Florida. A few days later, Proctor replaced the existing roof with shingles and installed the two skylights. Ms. Ladson paid him a total of $2,050.00 for the work. Her last payment, $500.00, was made on June 27, 1985. At that point, he was not finished, but asked for a payment and Ms. Ladson decided to pay the full amount. Installing the skylights required cutting holes in the roof. After placing the skylights Proctor did not come back to seal the interior; as soon as it rained, the roof leaked. After some cajoling by Ms. Ladson, Proctor came back and did some work on sealing the skylights. However, they still leaked. The skylights were still leaking approximately a year later when Ms. Ladson directed her complaints to the Department of Professional Regulation. At the instigation of Jerome Maynor, DPR Investigator, Ms. Ladson and Proctor executed an agreement dated September 11, 1986, specifying repairs to be done and monetary reimbursement to be made by Proctor. The agreement also specified that Proctor would obtain the necessary permits. Sometime later, Proctor returned to the Ladson home and replaced the skylights. After that they still leaked. Ms. Lads on asked Proctor to fix them again and he kept saying he would, but he never returned. Eventually the repairs were done by another company. Proctor never applied for a building permit, as required by Seminole County, for the work he did on Ms. Ladson's home. Proctor claims, unconvincingly, that he came back to fix the roof each time Ms. Ladson called. He admits that he did not pull the permits, but claims that the arrangement was that Ms. Ladson would handle the permits. He admits that he never saw a permit displayed on the site and it should have been.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Joseph James Proctor guilty of violating subsections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), F.S., as charged and assessed an administrative fine of $750.00, as proposed by counsel for DPR. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph J. Proctor 514 Peachtree Lane Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel 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 By Administrative Complaint filed on March 24, 1982, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, charged the Respondent, David Morton, with specific violations of Florida Statutes and Section 81-64 of the City of Hollywood Ordinances. The charged violations generally involve the alleged failure of Mr. Morton to obtain building permits prior to performing roofing repairs and failure to honor and make good certain guarantees that he gave on two roof repair jobs. Petitioner presented the testimony of Carol Glovan, of the City of Hollywood Building Department; Maurice Segall, complainant; and Hershal K. Deuchare, complainant. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 7 were received into evidence. Respondent failed to appear and, therefore, presented no witnesses or documentary evidence on his behalf. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted in this order, they were considered and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered roofing contractor having been issued License No. RC0030473. David Norton was first licensed as a registered roofing contractor in July, 1977. License No. RC0030473 was issued to David Morton qualifying David Morton Roofing, 6422 Southwest 24th Street, Miramar, Florida 33023. Since qualifying David Morton Roofing, the Respondent has changed business addresses but has not qualified any other business name for the purpose of performing work under his license. On May 8, 1980, the Respondent contracted with H. Deuchare to perform repairs on the roof of the Deuchares' home located at 5521 Buchannon Street, Hollywood, Florida. The contract price was $500. The written contract dated May 9, 1980, and attached as a part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3, reflects that the name in which the Respondent was doing business at that time was "David M. Roofing." The contract also provided for a one-year guarantee against faulty material and workmanship. Respondent performed the roof repairs on the Deuchare home but failed to obtain a permit for the work as required by Section 81-64, City of Hollywood Ordinances. After completion of the work, the roof continued to leak, and after two calls from Mr. Deuchare, the Respondent came out and attempted to repair the work. Following this repair effort, the roof leaked worse than before. After continuing calls, the Respondent finally got the leak fixed. However, during the course of making the final repair, the Respondent removed tiles from the roof and broke certain of the tiles. Following completion of the repair, Respondent did not put the tiles back in place and refused to come back and replace the broken tiles. The Respondent made a total of three repair visits to the Deuchare home and on the occasion of each call, was very cordial. On April 22, 1981, Respondent contracted with Maurice Segall to perform roof repairs on the Segalls' home located at 4400 Lincoln Street, Hollywood, Florida. The contract price was $1,075.00. The contract which is attached to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4 is dated April 22, 1981, and reflects that the Respondent was doing business in the name of David M. Roofing. The contract also provided for a guarantee for seven years against faulty material and workmanship. The Respondent performed the work on the roof but failed to obtain a building permit prior to beginning the work as required by Section 81-64, City of Hollywood Ordinances. A building permit was later obtained after the repairs were completed. After the Respondent performed the work, the roof continued to leak, and after many calls, Respondent sent someone out to make additional repairs. After Mr. Segall initiated an action with the county licensing board, Mr. Morton did come out and do the roof over again and performed the work in a proper manner. Mr. Morton did obtain a proper hermit prior to performing the work the second time. No charge was made to Mr. Segall for the work performed in redoing the job. Following this work, the roof did not leak.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Mr. David Morton to have violated Florida Statutes 489.129(1)(d) and Florida Statutes 489.119. It is further recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine upon the Respondent of $250 and that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six months. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 11th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101, Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Mr. David Morton 6432 S.W. 24th Street Miramar, Florida 33023 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Bill Schnell (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner was the state entity charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of unlicensed construction and contracting within the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes (2005). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was not licensed as a contractor nor has he ever been certified or licensed to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Hurricane Wilma struck Florida in the fall of 2005. Many residential structures were damaged by the storm in Boca Raton, Florida. Ms. Jean Pflaum resided in Boca Raton and the roof to her home was one of the structures damaged. Ms. Pflaum met the Respondent when he came through her neighborhood offering to repair damaged homes. On or about December 7, 2005, Ms. Pflaum contracted with the Respondent to repair her roof. In accordance with their agreement, Ms. Pflaum tendered the sum of $1990.00 to the Respondent, who did not competently complete the repair. Instead, the Respondent caused greater damage to the Pflaum residence. In short, Ms. Pflaum ended up hiring another contractor to correctly repair her roof and the damages caused by the Respondent. Ms. Pflaum expended an additional $2,300.00 to have the work completed. Ms. Pflaum had believed the Respondent to be a licensed person. He had represented his Florida license to be #CBC 1251460. That number corresponds to the license held by F. Devine Construction, a company unrelated to the Respondent. In fact, the Petitioner received a complaint from E. Devine Construction, Inc. The complaint alleged, among other things, that someone who represented himself to be "Bill Schnell" was using their license number without their consent or agreement. Upon receipt of this complaint, the Petitioner issued a cease and desist order against the Respondent. The Respondent never repaired Ms. Pfaum's roof, never refunded her money for the repair, and never resolved the Petitioner's complaint against him. In fact, the Respondent represented to the Petitioner that he would be moving to the Dominican Republic. The Petitioner incurred expenses and costs associated with the investigation of this case against the Respondent. Those costs, as of the date of the hearing, totaled $429.24. Those costs do not include any legal or attorneys fees associated with the prosecution of the case. The Respondent made no restitution in this cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order that imposes an administrative fine in an amount not less than $5000.00 against the Respondent and assesses costs of the investigation in an amount not less than $429.24. S DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bill Schnell c/o Elington Hernandes Acesor Legal Calle Restauracion, No. 125 Alto Santiago, Dominican Republic Bill Schnell 1432 Northeast 27th Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
