The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's contractor's license based upon the alleged violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") as a certified general contractor having been issued License No. CG C024612. Respondent has been a licensed contractor since 1983. On May 3, 1991, the Board filed a Final Order in Board Case Nos. 89-009986 and 89-013330 imposing a reprimand against Respondent. The Final Order was issued as part of the settlement of an amended administrative complaint filed against Respondent by Petitioner regarding certain unrelated transactions. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Willie William Construction Company, Inc. until October 1985. At that time, as a result of a corporate name change, Respondent became the qualified agent for Ashar Construction Company. On February 21, 1985, the Unsafe Structures Board of the Building and Zoning Department for Dade County advised Ruby Delancy that a hearing would be conducted on March 12, 1985 to determine whether a one story framed residence that Mrs. Delancy owned at 1005 NW 58th Street in Miami (the "House" or the "Property") should be demolished. The Notice indicated that the structure was "open, vacant, vandalized, filled with combustible materials; posing a serious fire hazard. Structure is a danger to human life and public welfare." The Notice estimated the present value of the building at $16,080 and the estimated cost of repairs at $51,120. The County's records indicate that a Notice of Violation regarding the Property had been issued to the owner on October 31, 1984. Facing imminent demolition of the House, Mrs. Delancy began to investigate possible ways to get the House repaired. She filed an application with the City of Miami for a low income, low interest loan that was funded through Federal HUD Community Development Funds. Her efforts to obtain funding to repair the House, delayed the proceedings that had been initiated to demolish the structure. In September of 1985, the City approved Mrs. Delancy for a grant of $10,000 and loan of $20,000 to repair the House. Mrs. Delancy has no other funds to pay for repairs to the Property other than the $30,000 she was obtaining through the City Program. Under the City's program, Mrs. Delancy was responsible for selecting a contractor. Mrs. Delancy contacted Respondent, who inspected the Property and prepared a construction estimate which was submitted to the City. Respondent entered into a contract (the "Contract") dated September 20, 1985 with Mrs. Delancy for home improvement work on the House. The total contract price was $29,870, which was to be paid in two installments: $10,835 on or before December 31, 1985 and a final payment of $19,035 on or before March 3, 1986. The evidence established that Respondent was initially reluctant to enter into the Contract and at least two other contractors refused to undertake the work given the limited funds available. However, Respondent agreed to take the job because of Mrs. Delancy's insistence and because of Respondent's sympathy for Mrs. Delancy's desperate situation in view of the imminent demolition of the House. The evidence also established that Mrs. Delancy requested Respondent to undertake additional work and/or services that were beyond the scope of the Contract. Among the extra items undertaken by Respondent was replacement of the floor in the family room. Additional expenses were also incurred because of unanticipated problems encountered during the renovation. For example one side of the house gave way during the renovation work. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there was no footing. Respondent was required to shore up that side of the House. In addition, the electrician was unable to get a meter because there was an outstanding electric bill for the Property. Respondent paid the old bill in order to get the meter connected. Similarly, she paid the gas company to get the stove hooked up. It does not appear Respondent received any additional compensation for the extra work. Except for $345 that Respondent paid for utilities on behalf of Mrs. Delancy, the evidence at the hearing was insufficient to place a dollar value on these extra services and expenses. The first installment under the Contract of $10,835 was paid to Respondent on or about December 31, 1985. In approximately January of 1986, Mrs. Delancy's son, Gerald Delancy, who had been living out of the state, returned to Miami and became involved in overseeing the construction on behalf of his mother. Gerald Delancy was not pleased with the quality of the construction and a great deal of tension developed between Gerald Delancy and Respondent. The final payment request form was submitted on February 20, 1986. Mrs. Delancy signed a document (the "Certificate of Completeness") indicating that the work was completed and the final payment was made to Respondent by the City on March 3, 1986. Gerald Delancy was present when his mother signed the Certificate of Completeness. She signed this Certificate against the advice of her son. At the time the document was signed, Respondent agreed in principal to complete any remaining work. The City Inspection Form which was posted on the project fails to indicate that a final inspection approval was obtained from the City. In addition, the evidence established that required roof inspections were not obtained prior to the final structural inspection. Gerald Delancy prepared a punch list of items which he felt were incomplete and submitted it to Respondent. It does not appear that this list was prepared until July of 1986. Because of the dispute between Respondent and Gerald Delancy as to what was required under the Contract, a copy of the punch list was also sent to the City. The punch list prepared by Gerald Delancy included a number of items which were beyond the scope of the Contract. For example, with respect to the plumbing, the complaints included the following: the water pressure was to low on the water line, the kitchen sink was too small, and the bathroom vanity was substandard. The Contract did not provide for a bathroom vanity. There were also complaints about ants and roaches and "missing shower rods and towel racks" even though these items were not specifically included within the Contract between Respondent and Mrs. Delancy. The City sent its estimator to the House to review the punch list items. The City's estimator felt that Respondent should provide another coat of paint and should complete some other minor repair work, but the estimator did not concur in many of Gerald Delancy's complaints. The City's rehabilitation estimator met with Respondent and Gerald Delancy at the House on July 15, 1986. At that meeting, Respondent agreed to correct certain matters and asked for one month to complete the work. On August 1, 1986, the work was not completed and Respondent requested an additional 30 days. On August 13, 1986, Respondent stated that she did not have the money to complete the work. According to the City's estimator, the cost to repair the construction deficiencies he noted would be approximately $2,500 to $3,000 as of the date of the hearing. During this period in August, Respondent did send some workers back to the house to complete some additional work. A dispute arose between those workers and Gerald Delancy. The exact nature and reasons for this dispute are not clear. Ultimately, Gerald Delancy refused to allow the workers to perform any work because he did not feel he received adequate answers to his inquiries as to the nature of the work they intended to perform. After the City refused to concur in all of his complaints, Gerald Delancy hired a building inspection company. He paid that company $534 and it rendered a report dated August 4, 1986 which detailed many other deficiencies in the construction. It is not clear whether this report was ever presented to Respondent. On or about November 3, 1986, Mrs. Delancy, at the urging of her son, filed a lawsuit against Respondent. On or about August 8, 1989, Mrs. Delancy obtained a final default judgement against Respondent in the amount of $65,000 plus costs of $102.50. Respondent claims that she was unaware of the lawsuit and the default final judgement until Petitioner's investigator questioned her about it on September 25, 1990. As of the date of the hearing in this case, Respondent has not appealed the judgement nor has she attempted to have it set aside or vacated. In addition to alleged construction defects, the default judgement included claims against Respondent for allegedly mishandling certain household goods and other property owned by Mrs. Delancy. The evidence presented in this case was confusing and inconclusive as to the nature and justification for these claims by the Delancys for property which Respondent was allegedly storing for Mrs. Delancy. Apparently, Respondent agreed to assist Mrs. Delancy by moving some of the furniture out of the house and placing it in storage during construction. The contract did not require Respondent to provide any moving or storage services and there is no evidence that Respondent was paid for this work. Some or all of the property that was moved out of the house was lost, stolen or destroyed. There is a dispute between the parties as to circumstances surrounding the loss of this property. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to establish what happened to the property, who was responsible for it and/or how much it was worth. It does appear that the default judgement against Respondent includes a very high assessment for the property involved. However, as noted above, that judgement has not been vacated or appealed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following disciplinary action against the Respondent: Imposition of an administrative fine of $1,000. Suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year, followed by two years probation under such terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 22nd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-6438 Only Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order. The following rulings are made with respect to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4, 11, and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 through 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 401 NW 2nd Ave., Ste N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Agnes Sangster 9925 NW 25th Ave. Miami, FL 33147 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Exec. Dir. Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Ste 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Luis Garcia, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June 2005, Respondent received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”) to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificate of Competency. Based on the Certificate of Competency, the Department issued Respondent a registered contractor’s license bearing license number RF11067267. Respondent also applied for a certificate of authority for his business, A.P.A. Plumbing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APA”). Based on the Certificate of Competency and the registered contractor’s license being granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to APA, QB 42763. Subsequent to the Department’s issuance of both the registered contractor’s license to Respondent and the certificate of authority for APA, Respondent and the Department learned that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency (hereinafter referred to as the “BCCO”) obtained by Respondent was not a valid certificate. Respondent’s actions were not as a result of any fraud or intentional action on the part of Respondent; however, it is acknowledged by all parties that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency obtained by Respondent was not valid. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the Miami-Dade BCCO employees were engaged in a scheme to defraud the public. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent obtained the BCCO Competency Card in deviation of any state laws or rules, or local ordinances. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the BCCO Competency Card was not a valid certificate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent’s attestation on the application was inaccurate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the approved BCCO qualifying board did not approve the Competency Card. At no time did Respondent have knowledge that any documents Respondent submitted to the Department contained false, forged, or otherwise inaccurate information or material. At the time the Department issued the registered contractor’s license and subsequent certificate of authority on the sole basis of the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency presented by Respondent, the Department properly issued the registered contractor’s license based on the information submitted to it. The parties stipulated that the Respondent was not entitled to the registered contractor’s license and certificate of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency was not a valid certificate. At the time of application to the Department, Respondent was not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department. Subsequent to Respondent’s initial application and receipt of registered contractor’s license RF11067267, Respondent has taken the competency test required to be properly licensed through the Department. Respondent asserts that he has passed the test. The Department will not dispute this if he is able to provide verification that he did receive a passing score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Luis Garcia violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew D. Morton Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Atkinson, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard A. Alayon, Esquire Alayon & Associates, P.A. 4551 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the following specific issues are presented: Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006 is an invalid delegation of legislative authority, and Whether application of the provisions of Section 112.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its quasi-judicial capacity constitutes an agency statement of general applicability that requires rulemaking by the agency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Goode “Buddy” Yeoman, is 64 years of age, and is an individual who has applied to the CILB for an individual certified general contracting license. Petitioner Yeoman has a prior felony conviction and his civil rights have not been restored. Petitioner Yeoman's felony conviction was imposed approximately 20 years ago in 1985 and was unrelated to the contracting practice or trade. Petitioner Yeoman was required to, and did, submit a completed form DBPR CILB 4359. Petitioner’s application was denied by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (“CILB” or “Board”), and on June 14, 2004, the CILB entered its “Notice of Intent to Deny” Petitioner Yeoman’s application for initial certified general contractor. Petitioner Yeoman has separately filed a petition for administrative proceedings regarding the CILB's denial of his initial certified general contractor license. As such, by operation of law no final agency action has to date been taken on Petitioner Yeoman's application. The license denial proceeding has been continued. This will allow the parties in that case to have the benefit of the final order in this rule challenge case. The sole basis for the denial of Petitioner Yeoman’s application was that his civil rights had not been restored. The CILB’s “Notice of Intent to Deny” stated: “You have not provided proof to the Board that your civil rights have been fully restored subsequent to a previous felony conviction as required by Section 112.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes.” The requirement that a restoration of civil rights be obtained which is expressed in the challenged existing rule and the challenged agency statement defined as a rule negatively affect Petitioner Yeoman’s substantial interests by denying him a certified general contracting license. As such, Petitioner Yeoman has standing to bring his challenge to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006(2) and the agency statement defined as a rule (Form “DBPR CILB 4359"). Intervenor Smith's felony conviction was for a drug offense in 1989 and was unrelated to the contracting business or trade. Intervenor Smith filed an application with the CILB, including form “DBPR CILB 4359.” On May 4, 2004, the CILB refused to consider his application because his civil rights have not been restored. As such, Intervenor Smith has standing to bring his challenge to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006(2), and the agency statement defined as a rule (Form "DBPR CILB 4359"). Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006 was adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on January 6, 1980, and lists and incorporates by reference DBPR/CILB/025 (Rev. 01/01) entitled “Certifications: Certification Change of Status.” This agency form is applicable to applications for certified licenses and change of status applications, and requires individuals applying for initial contracting licenses to provide proof that their civil rights have been restored if they have been convicted of a felony. The form states in the “Financial Responsibility/Background Questions” section: “NOTE: IF YOU, THE APPLICANT/LICENSEE, HAVE HAD A FELONY CONVICTION, PROOF THAT YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESTORED WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO LICENSURE.” Form “DBPR CILB 4359" has an effective date of March 24, 2004, but has not been adopted as a rule under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The form is available for download on the agency’s web-page as “Initial Issuance of Licensure for Certified Contractor Application Package.” Applicants for licensure as a contractor must submit form “DBPR CILB 4359" to the DBPR. Within the “DBPR CILB 4359" package is the form “DBPR CILB 4357 - Qualified Business (QB) License Application and Qualified Business Change of Status Application,” which requires an applicant previously convicted of a felony to provide proof that his/her civil rights have been restored. This form states: “IF YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY, YOU MUST SUBMIT PROOF OF REINSTATEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS,” and also: “Note: If you, the applicant/licensee, have had a felony conviction, proof that your civil rights have been restored will be required prior to Licensure.” Both the challenged Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006(2) and the form “DBPR CILB 4359" are generally applicable to every individual applying for a contracting license from the CILB. The CILB has previously approved applications for initial licenses, and change of status licenses, to applicants who did not have their civil rights fully restored, subject to probation until the applicant's civil rights have been restored. Neither the type of crime for which a felony conviction has been imposed, the recency of the conviction, nor the completion of any punishment, have been a factor in the CILB’s denial of applications to individuals previously convicted of a felony crime but whose civil rights have not been fully restored. The sole reason for denial is the lack of civil rights. The lack of civil rights is the standard, expressed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.006(2) and in “DBPR CILB 4359," by which the CILB has denied contractor license applications, including Petitioner Yeoman’s application, and Intervenor Smith's application, under the CILB’s interpretation of Section 112.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The CILB has not revoked any previously granted licenses due solely to a subsequent felony conviction and lack of civil rights of any licensee. The CILB is a collegial body composed of 18 members, 16 of whom are professionals and two of whom are consumer members. Each member is limited to two 4-year terms, and no member may serve more than two consecutive 4-year terms. If a member is appointed to fill an unexpired vacancy, the new appointee may not serve for more than 11 years. The current members of the Board, and their terms, are as follows: Elizabeth Karcher; term 01/10/02-10/31/04 Barry Kalmanson; term 11/01/02-10/31/07 c. Lee-En Chung; term 09/01/99-10/31/06 Paul Del Vecchio; term 01-10-02-10-31-05 Michelle Kane; term 01-10-02-10/31/05 f. Joan Brown; term 03/14/00-10/31/07 Michael Blankenship; term 11/01/02-10/31/06 Carl Engelmeler; term 11/01/02-10/31/06 Jacqueline Watts; term 01/10/02-10/31/04 John Smith; term 11/01/02-10/31/06 (resigned effective 11/01/04) Raymond Holloway; term 01/10/02-10/31/05 Edward Weller; term 11/21/02-10/31/06 Thomas Thornton; term 08/16/04-10/31/07 Robert Stewart; term 08/16/04-10/31/07 o. Doris Bailey; term 08/16/04-10/31/05 A quorum (51 percent) of the appointed members of the Board is necessary for the Board to conduct official business. The CILB meets 11 times each year. On November 8, 1999, the CILB denied the application of Michael A. Helish for the certification examination on the grounds that his civil rights had not been restored. This decision was per curiam affirmed in Helish v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 766 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The CILB has previously approved applications for initial licenses, and change of status licenses, to applicants whose civil rights had not been fully restored, at times subject to probation until the applicant’s civil rights have been restored, as follows: On June 14, 2004, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Robert F. Jones, subject to probation until his civil rights are fully restored. On May 28, 2004, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to William P. Campbell, subject to probation until his civil rights are fully restored. On May 28, 2004, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Glenn Kasper, subject to probation until his civil rights are fully restored. On May 28, 2004, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Danny Mitchell, subject to probation until his civil rights are fully restored. On March 3, 2004, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Timothy Burke, subject to probation until his civil rights are fully restored. On February 9, 2004, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Anthony Nicholas, Jr., subject to probation and the condition that his civil rights be fully restored within two years. On June 25, 2003, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Andrew Dittenber, stating: “The Board permitted licensure with conditions in this case where applicant did not have his civil rights restored, because of the number of years that have passed since the conviction and evidence that application for restoration has been made.” On June 25, 2003, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Robert W. Fleming, stating: “The Board permitted licensure with conditions in this case where applicant did not have his civil rights restored, because of the number of years that have passed since the conviction and evidence that application for restoration has been made.” On December 1, 2003, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to James D. Munroe, Jr., subject to probation until his civil rights are fully restored. On October 21, 2002, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to Daryl F. Strickland subject to probation and the condition that his civil rights be fully restored within three years. On September 4, 2001, the Respondent granted an initial contractor license to John Richard Brown, subject to probation and the condition that his civil rights be fully restored within three years. On June 24, 2004, the Respondent amended its initial order and again placed John Richard Brown’s license on probation until such time as his civil rights are restored.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carl F. Doyle, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, is licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB C015518 in the State of Florida. At all times material to this action the Respondent was licensed, and his address of record is Palm Harbor, Florida. The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was and is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in the State of Florida. Respondent has never been the qualifying agent for Plantara Building Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Plantara. Janet Lee Valente was the qualifying agent for Plantara from December 1986 until October 1987. Respondent is and was the registered agent and director for Plantara at all times material to this action. Respondent negotiated the construction contract between Plantara and Jackie Evans and her daughter, Michelle Renee Evans. Respondent's license number was used to obtain the building permit for the Evans' home. The Evans and Plantara entered a contract to construct a new home in Pinellas County on March 29, 1986. In August 1986, construction of the Evans home began. Mrs. Jackie Evans noted a discrepancy in the plumbing which was corrected prior to pouring the slab. The plumbing discrepancy related to changes in the kitchen and bathroom requested by Mrs. Evans. Mrs. Evans had presented her request for changes to Respondent in March 1986. As construction proceeded, Mrs. Evans noted that her kitchen had a wall where an "island" should be. This was not corrected. A tub was put in the master bathroom and had to be removed because Mrs. Evans had requested a shower. In May of 1987, Mrs. Evans "closed" on the house but submitted to Respondent a list of several items to be repaired or completed. Plantara had access to Mrs. Evans home to complete the job but would often not keep appointments as scheduled. Prior to closing on her home in May 1987, Mrs. Evans had advised Plantara of items she desired to be corrected. After the May 1987 closing on the home, Mrs. Evans wrote Plantara again regarding items to be corrected or finished on her home. The gas dryer vent terminated in the attic, and not through the roof; a leak in the fireplace and the reversal of hot and cold water in the guest bathroom were three of the items to be corrected. Plantara corrected the problem with the water in the guest bath, a code violation, immediately. However, they failed to correct the gas dryer venting violation. As of the date of the hearing, there were numerous items still not corrected or repaired by Plantara. However, Mrs. Evans and Plantara reached a monetary settlement in April 1989 in which Plantara waived its claim of $5,000 under the contract in exchange for the Evans' release from liability. A letter of commitment for FHA financing was not received until December 23, 1986. The home received a certificate of occupancy on February 24, 1987. (T. pg. 20). There were numerous items to be corrected as of the closing date in May 1987 and as of the hearing date there remained items from the "list" which had not been corrected and/or repaired. Larry Wilson, Pinellas County Department of Consumer Affairs, observed leaks in the fireplace, uneven tile in the bathroom shower, closet doors not fitting properly, sloppy painting, bedroom windows not closing properly, siding loose, and patio concrete cracked when he inspected the home in November, 1987. Mr. Wilson stated that Mrs. Evans complaints were legitimate. Mr. Jerry Hicks, an expert in construction practices in Florida, testified that a "punchlist" such as Mrs. Evans list is usually completed within 30 days or sooner after the "closing" The contractor is responsible to complete the punchlist as the contractor is "charged with supervising the work.' Mr. Hicks opined that Respondent should have immediately responded to the problem with the dryer vent. In fact, when Mrs. Evans contacted the subcontractor, the problem was immediately corrected by the subcontractor. This indicates that Respondent had exercised little supervision over the subcontractors. (T. pg. 104, 116). Respondent had from February 1987 (the date of the certificate of occupancy) until May 1987 (the date of the "closing") to correct the punchlist. Respondent was unresponsive to the customer, and was not reasonably timely in completion of the punchlist. Respondent did not supervise the job as industry standards require. Respondent has been previously disciplined twice by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent offered in mitigation that the job was undertaken as a "favor" to the Evans and therefore they should have expected low priority treatment. However, as a mitigation gesture, the Respondent waived his right to receipt of the remaining $5,000 payment from the property owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and 489.119, Florida Statutes by failing to qualify a firm and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Rule 21E-17.001(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by gross negligence and misconduct in the practice of contracting which caused monetary or other harm to licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $1,500, and that his contractor's license be suspended for three (3) months. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1166 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,4,15,16,17,18,19 (1st sentence), 20, 22,23,24,25,26,27 (in part), 29 are accepted, except as is irrelevant or subordinate. Paragraph 21, 28 are not supported by the evidence Paragraph 27 (in part is rejected as a conclusion of law. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: Paragraph 1 and 3 accepted and incorporated in findings Paragraph 2 rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5 accepted in part as grounds for mitigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Carl F. Doyle 5 Stiles Lane Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32301 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues presented, Respondent was a registered residential contractor under license number RR 0024559, issued to Kenneth Rowland qualifying Phoenix Construction Services, Inc., issued in April 1975. On May 12, 1977, Angela Close entered into a contract with C & C Roofing Company of Longwood, Florida, to enclose and make a room of the carport on her home located at 215 Ulysses Drive, Apopka, Florida. The contract, which detailed the work to be done, called for a contract price of $2,500 and stipulated the work was to be completed in approximately three weeks from start date. The amount of $1,150 was to be paid when the job was started, and the balance was to be paid upon completion and acceptance. This agreement was signed by Angela Close and J. D. Carver. Ms. Close had given the contract to Carver because she worked with his wife at Seminole Community College and had been advised by her that Carver was in financial difficulty and needed the work. The contract was signed at Close's house, where Carver came with his wife, bringing the contract to be signed. Carver did the preliminary measuring work, but when actual construction began, Respondent was present and accomplished the majority of the work. On May 26, 1977, 14 days after the contract was signed, Respondent pulled a building permit #99146 to accomplish the work called for in the contract, from the Orange County Building Department. Several weeks after the work was started, Respondent asked Ms. Close for some additional progress payments on the job. Since she had already paid Carver in full according to the terms of the contract with him, she refused to pay Respondent, telling him she had paid all that was called for under the terms of her contract with Carver. When she said this, Respondent appeared quite surprised to learn of the contract and angry as well. On June 30, 1977, Respondent wrote a letter to the Orange County Building Department notifying that office that he had stopped work on that project because of nonpayment and requesting his name and license number be removed from the permit. As a result, the permit was cancelled on July 7, 1977. In an interview with Bobby J. Hunter, Sr., an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) several years later, Respondent indicated he agreed to do the job in question for Ms. Close, a friend of Carver, for $3,500. He pulled the permit and commenced work without ever talking to Ms. Close or without having a contract from her to do it, relying on the word of Carver that it was proper to do so. He received several payments from Ms. Close, transmitted through Carver. Two were in cash, and one was a check. When Respondent found out that Ms. Close had a contract with Carver for $2,500 and had paid him in full, he realized he would not receive funds to satisfy the work he had put in on the job, and he ceased work. The investigative report prepared by Mr. Hunter includes summaries of the interviews with both Carver and Respondent which state that Carver and Respondent were partners. Rowland, in his testimony at the hearing, denied any partnership relation. In light of the fact that these summaries are second-hand hearsay, contradicted by sworn testimony of the Respondent that he was not a partner of Carver, I resolve that dispute in favor of the Respondent and find that he was not a partner of Carver. Respondent contends under oath, and I so find, that he pulled the permit to do the work without knowledge of the prior contract between Close and Carver, as a favor to Carver who was reportedly a friend of Close. It was his understanding that, though Carver made the arrangements, it was his, Respondent's contract with Close for the figure he had quoted to Carver after his first survey of the job site, $3,500. He had been told by Carver not to talk with Close, as she did not speak English well, and he admitted to having made a grand mistake in proceeding without a contract from the owner Close. Carver's reliability is not the best. Mr. Hunter, investigator for DPR, indicated that Carver made some false statements to him in other cases. As a result, though Carver alleges he and Respondent were partners, and even Respondent's statement to Hunter seems to so indicate, there was, in reality, no partnership requiring Respondent to qualify C & C Roofing on his license, though there was plans to do so in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth Rowland 4403 North Powers Drive Orlando, Florida 32808 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
