The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, 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 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of contractors and electrical contractors operating within the State of Florida. During the period at issue in this case, the Respondent was not licensed as a contractor or as an electrical contractor. Beginning in 2003, the Respondent provided home remodeling and repair services for houses owned by Ms. Enid Shaw. Ms. Shaw, a resident of New York who visits Florida regularly, apparently planned to permanently relocate to Florida at some time in the future. The Respondent met Ms. Shaw during one of Ms. Shaw's visits to Florida, when he was working on the house of an acquaintance of Ms. Shaw. Between 2003 and 2006, Ms. Shaw paid approximately $30,000.00 to the Respondent for the work he performed on her homes. Some of the work performed by the Respondent was outside the jurisdiction of the Petitioner. The Respondent submitted written estimates and invoices to her and, other than a $3,500.00 wire transfer referenced elsewhere herein, Ms. Shaw paid the Respondent by personal check. Ms. Shaw did not obtain receipts from the Respondent, but retained the estimates, invoices, and the processed checks. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 3411 Silverwood Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Silverwood"), and desired to have some repair work performed on the house. Ms. Shaw contacted the Respondent who agreed to meet her at the Silverwood house and tour the house. As they walked through the house, the Respondent made suggestions about how to remedy the deficiencies in the structure. They agreed that he would commence the repair work. Because she did not reside locally, Ms. Shaw was not always present at the home when the work was being done, and she provided a key to the Respondent so that he could enter in her absence. There were water stains on the family room ceiling, and Ms. Shaw knew that, when it rained, water came through the ceiling and would be collected in buckets. The Respondent advised Ms. Shaw that the roof was leaking and offered to repair the roof. Roof repairs were supposedly made, but the roof continued to leak during rain. The Respondent eventually called Ms. Shaw and told her that the entire roof needed to be replaced, that he had already ordered the materials required to replace the roof, that he had already secured the services of an assistant, and that the roof replacement would commence on the day following the telephone call. He informed Ms. Shaw that, because the work was commencing immediately, he needed to have payment by a wire transfer into his account. Ms. Shaw wired $3,500.00 to the Respondent's bank account as requested by the Respondent, but the Respondent did not replace the Silverwood roof on the next day, or on any other day. When the roof repair did not occur, Ms. Shaw began to ask for the return of the $3,500.00, but the Respondent failed to return the money. Though he did not explain his entitlement to retain the money, the Respondent told Ms. Shaw that someone to whom he had loaned his truck had abandoned the vehicle and that his tools had been stolen from the truck. There was no evidence to suggest that the Respondent was entitled to retain the $3,500.00 transfer from Ms. Shaw to his bank account. The Respondent did not replace Ms. Shaw's roof or return the funds to her. Additionally, the Respondent performed other work for Ms. Shaw at the Silverwood home. The Respondent installed a ceiling fan purchased by Ms. Shaw to replace one supposedly removed by previous residents from the Silverwood dining room. Ms. Shaw observed the Respondent turn off the power to the house and connect the fan to the existing electrical wiring. The Respondent also repaired a range hood ventilation fan and replaced a leaking faucet in the Silverwood kitchen. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 6001 Denson Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Denson"). She asked the Respondent to perform repairs on the Denson property, and, as they had done at the Silverwood house, they toured the home, and the Respondent made suggestions as to the work that needed to be done. The Denson roof was not functioning properly. The ceiling was water-stained in several rooms, and a wall in the screen porch was water-damaged. The Respondent repaired the roof deficiencies and the damage caused to the house by the water intrusion. Although Ms. Shaw was not always present at the time of these repairs, she observed the Respondent on one occasion taking a container of an otherwise unidentified black substance to the roof to patch one of the leaks. The interior water damage repaired by the Respondent included removal and reinstallation of ceiling fans and light fixtures in the rooms where the ceiling was repaired. The stove in the Denson kitchen was not functional, and Ms. Shaw purchased a replacement appliance. Although the stove purchased by Ms. Shaw apparently had an electrical plug incompatible with the existing outlet, Ms. Shaw observed the Respondent install the appliance by cutting into the stove's electrical cord and splicing the wiring into the existing outlet, after turning off the power to the house. Ms. Shaw was also present when the Respondent installed a jetted bathtub into an area previously occupied by a bathroom shower stall. The installation included turning off the water supply and the removal and replacement of plumbing lines. At the hearing, Ms. Shaw admitted that the tub she bought was incorrect for the installation location, apparently because the repair access area was on the wrong side of the tub and placed against a wall. She complained that the Respondent installed it nonetheless and that any repairs to the tub will require removal of a portion of a bedroom wall. Ms. Shaw also observed the Respondent remove and replace a bathroom toilet at the Denson house. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent replaced a malfunctioning swimming pool "generator" at the Denson house, but the testimony presented on this issue was not sufficient to establish the actual nature of the pool equipment replaced, if any, by the Respondent. The Petitioner also asserted that the Respondent replaced an electric garage door opener at the Denson house, but the evidence failed to establish that the Respondent did anything other than replace an existing opener with a new opener and plug the power unit into an existing electrical outlet. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 5006 Tam Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Tam"). As at the other houses, Ms. Shaw asked the Respondent to tour the property and make the repairs on which they agreed. At the Tam house, the Respondent replaced a bathroom toilet and sink. As at the Denson house, the Petitioner asserted that the Respondent replaced an electric garage door opener at the Tam house, but the evidence again failed to establish that the Respondent did anything other than replace the existing opener with a new one and plug the power unit into an existing electrical outlet. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Shaw ever asked the Respondent whether he was licensed by the Petitioner; however, based on the Respondent's statements related to another customer, she believed he had some sort of license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Donald Whyte violated Subsection 489.126(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $10,000.00, and, further, violated Subsection 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $3,000.00, for a total administrative fine of $13,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Leigh Matchett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Donald Whyte 6811 Thousand Oaks Road Orlando, Florida 32818 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides “handyman” services through BK and H Corporation. Respondent is not licensed by the Department as a contractor or an electrical contractor, and his corporation is not licensed by or registered with the Department in those fields. Respondent’s corporation has an occupational license from Collier County. The classification listed on the license is “handyman repair service (no contracting).” The occupational license includes the notation “HIGHLY RESTRICTED” in bold type. The license also states that it “is not a certification that the licensee is qualified” and that it “does not permit the licensee to violate any existing regulatory zoning laws of the state, county or cities nor does it exempt the licensee from any other license or permits that may be required by law.” On or about April 11, 2005, Respondent presented a written “Estimate” to Robert Brown for a variety of work that Mr. Brown wanted done to his home. The Estimate was on the letterhead of Respondent’s corporation. Respondent testified that the Estimate was not a proposal for work to be performed, but rather was an itemized list of the work that he and others hired by Mr. Brown had already performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for. Respondent’s testimony regarding the purpose of the Estimate was not credible. First, if, as Respondent claims, the Estimate was intended to be an itemization of work that had already been performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for, there would have been no reason for Mr. Brown to pay additional money to Respondent after April 11, 2005, as he did (see Findings of Fact 12 and 13), and there would also have been no reason for Mr. Brown to execute a power of attorney after that date to give Respondent authority to “pull” building permits on Mr. Brown’s behalf (see Findings of Fact 15 and 16). Second, Respondent’s characterization of the Estimate is inconsistent with that of his fiancée, Kimberly Frye, who credibly testified that she prepared the document “based on some handwritten notes after Mr. Brown and [Respondent] first initiated [sic] at the home, and they made a list of items that Mr. Brown solicited from [Respondent] to do services.”1 The more persuasive evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the Estimate was a proposal by Respondent to perform the work listed on the Estimate at Mr. Brown’s home for compensation. The work listed on the Estimate included electrical work (e.g., installation of a 200 Amp service outlet box and two lights in the front yard); structural work (e.g., repairs to Mr. Brown’s roof and the removal and replacement of a pool deck); and other miscellaneous remodeling work inside and around Mr. Brown’s home. The price listed on the Estimate was $8,500. That amount did not include the cost of materials, which according to the Estimate, were to be paid for by Mr. Brown. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown paid Respondent $2,000 in cash “toward labor” and $500 in cash “toward materials.” Mr. Brown paid Respondent an additional $2,000 in cash on May 15, 2005, and another $2,000 by check on June 16, 2005. Respondent acknowledged receiving $6,000 from Mr. Brown related to the work listed on the Estimate.2 Respondent claimed that he was only serving as a conduit for the money and that he paid the money to other people that Mr. Brown had hired to perform work on his home at the same time Respondent was working there. Respondent did not present any evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is not found credible. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown executed a document titled “Specific Power of Attorney for Collier County and City of Naples.” The document purports to give Respondent “power of [Mr. Brown’s] signature for any and all necessary permits, inspections and permit pick up” related to the work on Mr. Brown’s home. According to Respondent, the document was prepared and given to him by Mr. Brown so that he could “pull” owner-builder permits from the Collier County and/or the City of Naples on Mr. Brown’s behalf. An owner-builder permit allows the work to be performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by the owner (through a power of attorney or otherwise) to an unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent. Mr. Brown testified that he asked Respondent whether he was a licensed general contractor and Respondent told him that he was. Respondent testified that he told Mr. Brown on several occasions that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by Ms. Frye. Mr. Brown’s testimony on this issue was not credible, and it is more likely than not based upon the totality of the circumstances -- cash payments, preparation of the power of attorney, Mr. Brown’s overall demeanor while testifying, etc. -- that Mr. Brown knew, or had reason to believe, that Respondent was not a licensed contractor. Respondent testified that the only work that he personally performed at Mr. Brown’s house was the installation of flooring, drywall, and closet doors. He claimed that the other work listed on the Estimate, including the electrical work, was performed by other persons hired by Mr. Brown. Respondent denied that he was responsible for supervising the other persons that he contends were working on Mr. Brown’s home, although he testified that Mr. Brown gave him money to pay those workers. Respondent did not identify any of the other workers who, according to him, performed work on Mr. Brown’s home and that he allegedly paid on Mr. Brown’s behalf. Mr. Brown was at work while Respondent was working on his home. He did not provide direct on-site supervision of Respondent. Mr. Brown did not observe other persons working with Respondent on his home, except for one occasion that Respondent had a “helper” with him. The identity of that person, and the work that he or she performed, is unknown. Mr. Brown did not personally see Respondent performing all of the work listed on the Estimate. He did, however, see Respondent working on the water heater, an electrical switch in the laundry room, and the ceiling fans. Respondent’s testimony regarding the limited scope of the work that he performed on Mr. Brown’s home was not credible or persuasive, and the totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent offered to perform and did perform contracting and electrical contracting work at Mr. Brown’s home. At some point after Respondent stopped working at Mr. Brown’s home, Mr. Brown was advised by an electrical contractor that some of the electrical work needed to be redone because it posed a fire risk. Mr. Brown had the work redone by an electrical contractor, which cost him $2,400. He was also required to pay $400 to Florida Power and Light for some reason. Thereafter, Mr. Brown filed complaints against Respondent with the Department and with Collier County. After investigating the complaints, Collier County issued two citations to Respondent and imposed fines totaling $900. The fines were not based upon the performance of unlicensed contracting or electrical contracting, but rather were based upon Respondent advertising his ability to provide those services through the Estimate. Respondent did not contest the fines imposed by Collier County. He paid the fines in full. The Department provided its investigative file related to this incident to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in Collier County, as it was required to do by Section 455.2277, Florida Statutes. The SAO makes the decision whether to file criminal charges against an individual for unlicensed contracting. The Department is not involved in that decision. The SAO brought criminal charges against Respondent for the unlicensed contracting that he performed at Mr. Brown’s home, but the case was “nol prossed” by the SAO. Respondent is in the process of applying for a general contractor’s license from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He testified that he took and passed the licensing exam on August 16, 2006. The Department incurred investigative costs of $296.99 related to Complaint No. 2005-042280, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1929. The Department incurred investigative costs of $307.45 related to Complaint No. 2005-042281, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1934.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000, with $500 payable upon entry of the final order and the other $500 payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides satisfactory evidence to the Department that he obtained a state contractor’s license within that period; finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 455.531, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; and requires Respondent to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $604.44. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for violating section 489.533(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by violating section 455.227(1)(j), which prohibits "[a]iding, assisting, procuring, employing, or advising any unlicensed person or entity to practice a profession contrary to this chapter, the chapter regulating the profession, or the rules of the department or the board."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Ellis, is licensed in Florida as an electrical contractor and holds licenses EC0000680 and EC13003559. He has been licensed in Florida since 1986 and has not been disciplined prior to this case. In the summer and fall of 2013, the Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of M. Ellis Electrical, Inc. (Ellis Electrical). In the summer and fall of 2013, Clark Huls was not licensed as an electrical contractor in Florida. In August 2013, Ellis Electrical had a subcontract with Powerhouse, Inc. (Powerhouse), which had a contract with 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven), for the installation of hot food cabinets at several different 7-Eleven retail locations in Florida. The installation required electrical work (including subpanels, new circuits, outlets, and breakers) and had to be done by a licensed electrical contractor. Someone at Powerhouse referred Huls to the Respondent, and the Respondent hired him to do the installations for $1,400 for each of nine different 7-Eleven jobsites. It was the Respondent's initial intent to hire Huls as a subcontractor. The evidence is disputed and not clear as to exactly what Huls represented to the Respondent about his license status when the Respondent hired him. The evidence is clear that Huls did not provide him with licensure and insurance information at that time and was supposed to provide this information to the Respondent at the first jobsite. The Respondent did not initially check DBPR's website to verify Huls' license status, which was the prudent and appropriate thing for him to have done. The first work performed by Huls for the Respondent was on August 21, 2013. The Respondent was there to supervise and direct the work. Huls did not provide license and insurance information. By this time, the Respondent clearly knew or should have known that Huls was not licensed. At the third installation Huls performed, on August 24, 2013, the Respondent had an employee named Jason Ippolito deliver an employment package to Huls. Huls refused to complete and sign the employment paperwork because it would change the terms of his agreement with the Respondent to be paid $1,400 per jobsite. The Respondent allowed Huls to continue to work on installations while trying to resolve the subcontract/employment issue. In all, Huls completed nine installations between August 21 and September 3, 2013. When Huls asked to be paid $1,400 per jobsite, as originally agreed, the Respondent refused to pay because Huls was not licensed as a subcontractor and refused to complete the paperwork to be paid as an employee. Huls then placed liens on all nine 7-Eleven properties and contacted Powerhouse to be paid. In order to save its relationship with 7-Eleven, Powerhouse paid Huls $5,806 and deducted that amount from what it owed Ellis Electrical. On October 12, 2013, the Respondent filed a DBPR complaint against Huls for subcontracting without a license. DBPR filed an Administrative Complaint against Huls for unlicensed activity. Criminal prosecutions of Huls also were filed and were pending at the time of the final hearing in this case. In mitigation, in addition to his clean record as a long-time licensee, the Respondent presented that he was dealing with his wife's serious health issues during the summer and fall of 2013, which affected his ability to manage his jobsites. In addition, no consumer or member of the public suffered financial harm. Ultimately, the financial harm was borne by the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board find the Respondent, Michael Ellis, guilty as charged, fine him $1,000, require him to pay reasonable investigative costs, and take two additional hours of continuing education with an emphasis on laws and rules. Jurisdiction is retained for 30 days after the final order to determine reasonable investigative costs if the parties cannot reach an agreement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as an electrical contractor. Respondent holds license EC 0002526. Respondent does business as M. H. Electrical Services (M. H. Electrical) at 11512 41st Court North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of construction contracting in the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On May 15, 2007, M. H. Electrical, though the Respondent, drafted a proposal for electrical services to be done on a residence being constructed by Mr. Malone. The location of the residence is 1664 88th Road North, Royal Palm Beach Acreage, Florida. The contract price totaled $5,140.00. Work on the project commenced on May 17, 2007. There were many problems with the work performed by Respondent’s company that were ultimately corrected by Mr. Malone. Respondent’s workmen installed 15 “12 gauge” wires in a 3/4 pipe underground that was inconsistent with the applicable building code. Respondent’s workmen installed a pipe running from one electrical panel to another incorrectly. Respondent’s workmen wired attic fans in a manner that overloaded an electrical panel. Respondent’s workmen installed a ground rod of only three and a half feet. The applicable building code required a ground rod of eight feet. A kick plate is a metal piece that protects electrical wires from being pierced when sheetrock is being installed. Petitioner asserted that Respondent failed to install kick plates. Respondent’s testimony established that kick plates were not necessary due to the depth of the wall studs that were utilized. Respondent’s workmen installed two wires incorrectly in the laundry room of the house. The wires were cut, which caused a fire hazard. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent’s workmen cut the wires. Respondent’s workmen failed to properly ground whirlpool tub wires for two whirlpools by failing to ground the wires to the main pipe as required by the applicable building code. The work did not progress as contemplated by Mr. Malone and by Respondent. As owner of the premises, Mr. Malone called for all inspections of the electrical work. These inspections were performed by employees of the Palm Beach County, Florida, Planning, Zoning and Building Department (the County Building Department). The following is the inspection history between May 21 and October 10, 2007: Temporary Power scheduled for May 21 was cancelled. Temporary power on May 22 passed. Rough electric on June 8 failed. Rough electric on July 9 passed. Rough electric on October 10 failed. The progress of the work was impeded for two primary reasons. First, the testimony of the Respondent, which the undersigned finds to be credible, established that on more than one occasion Mr. Malone did not have necessary materials at the building site. Second, Respondent fired the lead electrician on the subject project approximately two weeks into the project. Following communications with an employee of Florida Power and Light (FPL), Mr. Malone determined that portions of the work performed by Respondent’s employees did not meet the applicable building code. The record is not clear whether this communication occurred before or after the passed inspection on July 9. The last date on which one of Respondent’s employees worked on the project was July 23, 2007. Mr. Malone paid M. H. Electrical the full contract price on July 25, 2007. Mr. Malone and Respondent had a conversation about the communication with the FPL employee. Mr. Malone refused to tell Respondent the name of the FPL employee who stated that some of the work did not meet code. The date of this conversation was not established. Mr. Malone testified that when he paid Respondent on July 25, he believed that a list of ten items needed to be repaired. Mr. Malone further testified that he paid Respondent before these items had been repaired because he believed that Respondent would return to make all necessary repairs. The undersigned finds this testimony to be credible. As of July 25, 2007, when payment was made in full, Respondent knew or should have known that there existed on this project a list of repairs to the electrical wiring that needed to be done. After July 25, 2007, Mr. Malone made repeated efforts to contact Respondent. In response to those calls, Respondent sent an employee to the site to discuss Mr. Malone’s concerns. A locked gate prevented that employee’s entry on the building site. The date of that event was not established. On or before October 10, 2007, Mr. Malone requested another inspection from the County Building Department. That inspection failed. A failed inspection means that there were one or more deficiencies that had to be corrected before the job could progress. The inspector posted a Correction Notice, which advised that the following needed to be done before the job would be accepted: a smoke detector in the master bedroom would have to be relocated to a higher part of the ceiling; a conduit would have to be rerun (this is the deficiency described in paragraph 5 of this Recommended Order); and a ground rod would have to be replaced (this is the deficiency described in paragraph 8 of this Recommended Order). On October 11, 2007, two of Respondent’s employees went to the building site to make any needed corrections. Mr. Malone refused to let the employees on the property. Respondent did not return any of the funds paid by Mr. Malone. Respondent did not terminate the contract. Mr. Malone made all necessary electrical repairs. On April 2, 2008, the project passed final inspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of the violation in Count II. It is further RECOMMENDED that for the Count I violation, the final order issue a reprimand to Respondent and impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of October, 2009.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Antoney Manning was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Manning Builders did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Antoney Manning, was at all times material to this proceeding, the owner/operator of Manning Builders. Respondent is in the business of framing which includes framing, drywall, tile, trim work, and painting. A document which is in evidence purports to be a contract dated September 5, 2004, between Manning Builders and Ms. Gwendolyn Parker, for the construction of a 14-foot by 14- foot addition in the rear corner of Ms. Parker's house located at 8496 Southern Park Drive in Tallahassee, Florida. The contract identifies Manning Builders as the "contractor." The contract price is $15,000. Unfortunately, only the first page of the contract is in evidence. However, Respondent acknowledges that he and Ms. Parker entered into a contract regarding the 14-foot by 14-foot addition to Ms. Parker's home. Respondent insists that he informed Ms. Parker that he was not a certified general contractor, but that he could find a general contractor for her. When that did not work out, Respondent told Ms. Parker that she would have to "pull" her own permits and that he could do the framing. He also told her that he would assist her in finding the appropriate contractors to do the electrical work, plumbing, and roofing. Ms. Parker did not testify at the hearing. On September 7, 2005, Respondent signed a receipt for $7,500 for a "deposit on addition (14 x 14)." The receipt identifies Ms. Gwendolyn Parker as the person from whom the money was received by Respondent. Respondent acknowledges finding an electrical contractor to perform the electrical work on the addition. However, he insists that he did not hire the electrical contractor but found one for Ms. Parker to hire. He gave the name to Ms. Parker but she apparently did not contact him. In any event, the electrical work was never done on the addition. Respondent completed the framework on the addition. Respondent did not build the roof, as he was aware that would require a roofing contractor. Work on the project ceased before the addition was finished. Ms. Parker's home suffered rain damage as a result of the roof not being completed. There is nothing in the record establishing the dollar amount of damage to her home. The total investigative costs to the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $360.59 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06- 0601, which charged Respondent with the unlicensed practice of contracting. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $140.63 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-0602, which charged Respondent with the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1); requiring Respondent to pay $360.59 in costs of investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 06-0601, and dismissing DOAH Case No. 06-0602. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Antoney Manning 11865 Register Farm Road Tallahassee, Florida 32305 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The primary issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent, Bruce P. Boston, engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida without being certified or registered in violation of Chapter 489, Part II of the Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed that violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent's address is 18204 Southwest 200 Street, Archer, Florida 32618. At no time material hereto was Respondent certified or registered in the State of Florida to engage in the practice of electrical contracting or to perform electrical contracting work. Mrs. Dawn Wingert is the owner of the residence located at what is currently designated as 16675 Southwest 143rd Avenue, Archer, Florida. Mrs. Wingert, as lawful owner, had the authority to enter contracts regarding the residence. The Wingert residence was previously known as 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida, prior to the assignment of the current address. Wingert entered into a contract with Respondent to perform construction of a carport and perform electrical contracting work at Wingert’s residence subsequent to assignment of the address of 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida. Respondent received compensation for the contracted work directly from Wingert via personal check, which Respondent then cashed. Terry Vargas, a licensed electrical contractor having been issued license number ER 13012448, was subsequently contacted by Respondent to perform the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence. Vargas installed an electrical outlet on the back porch, put a flood light on the back porch, moved the switch board to a more convenient location, and put a security light in the front of Wingert’s residence. All work required electrical fixtures to be permanently affixed and become a permanent part of the structure of the Wingert residence. Although Vargas completed the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence, Wingert paid the Respondent for the services because the work was contracted for through Respondent. At no time pertinent to this matter did Terry Vargas contract with Wingert to complete the electrical services enumerated above. After he completed the work at Wingert’s residence, Vargas invoiced Respondent for the electrical contracting work. Respondent, however, refused to pay Vargas for the electrical contracting work performed, despite having received compensation for the work from Wingert.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, in accordance with Section 489.533(2)(c), Florida Statutes, requiring that Respondent pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 20th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Boston Post Office Box 331 Williston, Florida 32696 Drew F. Winters, Esquire 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 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
