The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the violations alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate building contracting. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C058340 in 1996. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. McKinney owned and resided in a house (the House) in Opa Locka, Florida. Ms. McKinney’s mother, Mattie P. Mathis, also lived in the House. In 2001, Ms. McKinney solicited bids for an addition she wanted to put on the House. Ms. McKinney and her mother, Ms. Mathis, planned to pay for the addition with life insurance proceeds on the life of Ms. Mathis’s deceased daughter (Ms. McKinney’s sister). On the recommendation of a colleague at her work, Ms. McKinney asked Willie Muse, Jr., to bid on the work. Based on the bids she received, Ms. McKinney hired Mr. Muse to construct the addition to the House. Ms. McKinney told Mr. Muse that she wanted all work to comply with all applicable permitting requirements and laws. Mr. Muse represented to Ms. McKinney that he would get the necessary building permits and that the work would comply with all applicable laws. On July 18, 2001, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis entered into a written contract with Mr. Muse whereby Mr. Muse agreed to construct the addition for the sum of $45,000.00. Mr. Muse has never been licensed as a general contractor in Florida. Ms. McKinney thought Mr. Muse was a licensed contractor and would not have entered into a contract with him if she had known that he was not licensed. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis paid Mr. Muse the following amounts on the following dates: $6,000.00 on July 20, 2001; $7,500.00 on October 10, 2001; and $13,500.00 on November 2, 2001; for a total of $27,000.00. On or about August 21, 2001, Mr. Muse brought to Ms. McKinney a building permit application form for her to sign. The application form had been filled out before Mr. Muse presented it to Ms. McKinney. Respondent was not present when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Respondent’s name, signature, and contractor’s license number appeared on the application form when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Ms. McKinney signed the form on August 21, 2001. Ms. McKinney saw Respondent’s name for the first time when she read the building permit application form. Prior to that time, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had never known or heard of Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Muse was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Muse submitted the building permit application form to the Miami-Dade County Building Department (Building Department), which issued a building permit for the work on the House on October 5, 2001. Mr. Muse commenced working on the House in October 2001, but he never finished. After he received the payment in November 2001, Mr. Muse stopped working on the House for an extended period of time. During that time, Ms. McKinney attempted on several occasions to persuade Mr. Muse to resume work on the House. Prior to stopping work on the House, Mr. Muse removed a portion of the roof of the existing structure, which exposed the interior of the House to the elements. That exposure resulted in extensive damages to the House, including the collapse of the kitchen ceiling from water intrusion. By letter dated April 15, 2002, the Building Department advised Ms. McKinney that her building permit would expire in approximately 30 days. That letter prompted Ms. McKinney to contact the Building Department, where she was told that Respondent was her contractor, not Mr. Muse. Ms. McKinney secured information (from the face of the building permit) that enabled her to contact Respondent’s mother.3 That contact resulted in two meetings between Ms. McKinney and Respondent towards the end of April 2002. During the first meeting, Ms. McKinney related to Respondent the history of the project, including the amounts that had been paid to Mr. Muse. She also showed him the work that had been done and the damages that had occurred. During the second meeting, Mr. Muse was in attendance. Ms. McKinney, Ms. Mathis, and Respondent reached a verbal understanding that was not reduced to writing. They agreed that Respondent would finish the work on the House for the unpaid balance of the contract price $45,000.00 less $27,000.00 paid to Mr. Muse, which equals $18,000.00.4 The parties agreed that Respondent would pay for labor and that Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would pay material suppliers directly and receive credit toward the contract price for such payments. The parties contemplated that Mr. Muse would perform most of the labor because of the monies he had already received. On the basis of the verbal contract, Respondent resumed the work on the House. On June 12, 2002, Respondent presented a draw request for $3,500.00 for electrical, plumbing, and roofing work that had been performed. Ms. Mathis wrote Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500.00 for that work. Ms. McKinney was opposed to paying Respondent the sum of $3,500.00 because she believed he had not completed the work for which he was billing. Ms. Mathis paid that sum despite Ms. McKinney’s opposition. At some undetermined time following June 12, 2002, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Mr. Muse working on the House. Respondent then asked to be paid in advance for work to be done on the House because he would have to pay his laborers. Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would not agree to payment in advance. In July 2002, the project was not complete and Respondent’s progress on the work on the House became unsatisfactory to Ms. McKinney. On October 14, 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner, claiming, among other things, that Respondent had abandoned the project. Her complaint alleged that work ended on the project in July 2002. At some undetermined time between June and October 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, which resulted in criminal misdemeanor charges being filed against him in Miami-Dade County Court. After she filed the criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she wanted to wait to proceed with the project until she knew what was going to happen with her criminal complaint. In the criminal proceeding, the Court ordered Mr. Muse on April 11, 2003, to pay restitution to Ms. McKinney in the amount of $16,008.04, payable in monthly installments of $300.00. On March 2, 2004, the Court reduced the amount of restitution to $4,000.00, payable in monthly installments of $50.00 beginning April 1, 2004. As of the date of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Muse had paid Ms. McKinney restitution in the total amount of $750.00. As part of the criminal proceeding, Respondent was asked to give his opinion as to the value of the work completed by Mr. Muse and his estimated cost of completing the work. Respondent valued the work completed by Mr. Muse at $14,073.75 (labor and materials). Respondent estimated that it would cost $22,200.00 to complete the project. Both estimates were dated March 23, 2003. On October 1, 2003, Theodore R. Gay, Assistant General Counsel for Petitioner wrote Ms. McKinney the following letter pertaining to the complaint she had filed in October 2002: The Legal Department has evaluated your complaint against the above named contractor [Respondent]. After reviewing the evidence gathered during the investigation of the referenced matter, we have determined that in accordance with the rules and policies of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, this case is appropriately closed with the issuance of a Letter of Caution to the contractor. Because this case has been dismissed without a finding of probable cause, the file will remain confidential and exempt from the public records. On January 6, 2004, Ms. McKinney wrote Mr. Gay a letter that provided, in part, as follows: This letter is a request to re-open the case [against Respondent] because as prior conversation (sic) when I spoke to you in late August 2003 or early September 2003, I informed you that Mr. Jones told me that he would help me as much as possible to complete the construction on my property. Since your letter that stated you didn’t find any error on Mr. Jones’ behalf, I have not heard or seen him since October 2003, nor has any work been performed on my property. . . . Respondent came back to the House after October 2003 and talked to Ms. McKinney about the work. Ms. McKinney told him that she would pay up to a total of $45,000.00 for the work, but that she would not pay above that figure. Because of the estimate Respondent provided in the criminal proceeding dated March 23, 2003, Ms. McKinney believed that Respondent wanted $22,0000.00 to complete the work. However, Respondent never told her that he would not complete the work for a sum equal to $45,000.00 less the sums that had already been paid. Ms. McKinney would not pay Respondent for work until after the work was completed. After Mr. Gay’s letter dismissing the complaint that Ms. McKinney had filed, Respondent did no further work on the House, but he did have further conversations about the project. Ms. McKinney and Respondent could not agree on payment terms for Respondent to complete the project. Ms. McKinney testified that she did not fire Respondent. However, it is clear that she would not let Mr. Muse do further work on her house and she would not pay Respondent until after the work had been done. Ms. McKinney changed the terms of her verbal contract with Respondent by prohibiting Mr. Muse from working on the project. In November 2003, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had an argument over the money that had been spent on the house. Ms. McKinney talked to Respondent about his helping her obtain a mortgage on the house to pay for the balance of the work on the House. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Respondent to ask her mother for any more money. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she would use him as the contractor to complete the work if she obtained the financing. Ms. McKinney was unable to get the financing due to the condition of the House. The permits obtained by Respondent are still valid. Ms. McKinney has hired various workers on her own in an effort to complete the work on the House. As of the final hearing, the work on the House had not been completed. As of May 19, 2005, Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with attorney time, totaled $920.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Final Order: Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and impose against him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, but impose no additional administrative fine for that violation; Find Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; Order that Respondent be jointly and severally liable to Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis with Mr. Muse for restitution in the amount of $4,000.00, minus $750.00 paid by Mr. Muse; and Order Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter in the amount of $920.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 10th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated October 19, 1989; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department and the Construction Industry Licensing Board are authorized to regulate and discipline licensees pursuant to Chapters 489-and 455, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, license number CG CO43229. That license was first issued in June of 1988, and will remain active and in effect for the 1989-92 licensing period. The license described in paragraph 2 was issued to the Respondent in his individual capacity. Respondent has not sought, and therefore has not obtained, a license to qualify a business entity as a general contractor. More specifically, Respondent did not obtain licensure for an entity known as Marlow Engineers and General Contractors. Further, Respondent is not registered as a primary or secondary contractor for that entity. On or about September 15, 1988, the Respondent, doing business as Marlow Engineers and General Contractors, entered into a contract with Joseph and Delores Cappella, owners of the home located at 7100 Thompson Road, Lantana, Florida. The purpose of the contract was to secure a porch addition to the structure for a total purchase price of $8106.00. The Respondent was to pour a foundation, install the porch and roof, and completely screen the room (including doors). The contract between these parties provided, in part: 3.2 The Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work not later than Four work weeks from the time the permit is obtained. Permit will be applied for within five working days of the signing of the contract or when the deposit is received which ever is later. Subject to adjustments of this contract Time as provided in the Contract Document. The Respondent obtained the permit to begin the Cappella's porch on September 30, 1988. Within a few days, the Respondent started the slab work for the porch foundation. That work failed inspection and had to be corrected. Respondent worked sporadically on the porch project until October 11, 1988, when he stopped work. At that time only the concrete foundation with the support posts were in place. Respondent did not return to the work site until after October 24, 1988. From October 27, 1988 through Christmas of that year, the Respondent's work on the porch was infrequent and of a below quality standard. The Respondent failed the initial inspection on each aspect of the construction of the porch. Consequently, he was directed to correct all work before approvals could be sought. The Cappellas were required to hire an electrician to complete the electrical work for the porch, a handiman to correct the plaster/paint deficiencies, and a screen company to reinstall the screening correctly. Because of the foregoing, the Cappellas did not remit the balance owed to Respondent under the contract terms. As of January 15, 1989, the work on the porch had not been successfully completed by Respondent. Mrs. Cappella has not seen Respondent since that date. A contractor is responsible for the quality of the work undertaken for the permits he pulls. Inspections are performed by the permitting authority to assure that the work conforms to building code standards. Based upon the inspections performed for the Cappella porch, the Respondent failed the following inspections: footing inspection, the roofing (ultimately passed after third inspection), the roof metal (where the porch roof was connected to the existing structure), and the porch framing . The Cappella porch did not pass final inspection until January 27, 1989. The number of inspection failures was abnormally large for contractors performing similar work in Palm Beach County. Respondent's performance on the Cappella contract fell below the community standard both as to the time for completion of the work and the quality of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(g) and (m), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00 together with a letter of guidance. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1417 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. But see finding paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven W. Marlow 580 South Dixie Highway Lantana, Florida 33462 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Did respondent fail to properly supervise, direct and manage the contracting activities of the business of which he is the qualifier, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against respondent's contracting license?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the respondent was a certified building contractor licensed by the State of Florida and the qualifying agent for Custom Concrete of Naples, Inc. (Custom Concrete). Rodney Velez was the president of Custom Concrete and licensed only in concrete--concrete forming, placing and finishing. Susan Velez, Rodney Velez's wife, was an officer of Custom Concrete. On April 23, 1983, Custom Concrete, by and through Rodney Velez, entered into a contract with Mark and Penny Paterson to construct a home for $38,550.00. Mrs. Paterson had previously met Rodney Velez in the course of her work, and Velez had told her that he was a builder. Mrs. Paterson had suggested that Velez look at a floor plan that she and her husband had, and after certain negotiations, including a change of floor plan, the contract was entered into. During the course of the negotiations Mrs. Paterson never talked to the respondent and was unaware that the respondent was involved or would be involved in the construction of the home. Mrs. Paterson believed that Rodney Velez was the "builder"; however, the construction of the Paterson home was beyond the scope of Velez's concrete license. The respondent signed the application to secure the building permit for the Paterson residence, although he did not personally appear to procure the building permit. The clerk of the contractor's licensing section of the building code compliance department relied on the signature on the application because it was notarized. The notary was Susan Velez. Respondent did not supervise or direct the construction of the Paterson home. Neal Jackson, president of the company who did the electric work on the home, was unaware that respondent was involved in the project until well after the house was finished. Although it is usual for a supervisor or superintendent to be at the job site some of the time, Jackson never saw the respondent or Velez at the job site. Jeff Allain, the carpenter who did the framing and certain other work, was on the job site five or six days and saw the respondent once during the framing of the structure "just generally looking around." The respondent didn't say anything to Allain. David Isom did drywall work on the house. He had no contact with the respondent and did not see him at the construction site. Mrs. Paterson went by the construction site quite often and realized that the job was not being properly supervised. Velez was rarely there, and Mrs. Paterson never saw the respondent. The workmen on the site would ask the Patersons when Velez would be there because they had questions concerning the work. Neither of the building inspectors saw anyone supervising at the job site, although usually no one is at the job site when an inspection is made. Two days after the Patersons moved into their house, they compiled a "punch list" of the items that needed to be completed or corrected. The list was given to Velez, but the work was not corrected to the Paterson's satisfaction. Although Velez did not give the "punch list" to respondent, Velez discussed the problems with the respondent. Respondent did not take any steps to remedy the problems and said he thought "a lot of it was nonsense." Velez told respondent that he, Velez, would take care of it. Because of the unresolved problems with the house, Mrs. Paterson finally called the licensing board to file a complaint against Rodney Velez. At that time, she was informed that Rodney Velez was not the contractor; the contractor was the respondent. This was the first time that Mrs. Paterson was aware that the respondent was involved with the construction of the house. All of the Patersons dealings had been with Velez, and all checks for construction payments were made out to Velez personally. 2/ Even though the Patersons had not received satisfaction from Custom Concrete for the problems with the house, they signed the closing papers because Velez threatened to evict them. At closing the Patersons received a lien release from Custom Concrete which released all work prior to March 9, 1984. Subsequently, Velez filed a claim of lien against the Paterson property for work completed on February 9, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(j), Florida Statutes, that he be fined $1,000.00, and that his license be suspended for 60 days from the date the Construction Industry Licensing Board enters its final order in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 30th day of January, 1985.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter its final order: Finding the Respondent guilty of Count One of the Administrative Complaint by (a) violating section 489.129(e), Fla. Stat. (1981), by aiding and abetting an uncertified and unregistered person to evade the licensing provisions of the Contracting Act, and (b) by violating section 489.129(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1981), by knowingly combining and conspiring with an unregistered and unlicensed person with intent to evade the provisions of the Contracting Act. Finding the Respondent not guilty of the allegations in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. For the violations of Count One, imposing a fine of five hundred dollars ($500). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin F. Mann 2216 Bayshore Garden Parkway Bradenton, Florida 33507 Simon Rosin, Esquire Pflugner, Rosin & Hendricks Post Office Box 1918 Sarasota, Florida 33578 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee,, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether respondent on several occasions aided an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting by obtaining permits on respondent's license for contracting jobs performed by the unlicensed contractor; Whether respondent committed the statutory violations alleged; and If so, whether respondent's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether some other penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, respondent was a certified general contractor in Florida holding License No. CG C000572. Johnnie T. Thomas is the president of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Mr. Thomas is not a licensed contractor in the State of Florida. Although respondent has used his license to qualify several corporations, the last being Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., respondent never qualified J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Indeed, J. T. Thomas Construction has never been qualified by any licensee. During the time period relevant to this action, J. T. Thomas Construction Company was the name used by Mr. Thomas to engage in the contracting business. On July 25, 1983, J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Hazel N. Jones for the construction of a residence at 11729 Rock Hill Road, Thonotosassa, Florida, in Hillsborough County. Johnnie Thomas signed the contract on behalf of J. T. Thomas Construction Company as "President and Builder." Ms. Jones did not know that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. James Montjoy drew the plans for the house and recommended Thomas as the builder. The total price for the house was $75,500. The house was started in September of 1983, and on January 30, 1984 final payment was made. After moving into the house, Ms. Jones discovered several problems. In June of 1984 an energy check found that the home was not properly insulated; however, this was apparently corrected in May of 1985. Ms. Jones had several other problems with the home and sent a "punch-list" to Mr. Thomas setting forth the items that needed to be corrected. Although Mr. Thomas admitted at the hearing that there were items that should have been corrected on the punch-list, he also admitted that he did not correct them because he disputed other claims of Ms. Jones. The building permit application for Ms. Jones' home was signed by the respondent. On the building permit application, the contractor was listed as Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. The building permit was issued on August 15, 1983. It listed Julius H. Isaac and Julius Isaac and Association, Inc. as the contractor. The building permit was signed by Julius H. Isaac as agent. Ms. Jones never met Mr. Isaac, never saw him and never knew that he was involved in any way in the construction of her home. In late 1984, Ms. Catherine Farragut, the owner of a building located at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida, contracted with J. T. Thomas to have her building remodeled. Ms. Jones recommended Mr. Thomas to Ms. Farragut before Ms. Jones began to experience problems with Mr. Thomas. Ms. Farragut was not aware that Mr. Thomas was not a licensed contractor. The remodeling of the building was completed in early 1985. The permit for the interior remodeling of the offices at 1704 North Nebraska Avenue was issued on July 23, 1984 to Julius Isaac & Association. Ms. Farragut did see Isaac at the job site in the central parking area; however, Mr. Thomas never advised Ms. Farragut that respondent was involved with the project. On August 20, 1985 J. T. Thomas Construction Company contracted with Evelyn S. Williams to construct a residence at 3620 East North Bay Street, Tampa, Florida. The contract price for the home was 66,000 and payments by check were made to Johnnie Thomas in intervals. Construction on the home began in November 1985. Ms. Williams moved into the home in August of 1986. She discovered some problems with the house, and gave Mr. Thomas a list of the items that needed to be corrected. Mr. Thomas corrected all the items but one. Ms. Williams still has a problem with the roof getting moldy due to water retention. A permit was issued by the City of Tampa Building Department on November 20, 1985, for construction at 3620 East North Bay Street. The permit was issued to Julius Isaac and the contractor of record is stated as Julius Isaac d/b/a Julius Isaac & Associates. Ms. Williams never met Mr. Isaac or saw him; however, Ms. Williams did not go to the job site during construction since the mortgage company was supposed to periodically inspect the house during construction. Ms. Williams was not aware that Mr. Thomas was unlicensed. On August 28, 1986, J. T. Thomas Construction Company entered into a written contract with Ms. Verlie Nelson to construct a residence at 8105 Jad Drive for a price of $102,560. Ms. Nelson thought that Mr. Thomas was a licensed contractor. She never saw Mr. Isaac at the job site, however, she was rarely there because Sun Coast Federal Credit Union was paid to do the inspections. On October 16, 1986, respondent applied for a building permit for 8105 Jad Drive. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners and Julius Isaac & Association, Inc., was listed as the general contractor for the project. On November 7, 1986, the permit was issued by the Hillsborough County Building Department. Julius H. Isaac was listed as the applicant and contractor. John and Augusta Thomas were listed as the owners of the property at 8105 Jad Drive. Mr. Thomas admitted that J. T. Thomas Construction Company built the homes for Ms. Jones, Ms. Nelson and Ms. Williams, and did the renovation on the building owned by Ms. Farragut. Mr. Thomas received the payments for the projects, hired and paid the subcontractors and supervised construction. He also managed the daily affairs of J. T. Thomas Construction Company. J. T. Thomas Construction Company was formed in 1971 under the name Thomas (J. T.) Construction Company. However, the company, as a corporate entity, was dissolved by proclamation in 1973. J. T. Thomas' brother Leslie was the secretary of the corporation and a licensed contractor. He obtained the building permits for the company until be became ill. Thereafter, respondent obtained the building permits for J. T. Thomas Construction Company. Respondent knew that Mr. Thomas was not licensed and could not get the permits himself. Respondent is not a salaried employee of J. T. Thomas Construction Company, and he received no compensation for his services although he was reimbursed for the actual cost of obtaining the permits. Other than obtaining the permits, respondent's only connection with Mr. Thomas' construction projects was to visit job sites before inspections or go to a site if Mr. Thomas asked for his help with a construction problem. However, there was no competent evidence establishing that respondent ever went to the particular job sites involved in this case. Respondent had no responsibilities in connection with the projects and had no authority to take any actions. In essence, respondent was simply "helping" a long time friend. Respondent has been licensed since 1968, and there was no evidence presented of any prior violations or any prior complaints.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of the act set forth in Section 489.129(e), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 27th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5586 Rulings on petitioner's proposed findings of fact by paragraph: 1-8 Accepted generally. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Julius H. Isaac 421 Ella Mae Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil Stephen F. Hanlon, Esquire General Counsel BARNETT, BOLT & KIRKWOOD Department of Professional Post Office Box 3287 Regulation 100 Twiggs Street 130 North Monroe Street Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether respondent's license as a certified general contractor should he disciplined on charges of abandonment, diversion, violation of applicable building codes, improper qualification of companies under whose name he was conducting business, and continued misconduct in the practice of contracting, in violation of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges, respondent was a certified general contractor holding license no. CG C015937. He now resides at 1210 Old Boynton Road, Apartment 113, Boynton Beach, Florida. (Testimony of respondent; P-1) I. Count I: Abandonment of a Construction Project On or about October 30, 1980, respondent, d/b/a P & R Construction, a subsidiary of New Visions, Inc., entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Ervin to construct a bathroom addition to their residence located at 1119 Lake Terrace, No. 101, Boynton Beach, Florida, for the sum of $4,500. (Testimony of respondent) Respondent was the contractor of record for this project. He pulled the required building permit, hired the subcontractors, and supervised the project. Robert Popiel, owner of New Vision, Inc., kept the company's books, paid bills, and handled sales. (Testimony of respondent; P-9) In June of 1981, respondent abandoned the construction project, leaving it uncompleted. Neither the bathroom door nor the shower door had been installed; exterior stucco beneath the bathroom window (which had been removed to repair a leak) had not been replaced; and the bathroom floor was unfinished. Final inspections had not been made and a certificate of occupancy had not been obtained. During the next four or five months, Mr. Ervin tried, unsuccessfully, to locate respondent and persuade him to return and complete the project. Eventually, Mr. Ervin hired another contractor and paid him $500 to complete the unfinished work. (Testimony of Ervin, respondent) When respondent abandoned the project, the plumbing (Archie's Plumbing), roofing (Modern Roofing), and electrical (Jerry's Electric) subcontractors, who had performed work and furnished materials for the project, were left unpaid. The improvements were thus subject to the placement of contractors' liens. The subcontractors were owed a total of $2,107.21, although they eventually settled with the owner for a total payment of $1,100. (Testimony of Ervin, Yedvarb, Grummer) Moreover, when respondent abandoned the project, there were leaks in the roof, where the bathroom joined the existing structure, and leaks below the bathroom window. (Testimony of Ervin) During this time, respondent was undergoing a divorce and moving from one motel to another. Mr. Ervin tried repeatedly to contact him, but respondent neither returned his phone calls nor answered his messages. Despite the best efforts of Mr. Ervin, respondent was nowhere to be found. II. Count II: Diversion of Monies Respondent did not receive a fixed salary from New Visions, Inc. Periodically, he would be paid by simply withdrawing funds from the company. During the time in question, New Vision, Inc., had four construction projects underway and respondent withdrew approximately $500. (Testimony of respondent, Popiel) The various New Vision, Inc., projects, including the Ervin project, were apparently underbid. Subcontractors were paid by Mr. Popiel out of incoming funds. But both he and respondent realized that the incoming money under the various contracts would be insufficient to pay all subcontractors for work performed. (Testimony of respondent, Popiel) Respondent was aware that the Ervin project was "running close" and that it "was probably running over" the contract price. (TR-53) It has not been shown that respondent diverted funds received for the completion of the Ervin project and that, as a result of such diversion, he was unable to complete the work. The subcontractors were not paid because the Ervin project incurred costs which exceeded the contract price. And, since New Vision, Inc., was experiencing similar difficulties elsewhere, it had insufficient funds to cover the excess costs of the Ervin project. (Testimony of respondent, Popiel; P-9, p. 32) III. Count III: Deliberate Violation of Building Code The Department alleges that respondent violated the applicable building code (Section 105.1, City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances) by covering the roof before the proper city inspection had been made. Pursuant to this code, it was respondent's duty to order the flat roof sheathing inspection; but it was the roofing contractor's responsibility to obtain the "tin tag" inspection before covering the roof. This is an inspection which is required to ensure that the base sheet or black felt is properly installed. Even though it was the roofing contractor's duty to call for such an inspection, the general contractor remained responsible for the entire project. (Testimony of Howell, respondent) In this case, respondent called for the sheathing inspection but the roofing contractor laid the felt and covered the roof without first calling for the requisite tin tag inspection. The building code violation was thus primarily the fault of the roofing contractor and only secondarily, or derivatively, the fault of the respondent. No evidence was presented to show that respondent approved, or knew, in advance, of the roofing contractor's failure to call for the tin tag inspection. Respondent's failure to ensure that the roofing contractor called for the required inspection cannot, without more, support a conclusion that respondent knowingly and deliberately violated an applicable building code. (Testimony of Howell, respondent) IV. Count IV: Acting in a Capacity of a Contractor Under a Name Other Than as Certified Respondent, d/b/a P & R Construction, a subsidiary of New Vision, Inc., contracted for and constructed a bathroom addition to the Ervin residence. However, neither company was qualified with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. V. Count V: Misconduct in the Practice of Contracting In this count, the Department alleges that, by virtue of the misconduct alleged in Counts I through IV, respondent is guilty of "misconduct in the practice of contracting." No additional acts of respondent were complained of or alleged. It follows that respondent can be found guilty of this charge only to the extent he is found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I through IV. VI. Mitigation There is no evidence that respondent has ever before been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He has worked in construction most of his life and this is the only business he knows. It is his livelihood, and, in his words, the only way "I can make a decent living." (TR-134) He is 59 years old. His goals are modest and tempered by experience: I'm just a small, small operator, and I work to make a living. I'm not going to get rich. I'm too old to get rich. Those things, thirty years ago I had that in mind. TR-134. He now realizes, better than before, the value of his contractor's license. His misconduct in connection with the Ervin project occurred when he was in the midst of a divorce and a personal ordeal. In his own words: And I bounced from place to place. I bounced off the bottom. I was living down at a flea bitten motel here. The roaches were so thick that I never thought I'd survive it. So now I guess--now I got married last September and I guess I'm getting to appreciate things which I took for granted before. I'm just getting so I appreciate them now and what-- you know, what I got and what I can do. TR-136 He admits that he did not fulfill his responsibilities from the Ervin project and understands better the hardships which his conduct imposed on Mr. Ervin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board impose a $1,000 fine against respondent for violating Section 489.129(1)(g), (k) , and (m), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 7th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice as building contractors. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed individually as a Certified General Contractor pursuant to license number CG C 0055328 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board"). Respondent has never been licensed by the Board as the qualifying agent for Mr. Gary Butler ("Butler"), an unlicensed contractor. In 1993, Respondent entered into an agreement with Butler who has never been licensed by the Board. The terms of the agreement require Respondent to pull permits for construction projects entered into by Butler. Butler pays Respondent for each permit or weekly. Respondent supervises some, but not all, of the projects undertaken by Butler. In August, 1993, Mr. Lynn Kyler ("Kyler"), the owner of a residence constructed by Ms. Denise Pyke ("Pyke"), a Certified Residential Contractor, asked Pyke to find a contractor to build a new dock and boat house at Kyler's residence. The Kyler residence is a lake front home located at 10250 State Road 561 A, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. Kyler authorized Pyke to act as Kyler's agent for construction of the dock and boat house. Kyler resided in Indiana from August through late fall of 1993. Pyke obtained recommendations of various candidates including Butler. Butler represented himself as a licensed and insured builder of docks and boat houses. Butler provided Pyke with a business card representing that Butler is licensed and insured. Pyke obtained cost and design proposals from Butler and Norquist Construction Company and communicated the proposals to Kyler. Kyler chose Butler. Butler agreed to demolish the existing dock and construct a new dock and boat house (the "project"). Kyler paid Butler the full contract price of $6,897.60. Prior to the completion of the project, neither Respondent nor Butler disclosed to Pyke or Kyler that Butler was unlicensed. Nor did they disclose that Butler would use Respondent's license to pull the permit for the project. Respondent knew that Butler is not licensed as a contractor, in any capacity. On August 25, 1993, Respondent and Butler went to the Lake County Building Department. Respondent used his license to pull Permit Number T93- 04793 for the project. The permit was issued to Respondent, listed Respondent's license as the certified general contractor, and was maintained in the official records of the Lake County Building Department. Respondent listed himself on the permit as the contractor for the entire project without limitation and without reference to Butler. Respondent was not authorized by Pyke or Kyler to pull the permit or to participate in the project. At the time, neither Pyke nor Kyler were aware of Respondent's existence or his role in the project. Respondent did not participate and had no involvement in the project except pulling the permit. The project was commenced by Butler in August, 1993, and completed shortly thereafter. Respondent did not supervise or participate in the construction of the project. Butler began the project without first filing a Notice of Commencement. Butler constructed the project with only a 10 foot setback in violation of the 25 foot setback required in Lake County Code Ordinance 10.0401(3)(d). Butler also failed to obtain an electrical permit in violation of Standard Building Code, Section 103.1.1. (1991). The project, as built by Butler, has no value to Kyler. The project failed final inspection for violation of the 25 foot setback and failure to obtain an electrical permit. The roof tiles on the boat house had to be removed because they were falling off the roof. The project itself is coming apart. It will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 to bring the project into compliance with local code requirements and to make it usable. Respondent was aware of the 25 foot setback when he pulled the permit for the project. The project plans submitted for the permit reflect the 25 foot setback. Lake County allows contractors to withdraw permits that have already been pulled. Respondent never withdrew the permit for the project. Butler was unable to obtain a final inspection because he failed to file a Notice Of Commencement at the outset of the project. Pyke and Kyler filed the Notice Of Commencement in order to obtain the final inspection. As the contractor of record, it was Respondent's responsibility to ensure that a Notice of Commencement was filed and that the project passed final inspection. While obtaining the information necessary to file the Notice Of Commencement, Pyke and Kyler learned that Butler was unlicensed and uninsured and that Respondent had used his license to pull the permit. When confronted by Pyke, Respondent did not deny knowledge of the project and assured Pyke that the problems with the project would be corrected. Despite Respondent's assurances, the code violations have not been corrected. Nor have the defects in construction been corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating: Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a); and Sections 489.129(1) (e), (f), (n), and (p). It is further recommended that the Board place Respondent on probation for three years, subject to reasonable conditions, impose an administrative fine of $5,000, and assess costs of $717.50 plus reasonable costs incurred by Petitioner subsequent to the date of this Recommended Order to investigate and prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 28th day of March 1996.
