Findings Of Fact Leroy Alvin Colts was qualifier for Berkley Home Service, which held License #RC0029635. Colts held such license from 1977 - 81. In December 28, 1978, Leroy Alvin Colts' local certificate of competency was revoked by the Pinellas County authorities. This action was reviewed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board prior to these charges being filed. On January 4, 1979, Leroy Alvin Colts was adjudged guilty of violating Section 812.021 (Grand Theft) and Section 812.014 (Grand Larceny) and sentenced to 45 years in the State Penitentiary. These offenses arose directly from Colts' activities as a licensed contractor. The court's judgment was affirmed by the appellate court. Notice of this proceeding was provided Colts in the manner prescribed by law, and inquiry of Counsel for the Petitioner Board and representatives of the St. Petersburg Police Department showed that Colts was free on bond and available to attend the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommended that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke Leroy Alvin Colts' license. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 247 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph F. McDermott, Esquire 544 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner,
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent James J. Hastings was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CG C009847. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a qualifying agent for Hastings Construction Company, Inc. Respondent and Candace Reinertz are married. At all times material to the violations charged, she was operating under her maiden name for all purposes. At all times material hereto, Candace Reinertz was not licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, and the Respondent had knowledge thereof. Over several years, Ms. Reinertz regularly assisted Mr. Hastings in the operation of Hastings Construction Company, Inc., including day to day supervision of pool, small building, and house construction and pulling building permits for that corporation. She had been authorized in writing by Hastings to pull building permits for him on specific projects (not necessarily in a corporate name) at least since April 27, 1987. At all times material hereto, Castles `n' Pools, Inc., 205 Third Avenue, Melbourne Beach, Florida, was a firm that was not qualified with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and Respondent had knowledge thereof. This corporation was intended to become a venture to be run jointly by husband and wife. Castles `n' Pools, Inc. had been qualified as a corporation with the Florida Secretary of State and had received an occupational license. The corporate officers/directors were Reinertz and Hastings. However, a Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board License was never applied for by Ms. Reinertz in her own name nor was one applied for by Mr. Hastings as a qualifier for Castles `n' Pools, Inc. On June 27, 1987, Castles `n' Pools, Inc., through Candace Reinertz, contracted with Zimmer Dominque for construction of a pool at Mr. Dominque's residence located at 866 Van Circle, N.E., Palm Bay, Florida, for $7,750. The contract promised completion of the pool by September 23, 1987, barring adverse weather and mishaps. It is Ms. Reinertz's testimony that she inadvertently filled in a Castles `n' Pools, Inc. blank contract when she intended to use a Hastings Construction Company blank contract. The blank forms are, indeed, very similar. Mr. Dominque's testimony is that he thought at all times that he was contracting with Castles `n' Pools, Inc., through Ms. Reinertz. Although he admits that at least by September 22, 1988, he considered Respondent in charge of the project and that he thereafter dealt directly with Respondent, Mr. Dominque's payment by checks made out to Castles `n' Pools and/or Candace Reinertz dated June 27, July 7, September 22, and September 24, 1987 (P-10) support a finding that all work to that point was progressing in the name of Castles `n' Pools. Also supportive of such a finding is that on July 6, 1987, Pyramid Equipment Service billed Castles `n' Pools for digging the hole for the pool (R-8) and on August 11, 1987, R & J Crane Service billed Castles `n' Pools for setting the pool in place (R-9). However, the issuance of the building permit to Hastings Construction Company, Inc. and the chronology of how the permit came to be issued (see infra.) suggest that Mr. Hastings did not know about the Castles `n' Pools connection until at least late September. Respondent's and Ms. Reinertz' testimony that Respondent did not find out that the wrong contract had been used until after construction was underway on the Dominque property is unrefuted and the exact date of his discovery was not demonstrated, but he admits he did not attempt to qualify Castles `n' Pools once he found out. On June 29, 1987, the Respondent authorized Candace Reinertz to pull a permit for the construction of a pool at Mr. Dominque's residence. The authorization, (P-12), does not specify either Castles `n' Pools nor Hastings Construction Company, Inc. as the construction corporation applicant. Ms. Reinertz's subsequent permit application was denied on July 2, 1987, by the Palm Bay Building Department, for failure to include a survey certified by a civil engineer or architect. The record does not reflect in what corporate name Ms. Reinertz made this initial application. She may not even have gotten as far as filling out a permit application before she was refused at the permit desk, but the line drawing prepared for that application (R-1) specifies that the line drawing was that of Hastings Construction Company, Inc. Mr. Hastings regularly did line drawings for Hastings Construction Company, Inc. projects on a particular machine in that corporation's offices. The certified survey requirement was a recent innovation of the Palm Bay Building Code. On July 6, 1987, Castles `n' Pools, Inc. delivered the prefabricated fiberglass pool, excavated the site and dropped the pool in the hole. No further efforts of permanent installation occurred at that time, due to failure to obtain a permit. A dispute then ensued between Hastings and Reinertz on one side and Mr. Dominque on the other over who must provide the survey and how. This dispute occasioned some delay in the project, but on July 26, 1987, Ms. Reinertz again applied, with a certified survey, to the Palm Bay Building Department for a permit for the construction of Mr. Dominque's pool, listing the builder as Hastings Construction Company, Inc. (P-5). On July 30, 1987, permit number 8702101 was issued by the Palm Bay Building Department for the construction of Mr. Dominque's pool by Hastings Construction Company, Inc. (P-6). Thereafter, work on the pool progressed sporadically until September 22, 1987, when the pool floated up out of the ground. The pool floated up out of the ground during a rainstorm and after Respondent had left Mr. Dominque with instructions to fill the pool to a certain level with water. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Dominque failed to follow Respondent's directions with precision. Subsequent to September 22, 1987, the pool was reinserted in the excavation by crane and by October 2, 1987, the deck was installed. Two or three months later a crack appeared in the pool which has since been repaired, however, the drain and light still do not work properly, and Mr. Dominque had to pay an additional $50 for cleanup of the resulting debris. Some of the delay in completion of work on the pool can be attributed to the dispute about the survey, some to injury of a key employee, and some to heavy rains, but the testimony of Mr. Nasrallah, architect and expert contractor, is accepted that 30 to 45 days would be sufficient to install the entire pool except for the pool deck even in rainy weather. Also, Mr. Dominque's and Respondent's testimony is in agreement that Respondent (not Ms. Reinertz) was fired for a period of time and then rehired. The length of time and the dates that Respondent was off the job is unclear, but it was minimally from September 9 to September 22, 1987. Oversight of the work at all times was by the Respondent. Mr. Dominque has paid the total contract price of $7,750 and expressed himself that any amount he questioned has either "evened out" or been paid back by Respondent. Stan Alexander is a certified general contractor and former chairman of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In his expert opinion as a contractor, construction began when the hole was first dug on July 6, 1987 and the pool was placed in it even temporarily. Also in his expert opinion as a contractor, Mr. Alexander determined that the contractor responsible for the installation of this pool was guilty of gross negligence or incompetence due in part to the insufficiency of dewatering devices (including a hydrostatic device) and placement of the responsibility to fill the pool on the home owner. Mark Nasrallah is a registered Florida architect and a licensed general contractor. Also in his expert opinion as a contractor, construction began on the job when the pool was placed in the excavation. It is also Mr. Nasrallah's expert opinion that the contractor responsible for this job is guilty of gross negligence or incompetence. Although Mr. Alexander was unfamiliar with any local Palm Bay zoning or permitting provision which would allow "site clearing" prior to excavation/construction, and although Mr. Nasrallah considered it "questionable" whether the digging for the pool constituted "construction without a permit," Mr. Nasrallah's assessment that digging the hole and putting the pool in the hole even temporarily was in excess of mere site clearing and was work which clearly began construction is accepted. Section 103 of the Standard Building Code has been adopted by the City of Palm Bay. It provides as follows: A person, firm or corporation shall not erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or structure in the applicable jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, without first obtaining a building permit for such building or structure from the Building Official. Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in October, 1984, for violation of Sections 489.129(1)(c), (g), (j); 489.119(2), (3); and 455.227(1)(a) Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 489.129 (1)(d) and (m) Florida Statutes, issuing a letter of guidance with regard to the permitting violation, fining the Respondent $750.00 for gross negligence or incompetence, and dismissing the remaining two charges. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case No. 87-5172 The following constitute rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner PFOF: Accepted in FOF 1. Accepted in FOF 2. Accepted in FOF 3. Accepted in FOF 5. Accepted in FOF 7. Accepted in FOF 8. 7-8. Accepted and expanded to more accurately reflect the record in FOF 10 9. Accepted in FOF 11. 10-11. Accepted and expanded to more accurately reflect the record in FOF 12. Accepted and expanded to more accurately reflect the record in FOF 13. Accepted in FOF 14. 14-15. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 15-17. The modifications are made to more accurately reflect the record as a whole, the specific expert opinion as given by Messrs. Alexander and Nasrallah (discussed in the Conclusions of Law) and to reflect that some hydrostatic devices were used, some removed, and at least one left in for a period of time. 16. Accepted in FOF 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James J. Hastings 205 Third Avenue Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent, James Jennings, violated Subsections 106.021(3), 106.07(5), or 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), as alleged in the Amended Order of Probable Cause dated February 20, 2004, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Respondent has taught in the public schools of Lee County, Florida, for 31 years. He has a bachelor of science degree. Respondent was a first-time candidate for public office, although he had limited political experience as a precinct committeeman and president of the Sanibel-Captiva Republican Club. He had not been actively engaged in any previous campaign as a campaign treasurer or deputy. Incidental to becoming a candidate he met with appropriate municipal and county election officials and received a campaign handbook which included the following: A Compilation of The Election Laws of the State of Florida (2001), published by the Department of State; 2002 Handbook for Candidates, published by the Department of State; 2002 Handbook for Treasurers, published by the Department of State; Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, published by the Department of State; various Sanibel municipal ordinances related to city elections; a calendar listing important dates for filing campaign documents. Respondent signed a Statement of Candidate which advised that he had received a copy of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and that he had read and understood same. It is apparent that Respondent did not understand the Florida Election Law as embodied in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Respondent designated a campaign treasurer and a deputy campaign treasurer. Notwithstanding the fact that Subsection 106.021(3), Florida Statutes (2002), clearly states that no campaign expenditure shall be made except through the duly- appointed campaign treasurer, Respondent personally signed 30 campaign checks. In fact, he signed all campaign checks with the exception of one check. On that particular check he directed his wife, the deputy campaign treasurer, who was statutorily authorized to sign the campaign check as deputy campaign treasurer, to sign his name. Inexplicably, Respondent believed that he, personally, was obligated to sign all campaign checks because he was the candidate. Respondent prepared his own Campaign Treasurer's Reports. It is suggested that he received some limited assistance from his wife. On February 28, 2003, Respondent was required to file a Campaign Treasurer's Report for the reporting period of February 8, 2003, through February 27, 2003. Two previous Campaign Treasurer's Reports for periods January 1, 2003, through January 24, 2003, and January 25, 2003, through February 7, 2003, had reporting dates which were seven days after the reporting period ended (January 31, 2003, and February 14, 2003). Respondent believed that the Campaign Treasurer's Report due on February 28, 2003, covered the period from February 8, 2003, through February 21, 2003. The campaign calendar presented by a city elections official clearly indicated the accurate reporting period. On February 28, 2003, immediately prior to filing the subject Campaign Treasurer's Report, Respondent discovered that the report should have included activity through February 27, 2003. He did not include appropriate information for February 21, 2003, through February 27, 2003, because he did not have time to return to his home, obtain the additional information, make appropriate inclusions, and file the report before 5:00 p.m. at the Sanibel City Hall. He merely changed the end of the reporting period on the Campaign Treasurer's Report from February 21, 2003, to February 27, 2003, knowing that it was inaccurate. The Campaign Treasurer's Report failed to include 24 contributions that should have been reported. During the telephone conversation in which he discovered the actual reporting period, he testified that he was advised by a Lee County elections official to file the report even though it was inaccurate, and then immediately file an accurate amended report. This is not credible. February 28, 2003, was a Friday. Respondent filed an Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report on Wednesday, March 5, 2003. The election was on Tuesday, March 4, 2003. Unfortunately, the Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report was not accurate. On June 2, 2003, Respondent filed a Second Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report, which included seven previously unreported contributions. This particular inaccuracy was attributed to the fact that two pages in the spiral notebook used to record contributions had stuck together for some unknown reason concealing these seven contributions. Petitioner failed to present evidence in testimony or stipulated facts as to the amount of unreported contributions. Respondent acknowledged his failure to report 24 contributions, but not the amount of each contribution or of a total amount of unreported contributions. While the orders of probable cause contain specific reference to the amount of each unreported contribution, this is not evidence. It may be possible to sift through the Campaign Treasurer's Reports and estimate the unreported amounts by comparing each report. An examination of the various Campaign Treasurer's Reports suggests that obtaining an accurate figure would be problematic and not exact. I find that there is no basis for an administrative fine predicated on the amount of unreported contributions. Respondent's attempts at campaign bookkeeping mirrored his understanding of the election laws. He, at first, attempted to keep contributions and expenditures in a checkbook register. When this proved inadequate, he started recording contributions and expenditures in a spiral notebook and on lined paper. These records were received into evidence. After a cursory examination of these documents, it is easy to understand why there was confusion. Respondent's campaign bookkeeping lacked basic organization. There does not appear to be any ulterior motive for Respondent's glaring errors, in particular his lack of basic understanding as to who should sign campaign checks. No one was deceived by the candidate's signing his name to the campaign checks. Equally as baffling and disappointing is his failure to understand the reporting periods and his response to his discovery of the error in the time covered by the reporting period in question. While it is argued that the voting public is deceived by Respondent's failure to disclose contributions, it is unlikely that any voters were waiting to examine the Campaign Treasurer's Report on the Monday before a Tuesday election. Clearly, Respondent did not comply with Subsection 106.021(3), Florida Statutes (2002), when he signed 30 campaign checks. This failure is obviated by granting the motion to dismiss the counts related to this violation. He also certified the correctness of the Campaign Treasurer's Report for the February 8, 2003, through February 27, 2003, reporting period knowing that the report was inaccurate and did not accurately reflect contributions. The March 5, 2003, Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report was similarly inaccurate. The real issue regarding Respondent's filing inaccurate Campaign Treasurer's Reports is whether or not these activities were "willful" as defined by Section 106.37, Florida Statutes (2002). Notwithstanding his written assertion that he understood the Florida Election Law, he did not. This is demonstrated by the fact that he clearly did not understand the law regarding who could sign campaign checks. The fact that he directed his wife to sign his name to a campaign check when she was a deputy campaign treasurer and an statutorily authorized signer, demonstrates that he just did not understand the law. Signing a Campaign Treasurer's Report, knowing it did not accurately reflect required reportable activity, clearly violates the law, and cannot be attributed to misunderstanding the law. Even if it is believed that he was advised to file an inaccurate report and file an immediate amended report, which is not credible, Respondent knowingly violated the law. He filed an inaccurate report and certified that it was true and correct when it was not. He should have waited until the following Monday, filed an accurate report, and suffered the fine and potential attendant political repercussions. The Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report filed March 5, 2003, failed to report seven campaign contributions that were ultimately reported on the Second Amended Campaign Treasurer's Report filed on June 2, 2003; this inaccuracy was not done knowingly; however, it does reflect reckless disregard for the law. Respondent's excuse that the pages were stuck together by fruit juice is unacceptable. Respondent did an inexcusably sophomoric job in his campaign record keeping; this failure as a record keeper rises to the level of recklessly filing an inaccurate Campaign Treasurer's Report. Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests (CE Form 1) for the 2002 calendar year reflects an annual income of $51,279, from the Lee County School Board, joint-residential home ownership, modest tax sheltered annuities, and typical debt. This is the only financial information presented. In addition, Respondent has no previous history of involvement with Petitioner and was fully cooperative with the investigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found to have violated Subsections 106.07(5) and 106.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), and fined $3,900. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 24th day of September, 2004.
Conclusions For Petitioners: Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 323999-1050 For Respondent: Robin Gibson, Esquire Gibson, Valenti & Ashley 212 East Stuart Avenue Lake Wales, Florida 33853 THE FEC STAFF’S EXCEPTIONS 1. Staff Exception #1 is approved. As the FEC has consistently held, FEC v. Morroni, Case No. FEC 97-060; FEC v. Bosezar, Case No. FEC 95-053; Division of Elections v. 2the FEC has reviewed the entire record and heard arguments of counsel. De La Portilla, Case No. FEC 93-045; FEC v. Harris, Case No. FEC 98-087; FEC v. De La Portilla, Case No. FEC 00-006; FEC v. Proctor, Case No. FEC 99-065; the burden of proof in cases involving alleged violations of Chapter 106 is by a “preponderance of the evidence.” For this reason, the FEC rejects the ALJ's characterization (COL @ § 17) of the burden as being “clear and convincing.” That being said, the Commission finds that the facts as found by the ALJ support the conclusions in the Recommended Order as modified by the FEC’s conclusions herein under either burden. 2. The Commission rejects Staff Exception #2. The FEC fully supports the Division of Elections’ position that parties required to submit information to the Division should do so using the appropriate forms. However, the evidence as found by the ALJ showed that Respondents did notify the Division that a new Deputy Treasurer for the political committee involved had been appointed prior to the submission of the Quarterly Report at issue even though the form used was that designated for candidates not for committees. Given the facts of this case, the Commission cannot say that the Respondents’ use of the incorrect form made their Quarterly Report so inaccurate as to make their certification of the Report “inaccurate or untrue” in violation of Section 106.07(5), Fla. Stat. While the FEC does not agree with the ALJ’s conclusion (COL @ 4§ 23-25) that using an incorrect form cannot form the underlying basis of a finding that a report violates Section 106.07(5), it agrees with his conclusion that no violation occurred here. . WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing and as amended by the Commission’s rulings on the exceptions filed herein, the FEC hereby accepts the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the ALJ and DISMISSES the charges against the Respondents. nd > DONE and ORDERED this Q2 day of Cgurt 2003. Chanee Qnroins Chance Irvine, Chairman Florida Elections Commission CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to counsel for Respondents, Robin Gibson, Esquire, Gibson, Valenti & Ashley, 212 East Stuart Avenue, Lake Wales, Florida, 33853, by U.S. mail, and by hand delivery to Clerk, Florida Elections Commission, 107 West Gaines nd Street, Suite 224, Tallahassee mail this 22 day of — luge 2003. y; by
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent in Administering grants under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations. As a result thereof, a total of $6,503 was spent in violation of applicable rules and regulations. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer as set out in the Recommended Order are hereby accepted and adopted, except that the undersigned rejects the hearing officer's conclusion of law at paragraph two on page five of the recommended order. The undersigned concludes that according to applicable law the amount of $4,824 charged to the contract on account of the ineligible participant is not an allowable expenditure, and that Respondent is liable for the payment of that sum. It is further found that Respondent did not present adequate evidence to refute the findings of its failure to comply with applicable regulations. WHEREFORE, it is Ordered: That Respondent immediately repay $6,503 spent in violation of applicable regulations. In the event either party disagrees with this determination, an appeal can be filed with Mr. Lawrence Weatherford, Regional Administrator, United States Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree street, N.W., Room 405, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The provisions pertaining to the appeal process, 20 C.F.R. 676.88 et. seq., are attached hereto. Dated this 27th day of, 1982 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES R. RUSSELL, Director Division of Employment and Training COPIES FURNISHED: Frances Jackson Box 70 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Chad Motes Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Warren Internal Audit Division of Employment and Training Atkins Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald R. Alexander Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY AMENDED FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-882 SUWANNEE RIVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC. Respondent. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay $1,654 in questioned costs under Contract No. 80ET-86-03-71-17-021. The questioned costs pertaining to Contract No. 79MP- 2U-03-44-17 should be allowed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Chad J. Motes, Esquire Suite 131-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frances Jackson Post Office Box 70 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Wallace E. Orr, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkley Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-882 SUWANNEE RIVER ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC. Respondent. /
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the several violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h)2.,(h)3.,(j),(k), and (n), Florida Statutes (1997), for the reasons stated in the respective Administrative Complaints and, if so, what, if any, penalties should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a certified general contractor pursuant to license number CG C059414. At all relevant times, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc. ("FTG"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of FTG's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195, Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority for Fred T. Garrett Construction, Inc., as required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes. The St. Cyr Case On or about August 21, 1998, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis L. St. Cyr to construct an addition to the residence located at 201 South Bel Air Drive, Plantation, Florida. The contract price was $50,000. Although Mr. St. Cyr paid $2,500 to Respondent, Respondent failed to commence work and canceled the project, thereby abandoning it without just cause and without proper notification to Mr. St. Cyr. The contract did not permit Respondent to keep the $2,500 paid by Mr. St. Cyr, and Respondent failed to refund the payment within 30 days after abandonment. Out of the $2,500 he received from Mr. St. Cyr, however, Respondent paid $1,600.00 to the architect before abandoning the project. Thus, the net amount that Respondent owes to Mr. St. Cyr is $900. Petitioner incurred a total of $1,092.28 in investigative costs relating to the St. Cyr case. The Forney Case On May 22, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Mr. Warren Forney for the construction of a two-bedroom, one-bath addition to the residence located at 1698 Northeast 33rd Street, Oakland Park, Florida. The contract price was $32,500. The contract with Mr. Forney did not contain a written statement explaining the customer’s rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes. On July 7, 1998, Respondent obtained permit number 98-050297 from the Oakland Park Building Department. Construction commenced on or about July 7, 1998, and continued sporadically until October 29, 1998, when Mr. Forney dismissed Respondent for failure to timely complete the project. The Oakland Park Building Department issued notices of violation against the project on August 3, September 11, and October 14, 1998, for various building code violations. Mr. Forney was forced to obtain a homeowner’s permit and subsequently hired a subcontractor to complete the work. Mr. Forney paid Respondent approximately $29,250 before relieving Respondent of his duties. To complete the project, Mr. Forney paid a total of $48,746.52, which was $15,396.52 over and above the original contract price. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,190.78 in investigative costs relating to the Forney case. The Kong Case In or around January 1998, a contractor named Lakeview Concepts hired Respondent to perform demolition work for the Kong dry cleaning store project on the property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. On or about June 17, 1998, permit 98-00002349 was issued to Respondent to perform alterations on commercial property located at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. Respondent, however, did not yet have a contract with the owner for this work. The next month, on or about July 30, 1998, Respondent, who was doing business as FTG, entered into a contract with Shek Kong to complete the dry cleaning store project at 5171 South University Drive, Davie, Florida, for the contract price of $22,300. Shek Kong made payments to Respondent totaling $16,000. Respondent’s work was of poor quality, however, and on or about November 6, 1998, he ceased work, though the project had not been completed. On or about November 14, 1998, Douglas Frankow, license number CB C052960, gave Mr. Kong an estimate of $20,562 to complete the project. Thereafter, on or about June 30, 1999, Mr. Kong contracted with George Settergren, another licensed contractor, to complete the project for a contract price of $27,956. On December 9, 1999, in Case No. 98-020065 08, the Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, rendered a Final Judgment against Respondent and in favor of Mr. Kong. This judgment awarded Mr. Kong the total amount of $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest per annum. Petitioner incurred a total of $2,502.78 in investigative costs relating to the Kong case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(h)2., (h)3., (j), (k), and (n), Florida Statutes, imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,700, assessing investigative costs in the aggregate amount of $5,785.84, placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of four years from the date the Final Order is entered by the Board, and awarding payment of restitution to each customer as follows: (1) to Warren Forney, the amount of $15,396.52; (2) to Shek Kong, satisfaction of the unpaid civil judgment in the amount $28,693.30, plus 10 percent interest accrued thereon; and (3) to Louis L. St. Cyr, the amount of $900. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 February, 2002.
