The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Linda Ratliff, d/b/a Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Respondent), violated provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (2009),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 21, 2010, issued by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner or Department), and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of this case, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC 058307. Respondent’s license is currently in “probation, active” status. Respondent’s address of record is 2023 Shoreland Drive, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Linda Ratliff, individually, is the licensed, primary qualifying agent for Suncoast Roofing of Polk County, Inc. (Suncoast). J. Ratliff works in the family business, and has done so for approximately 17 years. As the primary qualifying agent for Suncoast, Linda Ratliff is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business. Such operations include, but are not limited to, field work at contract sites, financial responsibility for the entity, and all contractual obligations of the company. In this case, the only contractual obligation in dispute is in relation to a contract between Respondent and Ray and Loretta Noble. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent entered into a contract (the contract) with Ray and Loretta Noble. The contract described the work to be performed. The address for the property was identified as 1021 and 1023 Brunell Road, Lakeland, Florida. The Noble property was a duplex, and the contract required the owner to pay $6,800.00 “when finish with work.” The terms of the contract specified that Respondent would: remove the old, flat roofing; replace felt with glass base; fix any rotten wood; recover the roof with 1.5 Iso Board installation and Rubber Bitumen; replace roof stacks with new stacks; obtain the permit; torch down Bitumen; install 12-year manufacturer warranty on shingles, 12 years on Rubber Bitumen, 15 TPO; provide a five-year warranty on labor; clean-up and haul off all trash from roof; roll yard with magnetic roller; provide professional job supervision, and re-shingle the front of the apartment. Respondent applied for and received a building permit for the Noble contract on or about February 27, 2009. Thereafter, Respondent proceeded with work on the property. On or about March 3, 2009, Respondent requested payment from Mr. Noble regarding completion of the roof. J. Ratliff, acting in his capacity as an agent for Respondent, represented to Mr. Noble that the job was finished and that payment was due and owing. Based upon Mr. Ratliff’s representations, Mr. Noble believed that the roof had passed inspection, and that the roof had been installed as presented in the contract. Accordingly, Mr. Noble paid Respondent the full contract price for the job. Unbeknownst to Mr. Noble, the new roof did not pass inspection. In fact, the roof never passed inspection. Initially, Respondent failed to perform minor work to ensure that the roof was water tight. For each deficiency identified by a city inspector, Respondent returned to the job site and made minor repairs. Ultimately, the job could not pass inspection due to the placement of air-conditioning units on the roof of the structure. Respondent did not remove the units prior to installing the new roofing system. In order to assure a water- tight roof, the units would have needed to be removed so that roofing materials could be place underneath. Afterward, the units would have to be re-positioned on the roof. Instead, Respondent sealed around the existing air conditioners as best as could be done, but Respondent’s work did not prevent water from intruding below. After a series of failed inspections, on or about July 7, 2009, city officials, Respondent, and the property owner met at the job site to determine what could be done to cure the roof problems. City officials advised the property owner that the air-conditioning units would need to be moved to allow the installation of roofing material and re-set afterwards. Mr. Noble did not want to incur the cost of the additional project. Respondent also refused to correct the job so that it could pass inspection. Respondent advised Mr. Noble that it would cost an additional $800.00 to have a licensed person remove the units and re-set them. Respondent and Mr. Noble reached an impasse and neither would compromise. Respondent never returned to the job site, and did not obtain an acceptable inspection for the work performed. Eventually, Mr. Noble had another company re-roof the structure and incurred an additional $7,400.00 in roofing expenses. Respondent did not refund any of Mr. Noble’s money, nor did Respondent honor the terms of the contract. The roof failed not fewer than seven inspections and several of the failures were unrelated to the issue associated with the air- conditioning units. The investigative costs for this case totaled $325.90. Respondent has prior disciplinary action against the license, as noted in Petitioner’s Exhibit C. Respondent’s claim that an additional licensee would have been required to remove the air-conditioning units and re- set them, is not mitigation of the circumstances of this case. Respondent had the option of not undertaking a project that required the removal of the air-conditioning units, in order to assure a water-tight result. As the licensed party, Respondent knew or should have known how to install a water-tight roofing system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of law found in Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. Based upon the guidelines, past disciplinary actions against the Respondent, and a totality of the circumstances, it is further recommended that an administrative fine in the amount of $5000.00 be imposed for the violations noted above. Also, it is recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for six months. Finally, it is recommended that Respondent be required to reimburse Petitioner for the investigative and other costs incurred in this case to the full extent allowed by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of December, 2010.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters At all times material hereto, Respondent, Carlos Morejon, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), as a certified building contractor and as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license numbers CB C056745 and RR 0066530, respectively.3 In early 1993, following the landfall of Hurricane Andrew, Respondent and Sergio Casiano, a family friend, resolved to "start a company" to engage in contracting. At the time, Casiano was not certified or registered to engage in contracting, a circumstance known to Respondent; however, he apparently had years of experience in the construction trade. Conversely, Respondent, although certified and registered, was lacking in experience. According to Respondent, both he and Casiano would bid or contract jobs, and Casiano (variously described by Respondent as his field manager, superintendent, supervisor, or foreman) would actually oversee the construction, subject to Respondent's supervision "as much as my abilities" allowed.4 The Moreno job Pertinent to this case, Henry and Ester Moreno own, and have owned since approximately 1986, a single-family residence located at 8361 Southwest 47th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. As sited, the home is located in unincorporated Dade County. In early October 1993, the Morenos were driving in their neighborhood when they observed a house being re-roofed with a clay roof tile of a color and style they wanted installed on their home. The Morenos stopped and inquired of the owner regarding the contractor, and the owner advised them he would have the contractor contact them. That evening, Casiano telephoned the Morenos and arranged to meet with them at their home. At the meeting, the Morenos explained that they wanted to replace their existing shingles with clay roof tiles, and discussed price with Casiano; however, no agreement was reached. Before he left, Casiano gave them his business card. The card identified Casiano as the "manager" of a business described as follows: C.M. STATE BUILDING CONTRACTOR ROOFING CONTRACTOR CC# 19424 / CBC # 056745 Between Respondent and Casiano, "C.M." was understood to stand for Carlos Morejon. In August 1994, the Morenos finally resolved to have their home re-roofed, and they telephoned Casiano at the telephone number displayed on his business card. Casiano met with the Morenos on or about August 26, 1994, at which time they entered into a written agreement to remove and replace their existing roofing material. The agreement named Carlos Morejon as the contractor and Henry and Ester Moreno as the owners. Type of construction was noted as residential; project location was noted as 8361 S.W. 47th Street, Miami, Florida; and the owners' telephone number was noted as (305) 226-0503. Contract price was $6,200. The agreement was signed by Mr. and Mrs. Moreno, as owners, and Sergio Casiano, as project supervisor.5 Upon execution of the agreement, and consistent with its terms, the Morenos gave Casiano a check for fifty percent of the contract price ($3,100). The check, at Casiano's direction, was made payable to his order. Under the terms of the agreement, the balance of the contract price was to be paid as the work progressed. On August 30, 1994, with information provided by Casiano regarding the Moreno project, Respondent completed and signed a permit application, and submitted it to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department. The application identified the job address as 8361 S.W. 47th Street; the improvement as re-roofing, with a value of $6,000; and the owners' name and address as "Henry Moreno & Esther," 8361 S.W. 47th Street, Miami, Florida, with a telephone number of 226-0503. The application was also signed by Esther Moreno, as owner. The application was approved and the permit (number 94148351) was issued on August 31, 1994.6 Consistent with the terms of the agreement, the old roof material was removed, and the roof prepared to accept the new tile; however, cement roof tile was delivered instead of clay tile as requested by the Morenos. When advised of the error, Casiano removed the cement tiles from the job site, and on January 20, 1995, ordered clay tile from Metro Roof Tile, Inc. (Metro Roof), a local manufacturer of roof tiles. The clay tile was promptly delivered and installed. Up to that date, the Morenos had paid Casiano $5,650 of the contract price,7 with the balance of $550 due on final inspection. Casiano neglected to pay Metro Roof for the clay tile installed on the Moreno property, and on February 24, 1995, Metro Roof served the Morenos with a Notice to Owner stating that it had furnished materials for improvement of the property upon the order of Casiano. Subsequently, on April 5, 1995, Metro Roof filed a claim of lien against the property for the value of the clay tiles ($1,061.42), and served a copy of the claim of lien on the Morenos. Notwithstanding the pending claim of lien, as well as the lack of a final inspection, the Morenos met with Casiano on September 11, 1995, and inexplicably tendered to him the final payment ($550) that was due under the contract. Subsequently, the last inspection of the roof noted ten to fifteen loose tiles, and the project failed inspection. On November 22, 1995, Metro Roof, having failed to receive satisfaction of its lien, filed a civil action to foreclose its lien. The Morenos were duly served with a copy of the civil action, and on December 20, 1996, a "Final Judgment for Construction Lien Foreclosure" was rendered. The amount awarded was $1,234.42, and represented principal ($1,061.42), filing fee ($129.00), and service of process fee ($44.00). The Morenos satisfied the judgment by payment of the full amount awarded. The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, Petitioner offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $701.96, as of April 23, 1998. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10). Previous disciplinary action On March 28, 1995, Petitioner issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent imposing an administrative fine of $500 for failure to provide proof, in response to a random audit, of having completed all required continuing education requirements before renewing his license. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing, as a penalty for such violation, an administrative fine in the sum of $1,500; assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the sum of $701.96; ordering the payment of $1,234.32 to Henry and Esther Moreno as restitution; and requiring Respondent to furnish the Construction Industry Licensing Board with proof that the Moreno roof work has successfully passed a final inspection. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order dismiss Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued license C-3810. During times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Economic Roofing Company, 2538 Surinam Court, Holiday, Florida. On or about December 27, 1995, Connie Socash, an investigator with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, observed two individuals performing roofing work on the structure located at 2024 Cleveland Street in Pinellas County, Florida. Adjacent to the Cleveland Street property was a truck from which the individuals were working. Affixed to the truck was a magnetic sign with the words "Economic Roofing" printed on it. When approached by Ms. Socash, the two people performing the roofing work stated that they were subcontractors for Economic Roofing. One of the individuals performing the roofing work identified herself as Bonnie Sargent. However, neither of the individuals provided Investigator Socash with a roofing contractor's license or license number. After determining that Petitioner had not issued a roofing contractor's license to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash issued a citation to the person identifying herself as Bonnie Sargent. The citation was issued to Ms. Sargent for subcontracting and performing "roofing work without a competency license as required by law." The citation, which was signed by Ms. Sargent, listed the following two options that were available to her: (1) pay a fine of $125.00 within a specified time period; or (2) appear at the Pinellas County Misdemeanor Courthouse on January 19,1996. Ms. Sargent chose the first option and paid the fine of $125.00 on or about January 9, 1996. After issuing the citation to Bonnie Sargent, Investigator Socash contacted Respondent regarding the Cleveland Street roofing project. Respondent refused to cooperate with Investigator Socash and failed to provide her with any information regarding the relationship of Bonnie Sargent to Economic Roofing. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order: Finding Respondent, Glenn V. Curry, guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1) (e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-504, Section 24 (2) (d), (e), (j), and (m), Laws of Florida as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Imposing an administrative fine of $750.00. Suspending Respondent's roofing contractor's certificate for one year. Such suspension may be stayed subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Glenn V. Curry 2538 Surinam Court Holiday, Florida 34691 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-5165
The Issue Petitioner, the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, filed an administrative complaint dated May 20, 1986. Thereby, it has charged Respondent with violations of Sections 489.119, 489.129(1)(g), (j), and Florida Statutes, for which violations it seeks to impose, according to its post-hearing proposal, the requirement of $5600 restitution to Mr. Kenneth Jessell, a fine of $1500, and a one year suspension of Respondent's contractor's license. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE The parties' Joint Prehearing Statement was admitted as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Kenneth A. Jessell, Richard P. Scanlon, Gene O. Seymour, and Robert D. Hilson, and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Exhibit P-3 was marked for identification and proffered but not admitted. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Sheldon Israel and Respondent and had admitted Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, and 4. Exhibit R-3 was marked for identification and proffered but was not admitted. At the close of hearing, Respondent moved for dismissal for failure of Petitioner to establish a prima facie case. That motion was taken under advisement and is addressed in the following conclusions of law. Upon the filing of a copy thereof as a post-hearing exhibit, judicial notice was taken of Section 3401.1(a)(3) South Florida Building Code, without objection. Petitioner filed transcript herein, and the parties' timely filed their respective post-hearing proposals within the time extensions agreed-upon and granted. The parties' respective proposed findings of fact are ruled upon pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor, license number CCC02955I, whose address of record is 2311 N. E. 35th Street, Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064. On or about June 6, 1985, Respondent, doing business as Great Southern Industries, contracted with Mr. Kenneth Jessell to install a roof on Jessell's house at Lighthouse Point, Florida. The contract price was $5,600. At no time relevant to the charges herein did Respondent or anyone else qualify Great Southern Industries nor did that name appear on Respondent's license. At hearing, Respondent admitted a violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than that appearing on his state certificate, and further admitted violation of Sections 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119, Florida Statutes, by failing to qualify a legal entity through which he was contracting. The parties stipulated those allegations of the complaint were to be considered proven. In mitigation, Respondent established that no fraud or deceit concerning who was actually performing the roofing work was perpetrated against Mr. Jessell, that Respondent's omissions were due to his misunderstanding of the legal requirements involved, and that at all times since its incorporation, August 31, 1984, Respondent has been sole shareholder, officer, and director of Great Southern Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation. Upon being made aware of his violations, he has ceased to do business as Great Southern Industries. There is no evidence of prior misconduct. Respondent, as Great Southern Industries, partially completed work on Jessell's house and Jessell partially paid for said work when a dispute arose between Respondent and Jessell relative to the work. Respondent began work on Jessell's roof on June 17, 1985. On June 18, 1985, a pitch fire broke out. The pitch fire resulted from a tar kettle which had not been appropriately handled by an employee of Respondent who had been assigned to tend it. Such fires are not uncommon in the industry. After the fire was put out, work ceased for the day, but Respondent appeared the very next day and continued with the roofing project. There is expert testimony that leaving such a pitch or tar fire unattended was negligent and that if the overly hot pitch or tar had then cooled overnight, been reheated, and used on Jessell's roof it would have been inadequate for the job. However, there is no direct credible testimony or documentary evidence that this is what actually occurred. Mr. Jessell was not present on the site the next day and approximately 60-70 percent of the base layer of the roof had been tarred over before this event occurred. Mr. Jessell is a college professor in finance and real estate. He has no expertise in contracting, roofing, or inspection of such jobs or the material used therein, but upon observation from the ground, without going onto the roof, Jessell decided the roof was not being properly constructed. On June 25, 1987, at Mr. Jessell's insistence, Gene O. Seymour, the Chief Building Inspector of the Broward County Building Department inspected the job, which he did not approve at that time. Respondent came back to conform the job to the inspector's concerns. Seymour did not approve the job at reinspection on July 1, so Jessell withheld payment. Respondent again returned and did some additional work. On July 9, the job again did not pass inspection. Respondent did further repairs on July 29. There were numerous other inspections but the job did not pass for one reason or another. On each occasion, Respondent came back to address the inspector's concerns. Seymour's testimony can be synopsized that he made an extraordinary number of inspections (at least 20) at Mr. Jessell's urging, and that the roof often failed to pass, mostly because the work was not yet fully completed. Inspector Seymour noted that sometimes the job would pass one inspection only to have Jessell call him back and show him new problems which had appeared in the interim. Seymour could not explain how this could be. He termed the job "jinxed." Respondent maintains, and Jessell denies, that Jessell frequently would go up on the roof and make suggestions to Respondent and his employees on how the roofing should be done, that Jessell pulled up on the felts, and that Jessell otherwise damaged the work done by Respondent and his crew. Having observed the respective candor and demeanor of Jessell and Respondent, and after considering and weighing the foregoing comments of Inspector Seymour and of all the witnesses' peripheral testimony on how rapid deterioration and excessive patching occurred, I find Respondent's explanation of the problems up to this point to be the more credible explanation, if a somewhat exaggerated one. Up until August 22, 1985, Respondent came and fixed anything Jessell complained of or that had been noted by an inspector. Finally, on August 22, Inspector Seymour approved the job as ready for the addition of tiles. Jessell was still dissatisfied with the roof.. By this time, he had been up on it several times with and without Seymour. Jessell took photographs and sought out Seymour in his office. Seymour rescinded his approval due to the appearance of new water blisters. Both Jessell and Seymour concur that at this point there were no leaks. On August 30, Seymour inspected again. He cut deeply into the roofing material in three places; in each place, he cut down to the base plywood sheeting and found no evidence of any water. This type of testing is considered "destructive testing." He also observed gouges, slashes, and nails working out. He proposed that Jessell get an independent consultant to resolve the problems between them. Respondent obtained a visual inspection by Sheldon Israel who wrote a letter which was signed off on by a certified architect and which confirmed that the roof as completed by Respondent thus far complied with the intent of the South Florida Building Code, which Code has been adopted in Broward County. On September 20, Seymour gave final approval for the stage the job had reached based on the letter from Israel and the fact that the waterproof membrane which Respondent had installed was intact at that time. Thereafter, Jessell hired Richard Paul Scanlon, a licensed and certified roofer, who eventually tore off what had been done by Respondent and did a complete "reroof" at a cost to Mr. Jessell of $6500. Scanlon, qualified at hearing to give expert evidence in roofing contracting, saw the roof in January 1986, approximately six months after Respondent had left the job. During those six months, the unfinished roof had been sitting exposed to the elements, without tiles, and with numerous patches, gouges, and cuts in it. He opined that Respondent's work constituted poor work and gross negligence. His opinion is based on his visual inspection without any tests whatsoever. Errors in Respondent's work which he noted included mopping the tar the wrong way, improper water lapping, and use of some rag felts and some fiberglass felts as opposed to the use of fiberglass as required by the Jessells' contract with Respondent. (However, rag felts and fiberglass felts both meet Code requirements.) Scanlon felt there was a possibility the roof would slide if tiles were added atop Respondent's work but declined to say this was a probability. In order to give a roof warranty, Scanlon felt he had to tear off Respondent's work and "reroof." Whatever he may have found when he tore the roof off later was not explored. Robert D. Hilson, a licensed and certified roofing contractor was also qualified as an expert witness. He also did not inspect the Jessell work until January 1986. He stated the number of patches over the base layer was excessive and unusual and the consistency of the tar was far too "runny," thin, and "gooey." As opposed to this thin consistency being clearly connected to the kettle fire and base coat mopping, Hilson indicated the consistency of tar he was objecting to was a last attempt at overpatching the base layer. He also testified that the roof patches had been lapped the wrong way and occasionally had been mopped inadequately or the wrong way, and he assumed the base layer was also lapped the wrong way, but he never "eyeballed" the base layer to verify this. He found water present at that time. He indicated 6 months exposure would have caused insignificant deterioration. Contrariwise, Sheldon Israel, also accepted as an expert, opined that possibly 6 months could have caused the deterioration Scanlon, Hilson and Jessell all described as existing in January 1986. The contract between the Jessells and Respondent is ambiguous. One portion provides: "5. Install Spanish Style, cement tile roof over 90 lb. roof surface." Another paragraph provides: "8. Owners to select specific colors of Gory Spanish S by 6/12/87 at 12:00 p.m." Printed instructions (specifications) for installation of Gory roofing tile require water laps on 90 pound felt. The Southern Building Code requires prepared roof coverings to be applied in accordance with manufacturers' printed instructions for the products used. Respondent used 90 lbs. rag felts and some fiberglass felts. Both meet Code. Respondent admits he also installed a waterproof membrane or tile underlayerment that was manufactured especially to go underneath Genstar cement tile. This waterproof membrane can only be exposed to the elements without covering for 6-8 months before it is too damaged for use. Respondent planned to install Gory tile on top of the membrane but according to the best expert testimony Gory tile cannot competently be installed over such a waterproof membrane and its ability to be installed over fiberglass felts is questionable. The dispute between Jessell and the Respondent was resolved and Mr. and Mrs. Jessell executed and tendered a full release dated March 20, 1986, for all work performed on their house by Respondent and Great Southern Industries, Inc.
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)(g), 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119, Florida Statutes, assessing a penalty of $1000 administrative fine therefor, and dismissing the charge of fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct brought under Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd of July 1987, in 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 2nd day of July 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-2552 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF. 1-2. Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Sheldon Israel was accepted as an expert witness upon other qualifications of record. Accepted but alone is not dispositive of any issue at bar. Rejected as out of context and as not constituting an ultimate material fact. The topic as a whole is covered in FOF 9-11 and the conclusions of law so as to conform to the credible record as a whole. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue at bar. Topic covered in FOF 5 and 10. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue at bar. Contrary to the parties' belief, lack of supervision was not alleged with specificity in the administrative complaint. I accept Respondent's testimony that the employee assigned to the kettle, improperly oxygenated its contents but had not abandoned it. See FOF 5 and 10. Rejected as covered in FOF 11 which conforms with the evidence of record. Rejected as covered in FOF 9 which conforms to the evidence of record. Respondents Proposed FOF. Covered in "Issues." Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 12. Covered in FOF 3. Rejected as covered in FOF 11, which conforms with the evidence of record. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted as modified in FOF 6-7 to conform to the evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Gary I. Blake, Esquire 3111 University Drive Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0020923. On may 27, 1982, the Respondent, doing business as T & T Roofing Company, contracted with Jessie Reid, 1021 Abeline Drive, Deltona, Florida, to replace an existing shingle roof for a total contract price of $2,406.20. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as qualifying agency for A. L. Roofing Specialists. At no time has the Respondent qualified T & T Roofing Company. On August 26, 1982, when the Respondent completed work on Jessie Reid's roof, he was paid $2,406.20 which was the entire contract price for this job. The Respondent was to return to the job site to inspect the roof and correct minor remaining problems. However, when the Respondent would not return to the job, even after repeated calls, it was determined that there is a difference in shingle thickness at points on the roof, and the rain runs down over the gutters instead of into them. Further, the hip and ridge caps are of a different material than the major portion of the shingled roof; there are exposed nails; and the gutters are filled with roofing debris. The Respondent has not been responsive to communications and he has refused to make the necessary corrections to Jessie Reid's roof. The Respondent never obtained a permit for the reroofing work done for Jessie Reid at 1021 Abeline Drive, in Deltona. A permit is required to do reroofing work in Deltona, which is within the jurisdiction of Volusia County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Registered Roofing Contractor's license number RC 0020923 held by the Respondent, John W. Thorn, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 30th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John W. Thorn Post Office Box 1897 Deland, Florida 32720
The Issue Whether or not Respondent engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in connection with the installation of a roof on a customer's home, either personally or by his failure to properly supervise the construction project and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in Florida to include prosecuting administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 489, 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. During times material hereto, Respondent, Norman Levinski, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RC 0047656. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for All Bay Enterprises, Inc. On September 17, 1987, Respondent through the entity All Bay Enterprises, contracted with Opie and Elizabeth Tittle to remove and replace a built-up roofing system and shingle roof on the Tittle's residence located at 810 Audubon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was paid the total contract price of $3280.00. Respondent completed the above roofing work on September 22, 1987. During the course of the work and after its completion, the Tittles continually expressed concern that the job was being done improperly and that they were not satisfied. Respondent made one attempt to correct the problems without success. Respondent dispatched a crew to the Tittle's home to try to remediate some problems on the roof; however, their efforts were unsatisfactory. Jack Hurlston, an expert in roofing, was retained by Petitioner to render an opinion on March 22, 1989. Hurlston visited the Tittle home and found numerous deficiencies in the roof. Specifically, Respondent failed to erect the Tittles' roof in conformity with the minimum standards of the Southern Building Code and usual industry standards in that there was insufficient lap at the joints in the eave drip, the starter course was nailed too high above the eave, shingles did not lay flat due to the use of improper asphalt, underlying felt was wrinkled and "telegraphed" through shingles, shingles were improperly nailed and three nails were used in each shingle as opposed to the customary four, as required by the manufacturer. No base flashing was used where shingles abutted, no plastic roof cement was placed around the electric riser to form a seal, the valley metal was cut too short and nailed too far from the center, the roof edges on the gable ends were nailed too far from the edge, exposed nails and cutout areas were observed. In the built-up roof, the aluminum coating was applied too soon after the base roof was installed and was therefore insufficient to provide either weather protection or heat reflection. W.L. Albritton, who was received as an expert in roofing, was retained by the Tittles to inspect the roofing job completed by Respondent. Albritton's inspection revealed the following deficiencies: Starter course shingles were uneven, in that they were nailed from 1 3/4" to 3" inches to the edge of the eave drip. Additionally, some nails in the starter course were found at the cutout (water course) of the first weather course of shingles at the eave. Discoloration was noted along the top edge of the fascia, but below the bottom of the drip edge, suggesting that a 1" x 2" wood drip strip was removed by Respondent and was not replaced. The metal drip edges were nailed at approximately 18" on center and 8" to 10" nail spacing is usual and customary in the roofing industry. The horizontal alignment of the shingles was uneven. The shingle roof was not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications and therefore did not conform with the Southern Standard Building Code. The specific deviations from the manufacturer's specifications are as follows: The manufacturer requires that two layers of number 15 asphalt saturated felt be installed in shingle fashion on roofs below 4:12, such as the Tittle's roof. Respondent here installed one layer of number 30 felt on the Tittle's roof. Next, the manufacturer requires the drip edge metal to be installed under the felt at the eaves of the roof or if installed on top of the felt at the eaves, that roof cement and felt stripping be applied over the roof end of the drip edge metal. Respondent installed the drip edge on the top of the felt at the eaves and did not strip, the roof over the roof end. The manufacturer recommends nail spacing of 8" to 10" for anchoring drip edge metal, whereas Respondent anchored the drip edge metal at 18" on center. The Standard Building Code requires an end overlap of 1 1/2" on metal edge flashing, whereas Respondent overlapped the end joist 1/2" at most end joints. The manufacturer specifies that close cut valleys should be nailed no closer than 6" to the center life of the valley and that the cut side shall be trimmed a minimum of 2" above valley center lines, whereas Respondent nailed to within 4" of the valley center line and the cut shingle edge was made at the valley's center line. The manufacturer requires four nails in each shingle, whereas Respondent nailed some shingles with only three nails and placed nails too close to water cutouts and placed some nails as high as seven inches above the bottom edge of the shingle. Next, the manufacturer requires that sufficient shingles be installed at pipe penetrations so that it will be necessary to cut a hole in one shingle to fit over or around the pipe before installing the pipe flashing, whereas Respondent failed to install sufficient shingles before installing the pipe flashings, and the flashings, as installed, are more susceptible to water leakage. Respondent slit the face of the metal drip edge and failed to provide backup protection for the fascia creating a situation that will promote rotting of the fascia. Respondent installed the shingles over wrinkled felt, underlayment and the wrinkles in the underlayment are "broadcasting" through the shingles, which creates a rough appearance to the entire roof and cannot be corrected without complete removal of the roof. The ply sheets on the flat roof specified by Respondent was to be of a 3-ply application, whereas it measures between 11" and 12" between edges of the sheets. Respondent therefore did not apply a full three plies on the flat roof. The Standard Building Code requires 1 1/2" overlap on edge joints of drip metal, whereas Respondent installed the drip edge metal with overlap and joints ranging from 3/4" to 3 1/4". Respondent failed to provide sufficient felt stripping over the roof flange of the metal drip edge at the rake edge of the flat roof. Respondent did not install the ply sheets using full moppings of asphalt and pi' is occurring at the edges of the ply sheets. Respondent installed shingles too low onto the flat roof, did not use a starter course of shingles, the felt underlayment is exposed between the cutouts and solar radiation is likely to degrade the felt underlayment. Additionally, the roof will be prone to leakage at such locations. Respondent failed to install flashing where required, used old flashing when new flashing was promised and failed to close openings that would allow wind-driven water to leak into the interior of the Tittles residence and/or the roof.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500.00 and suspending his license for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a roofing contractor. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed to engage in the roofing contracting business in the State of Florida. He has held license number CC C049569 since 1989. In the eight years that he has been licensed, he has been disciplined once. On January 28, 1993, Respondent was issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation alleging that, "on the 8th day of July, 1992, and the 19th day of August, 1992, [he] did violate the following provisions of law: Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1991), by violation of Section 489.119(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), by committing the following act(s): failing to include a license number on a contract and failing to include a license number on an advertisement at: 771 S.W. 61st Terrace, Hollywood, Florida 33023." Respondent did not contest these allegations. Instead, he chose to pay a $200.00 fine for having committed the violations alleged in the citation. Respondent is now, and has been since February 21, 1990, the primary qualifying agent for Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., a roofing contracting business owned by Respondent and located in Hollywood, Florida. Respondent's brother, Rodney Guy (Rodney), is also in the roofing business in the South Florida area. At all times material to the instant case, Rodney engaged in such business under the name "Hot Rods Roofing." In addition to having his own business, Rodney also, on occasion, worked for Respondent. In August of 1992, Rodney entered into a written agreement (Contract) with Christopher Klein in which Rodney agreed, for $7,000.00, to replace the damaged roof on Klein's residence in Dade County1 with a new roof with a seven-year warranty (Project). Subsequently, the Contract price was increased $500.00 to $7,500.00 by mutual agreement. Prior to the commencement of work on the Project, Respondent verbally agreed to assume Rodney's obligations under the Contract. Klein paid the Contract price in full, by check, in two installments. Both checks were made out to Hot Rods Roofing (in accordance with the instructions Klein was given) and cashed by Rodney. The second check contained the following handwritten notation made by Klein: "payment in full - roof - includes Ray Guy Roofing, Inc." The Project was completed on or before September 18, 1992. The work was done by Respondent and the employees of Respondent's roofing business, including Rodney. Following the completion of the Project, the roof started to leak. Klein thereafter unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent and Rodney by telephone to apprise them of the situation. On or about August 1, 1993, Klein sent a letter to Respondent and Rodney advising them of the leaks in the roof and requesting that they "send someone to fix them." Neither Respondent nor Rodney responded to Klein's letter. Klein therefore hired someone else to fix the leaks. Leaks subsequently redeveloped in the roof. Klein again unsuccessfully attempted to contact Respondent and Rodney by telephone to bring the matter to their attention. On or about March 22, 1994, Klein sent Respondent and Rodney a letter, which read as follows: As you will recall, you acted as partners in the installation of a new roof at my house after Hurricane Andrew. I have developed a leak and I have been attempting to contact both of you for over a month in connection with warranty work related thereto. I am surprised that you have ignored me because, as you will recall, my hiring you resulted in your obtaining at least 3 other jobs on my street. Please contact me within one week to schedule the repair. If I do not receive word from you, I will be forced to hire another roofing company and I will thereafter send you the bill. The bill will be for the roof repairs and to repair interior damage. Neither Respondent nor Rodney responded to Klein's request. Klein made temporary repairs to the roof at his own expense. Klein, who is a member of The Florida Bar, subsequently filed a complaint in Dade County Court (in Dade County Court Case No. 95-7415 CC 02) seeking a judgment for damages, plus interest and costs, against Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., Respondent, and Rodney for breach of contract (Count I), negligence (Count II), and breach of warranty (Count III). Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint on or about May 12, 1995. Shortly thereafter Klein received a telephone call from Respondent, who wanted to speak to Klein about the lawsuit. During their telephone conversation, they agreed to meet at 5:30 p.m. on May 17, 1995, at Klein's residence to discuss the possibility of settling the lawsuit. Respondent did not show up for the meeting, nor did he telephone or otherwise communicate with Klein to explain his absence. Respondent also failed to respond to Klein's complaint.2 On June 30, 1995, pursuant to Klein's written request, a Final Default Judgment was entered against Respondent and Ray Guy Roofing, Inc.,3 in Dade County Court Case No. 95-7415 CC 02. The Final Default Judgment provided as follows: THIS CAUSE came before the Court this date on Plaintiff's Motion for Final Default Judgment against Defendants Raymond Guy, Individually and Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., and the Court having noted that said Defendants were duly served and defaulted herein, and the court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is thereupon ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is granted and that Plaintiff, Christopher J. Klein, hereby recovers from Defendants, Ray Guy Roofing, Inc., and Raymond Guy, Individually, the principal sum of $5,500.00 plus costs in the sum of $198.00, making a total sum due of $5,698.00, for which sum let execution issue. Klein sent a copy of the Final Default Judgment to Respondent by United States Mail on or about July 21, 1995. The Final Default Judgment was not appealed, and it has not been vacated, set aside, discharged, or satisfied, in whole or in part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and (2) disciplining Respondent for having committed this violation by requiring him to: (a) pay a fine of $1,000.00; submit proof of satisfaction of the Final Default Judgment entered in Dade County Court Case No. 95-7415 CC 02; and reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed as a roofing contractor and qualifying agent and owner of Handyman Service Company, Pinellas Park, Florida. In November or December 1982, representatives of Sandalwood Club Association contacted Richard Fabrizi, who was acting as sales agent for Handyman Service Company, about some repairs desired at their condominiums. Fabrizi advised Respondent and several meetings were held with Sandalwood representatives after which contract proposals for work desired by Sandalwood were presented by Respondent. It became apparent that complete reroofing of the Sandalwood condominiums was needed; however, the association did not have sufficient funds at that time for such a project. As a result of the negotiations a repair contract was entered into between Handyman and Sandalwood Club whereby Handyman contracted to perform certain work for $16,000 (Exhibit 1). At about the time this contract was entered into Pinellas Park became incorporated and established its own building department. Respondent was qualified to perform roofing contracting in Clearwater, in whose jurisdiction Sandalwood was placed before Pinellas Park, but he had not qualified to contract in Pinellas Park. When this was realized, Respondent engaged the services of Edgar Plumtree, a licensed contractor, to pull permits and supervise the roofing at Sandalwood. The permit for this work (Exhibit 2) was signed by Joseph A. Saturno, contractor, but no evidence was presented regarding Saturno or how his name came to appear on Exhibit 2. Expert testimony was presented that the work proposed to be performed in Exhibit 1 constituted much more than repair work; however, Respondent's witness's testimony that the contract was intended by all parties to be a temporary repair, guaranteed for three years, was unrebutted. Expert testimony that the use of 90# mineral-coated roofing material in valleys did not comply with the Southern Standard Building Codes, which has been made applicable to Pinellas Park, was modified on cross-examination by testimony that such material could be used for repairs if approved by the building inspector. The evidence was unrebutted that the building inspector approved the use of the 90# roofing in the valleys. The expert witness further found violation of codes when a coating material was placed over aggregate surface on a flat roof or aggregate was reused without cleaning; however, on cross-examination this witness acknowledged that rerocking was not a code violation if sold as a repair in lieu of new roof. He did not consider the scope of the work shown in Exhibit 1 to be compatible with a minor repair, despite the intent of the parties to so treat this work. The work on the Sandalwood project was completed in March 1983. Sandalwood was in the process of issuing a contract to replace the shingles on their sloping roofs and in May 1983 Respondent met with Sandalwood Condominium Association as one of the bidders was unhappy with the roofing repairs done by Handyman. Due to brittle shingles the tie-ins were unsatisfactory. An appointment was set up with representatives of the Pinellas Park Building Inspector, Sandalwood representatives, and Handyman representatives. Handyman was also bidding on the shingle replacement contract. On May 26, 1983, this meeting was held including the successful bidder (Baker) on the shingle roof replacement contract. The building inspector, Respondent, Baker, and Sandalwood representatives went on the roofs. The building inspector suggested Baker do the tie-ins from the work done by Handyman, for which the latter agreed to pay, but Baker declined. Thereafter, the flashing between the shingle roofs and the flat roofs was installed by Handyman and the shingles by Baker. Exhibit 6 indicates the shingles do not properly cover the flashing. Respondent's testimony that the work performed by Handyman was exactly what Sandalwood requested them to perform was not rebutted.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Franklin A. Marciano be issued a letter of reprimand for completing a roofing repair contract in a municipality in which he was not licensed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of October 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frank A. Marciano 11327 43rd Street, North Clearwater, Florida 33520 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Board of Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Indus is a state licensed general contractor and has been in the business of construction in Florida at least since 1974 (Exhibit 3). Indus submitted a bid on Sarasota County School Board Project No. 88039 to build an elementary school building. Indus' bid for this project was $6,863,000. The next lowest bid was Barton-Malow Company whose bid was $6,888,000. There were two other higher bidders (Exhibit 2). The specifications on the project call for a pre-engineered metal roof system (Exhibit 9). Under part two of that portion of the specifications the bidder was required to bid on use of a pre-engineering metal roofing system provided by one of the five providers there listed. The specifications further provided that the supplier of the metal roof system must be a firm that is and has been for a minimum period of two years prior to bid date, an authorized and franchised dealer of the pre-engineered roof system's manufacturer; and the pre-engineered building shall be erected by a firm that has not less than three years successfully experience in the erection of pre-engineered metal roof systems similar to those required for this project. Certification for supplier and installer is required by the specifications to be submitted one week prior to bid date. As subcontractor for the installation of the pre-engineered metal roof system, Petitioner inserted Indus Construction Co., Inc. (Exhibit 1). When queried about the above-cited requirements of the specification Indus stated that it proposed to install a metal roof system manufactured by AEP-SPAN. At the hearing Petitioner's witness testified that Petitioner could buy a pre-engineered metal roof system from any one of numerous manufacturers and that all such systems were basically the same with only slight variations in where the roof material is bent or curved. Respondent's witness' testimony to the contrary is deemed more credible. Independent investigation by Respondent's agents revealed that Indus is not an authorized agent or dealer for any of the five pre-engineered metal roof systems listed in the specifications, and none of them would sell their product direct to Indus (Exhibit 14). They also received information from an AEP-SPAN dealer in Tampa that AEP-SPAN sells only through licensed roofing contractors and installers (Exhibit 15). By letter dated November 14, 1988 (Exhibit 5), AEP-SPAN stated Indus is recognized as an approved installer for applications of AEP-SPAN Metal's metal roof system. Indus is not licensed as a roofing contractor. In its recommendation to the School Board to accept the second low bidder, Petitioner's Architect and Construction Services Staff noted that Indus listed themselves as subcontractor for the pre-engineered metal roof system, but had not requested a bid from any out of the five approved suppliers, and is not a certified dealer. Further, the recommendations include "the staff and architect are unable to determine if Indus has three (3) years successful experience in the installation of any type of Metal Roof System as required by the specifications." (Exhibit 2). Although Indus contends that it has more than three years' experience in installation of metal roof systems none of the projects listed on Exhibit 3 involve the use of pre-engineered metal roofs. Petitioner acknowledged that it had failed to submit the dealer certification or installer certification one week prior to the opening of bids as required by Section 13120 of the bid specifications (Exhibit 9). On cross examination, when asked why such certification was not supplied, Mr. Rakha testified that "contractors aren't supposed to do this," and further that it was not the contractor's responsibility to see if the supplier is qualified.
The Issue Whether Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance of a roofing contract constitutes abandonment of that contract in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), and whether Respondent willfully or deliberately violated the Volusia County Building Code, thereby contravening Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction of the subject project. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and Respondent, the Petitioner's proposed recommended order and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed October 21, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent and against his license as a registered roofing contractor. Respondent, Leonard L. Clark, is a registered roofing contractor who holds License No. RC 0020933 which has been issued by Petitioner. Respondent does business under the entity Clark Roofing. On January 15, 1981, Respondent entered into a contract with one Mae Coogan, to reroof her residence. The contract specifically required Respondent to "replace any bad wood," and provide a ten (10) year workmanship warranty. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Additionally, Respondent agreed to install a 1 x 2 inch strip and a brown aluminum facia at an extra cost of $200.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and testimony of John Coogan.) Mrs. Mae Coogan is an elderly woman and is incapacitated. Her son, John Coogan, who lives with her in her residence, advised her during the negotiations of the subject contract, and testified as a witness in the proceedings herein. Respondent and John Coogan's testimony establishes that construction on the subject project commenced on February 10, 1981, and ceased on March 28, 1981. At that time, based upon Respondent's representation that the job was complete, Mr. Coogan paid Respondent the entire $2,500.00 due under the terms of the contract. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Coogan discovered evidence of "bad" or "rotten wood." Mr. Coogan immediately apprised Respondent of this, whereupon Respondent initially told him that he would be back to the job site to take care of any problems that existed with the reroofing project. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was a subsequent telephone conversation between Respondent and Mr. Coogan following a letter which Respondent found offensive. Respondent claims that there was such a conversation and that the parties became angry at each other. At that juncture, the parties were unable to resolve their differences. Efforts by the parties to resolve their differences reached a stalemate, and Respondent did not again visit the project site or otherwise inspect the claimed damaged by Mr. Coogan. Mr. Coogan, to substantiate his claim that there was in fact rotten or bad wood left exposed in the overhang, rafters and beams surrounding the roof, introduced several photographs which depicted the condition of the wood on the roof. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) Respecting the fact that there was rotten wood, as claimed by Mr. Coogan, in the rafters and overhang, Respondent admitted the existence thereof. There is also a question about the possibility of rotten wood being covered by Respondent's employees and not replaced as required by the contract. The particular area in question is a portion of a flat roof which sagged in several places. Mr. Coogan claims that he had been advised that this was due to rotten wood underneath the shingles in an area in which he specifically claims to have asked Respondent to allow him to inspect the exposed-wood surface prior to the time in which it was covered with asphalt shingles. Respondent's workers covered this area of the roof without permitting Mr. Coogan the opportunity to inspect it. Mr. Coogan testified that the roof continued to sag in the identical places where it sagged prior to the reroofing. In this regard, Respondent admits that he might have agreed to allow Mr. Coogan an opportunity to inspect the exposed roof once the shingles were removed and prior to the time that he recovered (reroofed) the flat roof. Respondent further testified that this was not due to any effort on his part to conceal or otherwise hide rotten wood and, in fact, he claimed to have covered or replaced any bad or rotten wood. In this regard, Mr. Coogan noticed at least four water leaks from his roof prior to the time that Respondent reroofed his mother's house; however, he testified, on cross-examination, that he has not seen any leaks since Respondent has completed the subject project. Bob McConnell, Volusia County Building Inspector for approximately five years, inspected the roofing job completed by Respondent for Mrs. Coogan on July 28, 1981. Mr. McConnell found that the roofing job did not comply with the contract in the following regards: The 1 x 2 inch strip beneath the brown aluminum facia, called for as an extra, was not installed; There was visible rot in the sheathing; A short hip (rafter) was replaced with unsound wood; and A rafter tail had visible rot. In this regard, Mr. McConnell, while also reporting that there were soft spots in the built-up roof, could not testify with certainty that they were the result of wood rot. Respondent testified that he has tried to contact Mr. Coogan on several occasions to correct any claimed deficiency. Respondent stands, at this time, willing to correct any deficiency that exists or to correct any problem which stems from his deviation from the contract. In this regard, Respondent has offered, and no offers, to remove the shingles from the entire roof and allow for it to be inspected by Respondent or any designated roofing contractor whom Coogan or Petitioner selects. Respondent will replace any "bad" or "rotten" wood which he has been claimed to have covered. However, Respondent expects to be paid for reroofing this job in the event that in an inspection reveals that no "bad" or "rotten" wood was covered as Mr. Coogan and Petitioner claim. Inspector McConnell has known Respondent in excess of twenty-five (25) years and is unaware of any claim that Respondent has performed any unworkmanlike or "shoddy" roofing repairs. Finally, in this connection, Respondent introduced letters from three (3) area builders who attested to Respondent's excellent workmanship. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years and that the term of probation be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days, during which time Respondent shall be allowed an opportunity to return to the Coogan residence and replace any existing exposed "rotten" or "bad" wood which should have been replaced pursuant to the terms of the contract. In the event that the Respondent properly completes the replacement of the rotten or damaged wood on this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of the probation be suspended. In the event that Respondent fails to properly complete this project, following an inspection by one of Petitioner's agents, it is further RECOMMENDED: That the entire term of probation be instituted without the necessity of further hearing. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
