Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license No. C-2805 (Exhibit 1). From 1984 to June 29, 1992, Respondent was the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibits 1 and 2). On December 11, 1991, Respondent and Vincent Tipaldo executed a contract for the sale and purchase of certain goodwill and inventory of Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, of Pinellas County, Florida from the Respondent to Tipaldo. (Exhibit 4). Paragraph 5 of the above agreement stated that Respondent agreed to allow Vincent Tipaldo to use Respondent's contractor license until the buyer, Vincent Tipaldo, obtained his own. Vincent Tipaldo transferred $18,000.00 to Respondent as consideration for the contract with the remaining $10,000.00 to be paid to Respondent in installments of $318 per month for three years. Respondent authorized Vincent Tipaldo and other uncertified and unregistered persons to pull and obtain permits under his license for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration from December 11, 1991 to May 5, 1992 (Exhibit 5). Shortly after the sale of the business Respondent was injured in a vehicle accident and was unable to work. Tipaldo stopped the monthly payments to Respondent and Respondent ceased supervising the projects. The situation deteriorated and civil litigation is ongoing. On May 5, 1992 and thereafter, Respondent no longer authorized anyone to pull permits or act under his license for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration using license No. C-2805 (Exhibit 5). On June 29, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a change of status no longer acting as the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibit 2). Respondent did not supervise and had no active participation in the operation, management or control of the business from shortly after December 11, 1992 to June 29, 1992. Tipaldo was not licensed and has never been licensed as an air conditioning contractor by the PCCLB (Exhibit 3). After Respondent no longer authorized Tipaldi or anyone else to pull permits for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration in May 1992, Joe B. Hutson became the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibits 6, 7 and 9).
Recommendation It is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the license of Jay W. Beckner as a certified air conditioning contractor be suspended for a period of six months under such conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 6th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jay W. Beckner P.O. Box 20573 Bradenton, Florida 34203 William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road - Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643 5116
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John L. Horn, applied for and took the February 22, 1980, examination for a Class B air conditioning contractor's license, having been qualified, and meeting all preliminary requirements to sit for this examination. Mr. Horn answered Question 6 of the exam by selecting multiple choice Answer E. Question 6 of the February 22, 1981, examination was as follows: The contractor for the classroom and office building shown on Drawing AC-3 is required to accurately measure the air flow from each of the air handling units. Which of the following methods should be used? A magnehelic gauge with the high pressure port connected to the supply duct and the low pressure port connected to the return duct. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse at several points in the supply duct to determine the mean velocity. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse in the centerline of the supply duct to determine the actual velocity. A rotating vane anemometer located in the supply duct air stream. A velometer located at each sidewall outlet. All answers except Answer B were graded as incorrect, including the answer submitted by Mr. Horn. The February, 1980, Class B air conditioning contractor's examination was developed by American Community Testing Services, located in Jacksonville, pursuant to a contract with the Department of Professional Regulation. Question 6 was prepared by Mr. Larry Simmons for the testing service. This question seeks multiple Choice Answer B as the correct answer. Each examination question is written by an expert in the field, and is then checked by another expert for accuracy. The questions are then reviewed by a consultant to the testing service who is a professor of mechanical engineering. These internal review procedures are utilized to minimize the existence of errors. Prior to the time an examination question is used, it is subjected to Departmental review to assure that any grammatical errors are corrected. Subsequent to the examination, Question 6 and the various answers given by examinees were analyzed. Based upon testing criteria, Answers C and D in Question 6 were judged to possibly be correct, in addition to Answer B. Based on this same testing criteria, however, Answers A and E were not possibly correct. A discrimination index disclosed that Question 6 was a difficult question. Nevertheless, every examinee is qualified by experience to sit for the examination, which is designed for competition among peers. The post-examination review procedures used by the Department are for the purpose of assuring that there is not another correct answer. This review is performed by the writer of the question and an expert in the field being reviewed. The preferred method for measuring air flow is to use a pitot tube traverse, as suggested by Answer B. Other methods are available alternatives, but are not given as choices in the answers to Question 6. Answer A is incorrect because it measures static pressure and not air flow. Answer D is not correct because of the large hole that would have to be cut in the duct in order to insert the instrument, and after sealing the duct no reading could be taken. Answer E is also incorrect because it would allow air to flow into the room. Answer C could be correct in a small duct, but not in the duct shown on the drawing accompanying Question 6. The question seeks the best answer among the five choices; Answer B is the only acceptable choice and the correct answer. Twelve of the 14 persons who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination answered Question 6 correctly, by choosing Answer B. Only 7 of the 19 persons who scored in the lower 27 percent on the examination answered this question correctly. This difference produced a discrimination index of .47 percent, which is within professional testing standards as an accurate measure of the validity of the question. This evidence was not controverted. Thus, based upon generally accepted testing criteria, the discrimination index shows Question 6 to be a valid question, and Answer B to be the correct answer. Mr. Horn's contentions are not supported by the weight of the evidence presented. The burden of proof is upon an applicant for a license to demonstrate that he meets all standards for eligibility. Mr. Horn did not present sufficient evidence to meet this burden of proof, and the Board established by substantial, competent evidence the validity of Question 6 and the correctness of Answer B.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John L. Horn for a license as a state certified Class B Air Conditioning Contractor be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15th day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 15th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Horn 114 Willow Branch Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Randall Labadie owns the corporation, Labadie's, Inc., d/b/a Atlantic Coast Steamatic, a business engaged in interior cleaning and air duct cleaning, with a principal office located at 1599 SW 30th Avenue, Suite 11, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. Randall Labadie has owned the business in Florida for ten years and has been personally involved in air duct cleaning for approximately 20 years. He holds a State of Florida building contractor's license, but not a sheet metal, air conditioning or mechanical contractor's license. Approximately fifty percent of the company's business is air duct cleaning, with thousands of jobs having been completed over its years of operation. Respondent, the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) is responsible for regulating various professions in the construction industry pursuant to Chapter 489, F.S. On August 8, 1984, CILB Administrative Assistant, Milton Rubin, issued this written opinion in response to an inquiry from the executive director of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board: In response to your inquiry for an opinion on the following questions, the answer is in the affirmative: Does a person or firm performing "cleaning" services for air conditioning systems have to be licensed? Yes. If, in the process of "cleaning", a person or firm cuts access openings in existing duct work, does that person or firm require competency licensure? Yes. Does "servicing" in 489.105(h) include cleaning? Yes. (Exhibit #2) * * * The Board did not adopt a rule reflecting its official position on the matter because it felt that the interpretation would have been an unnecessary restatement of the language of Chapter 489, F.S. (Stipulation of the parties filed 11/20/92) On March 13, 1992, the CILB took this official action as reflected in its General Session Minutes: There was a presentation by Mr. Dean Ellis and Jim Hasbrook of Pinellas County regarding a request from two industries. The two industry associations include The Florida Air Conditioning Contractors Association and the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association. The issue concerns duct cleaning and air conditioning system cleaning. This Board had previously taken a position in August of 1984 that this work must be performed by a licensed contractor in one of three categories: air conditioning, mechanical, or sheet metal. At that time the opinion was rendered by Mr. Rubin but included a disclaimer stating that it did not reflect the official position of the Board. These associations now request a formal position from the Board stating that the licensed contractor must perform this work as stated in Mr. Rubin's letter of 1984. Mr. Lopez-Cantera made motion to ratify that position as a policy of the Board. Second by Mr. Manrique. Motion carried. (Exhibit #1) After the Board action was taken, various industry organizations sent notices of the Board's position to their members. The Florida Air Conditioning Contractor's Association "...urge[d] all parties concerned to act on the FCILB decision... [and to] ...report any unlicensed activity through the proper channels." (Exhibit #4) Steamatic, Inc., is engaged in the business of franchising cleaning operations, and has a home office in Fort Worth, Texas. Around 1975, it expanded from fire and water restoration cleaning into other cleaning services, more specifically, air duct cleaning or air conditioning system cleaning. Steamatic, Inc., has approximately 144 franchises in the United States, including 14 in the State of Florida. Prior to March 13, 1992, no Florida franchise was cited for engaging in cleaning activity without a license under Chapter 489, F.S. Since March 1992, at least two franchises, in Jacksonville and in Bradenton, have received notices from Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigators that complaints have been filed alleging unlicensed practice of air conditioning contracting. The CILB policy formally adopted in March 1992, has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S. The CILB has not adopted rules setting acceptable standards for air duct cleaning, and at the March 13, 1992, Board meeting, Board member, Cosmo Tornese stated that there are no accepted standards regarding air duct cleaning. As of March 13, 1992, the National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) had not adopted standards. The duct cleaning activity conducted by Petitioner and other Steamatic franchisees is nonstructural work only. These companies do not "repair", "maintain", or "adjust" air conditioning systems. They generally obtain access to the ducts through existing openings or the registers, and they vacuum what is accessible. With a low-pressure atomizing gun they apply a germicide treatment and a sealer. In about ten percent of the cases they might cut an opening in the duct in the fogging process and they close it with duct tape. They do not cut sheet metal or disconnect the duct work from the air handler. They do not clean the coils on condensing units or fan blades in the air handler. They only cut fiber duct board, never flex duct. They do not disengage electrical connections. They do residential work only. In contrast, and for more money (base price of $595.00, as opposed to $250-300.00 charged by Steamatic), Dean Ellis' company, Climate Control Services, offers what he prefers to call "air duct sanitizing". (transcript p. 74) Dean Ellis has a Florida class A unlimited air conditioning license. He cleans the air handler coil, evaporator coil, drain pan and interior of cabinets. The components are removed and are chemically cleaned and sprayed. His workers take out the electric heat strips and fan motor. They inspect the ducts and replace duct work that is severely contaminated. They use an air source removal machine that is connected through a large hole cut in the box that fits above the air handler and suctions the entire duct system. They check and adjust freon levels and fan speeds. About five percent of Dean Ellis' business is related to the cleaning of air ducts. He considers his company is in a competitor's relationship with Steamatic. The association of which he is a board member, Florida Air Conditioning Contractors Association, brought its concerns to the CILB and wanted to know if the Board would enforce what the association already considered the law to be. Petitioner, Labadie's, Inc., d/b/a Atlantic Coast Steamatic, is substantially affected by the CILB's response to its regulated industry representatives. (See prehearing stipulation, filed 11/20/92)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Sam Pollack, held certified air-conditioning contractor license number CA-C008663 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed by the Board for approximately sixteen years. Respondent used his license with and was qualifying agent for a firm known as Dr. Cool's Clinic, Inc. located at 10662 Southwest 186th Lane, Miami, Florida. Around April 1, 1986 Steven and Beverlee Swerdlen moved into a 1,400 square foot prefabricated modular home at 19800 Southwest 180th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The home is located in a large modular home subdivision known as Redland. Although a modular home resembles a mobile home in certain respects, it is considered to be a fixed, permanent residential dwelling under local building codes. The home had previously been a model unit in the subdivision and had never been lived in since being built at least three years earlier. On April 3, 1986 respondent entered into a contract with Steven Swerdlen to install a Rheem four-ton air conditioning unit at Swerdlen's home. The contract called for a total price of $2152.50. The Swerdlens paid for the job in full the same day by credit card. Because Swerdlen's home had the ductwork and twenty outlets already in place, Pollack was to adapt the unit to the existing ductwork. Respondent's firm was selected over other firms because Mrs. Swerdlen was impressed with Pollack's advertisement which represented that Pollack provided "air conditioning designed and serviced for people with allergies and other respiratory problems." This was important to her since she suffers a heart condition and requires air-conditioning during warm weather. She also accepted respondent's oral representations that he had the experience and expertise to satisfy her needs. The ductwork in the home was accessible through a small crawlspace located under the floor. There were also two vents under the floor to prevent a buildup of moisture. The flooring in the home was made of particle board and was sealed with a vapor barrier which was designed to protect it from moisture damage. When the Swerdlens purchased their home, the vapor barrier was already cracked in several places and, coupled with the fact that the area had only two vents, the floor was susceptible to moisture damage. Before a central air-conditioning unit is installed, a prudent and competent air-conditioning contractor should take measurements of the home, perform heat loss calculations and inspect the existing ductwork to insure that the proper size unit is being installed. The evidence is sharply conflicting as to what steps, if any, were undertaken by respondent when he visited the Swerdlen home on April 3 to discuss the job. It is found, however, that Pollack made a visual inspection of the home but did not take formal measurements or make heat loss calculations. He inspected the ductwork to the extent he looked under the house through the crawlspace opening. He noted a potential problem with the vapor barrier and a supply duct hookup location that was blocked by a pier (support). He mentioned to Mrs. Swerdlen that she needed additional ventilation windows underneath the home and that she had a potential moisture problem with the vapor barrier. However, he did not suggest that she wait and have those matters corrected before he installed the unit. The unit was installed on April 7, 1986, or four days after the contract was signed. Besides respondent and a helper, Mrs. Swerdlen was the only person present. No electricians were called in to assist on the job. According to Pollack, the only electrical work that he performed was the installation of the thermostat unit in the closet under the fuse box and the internal electrical connections to the unit. As to this latter work, Pollack stated he did not believe an electrical license was needed to connect the terminal wires to the air-conditioning unit. He did not obtain a building permit from the county nor did he request an inspection of his work. Both were required by county regulations. Because the supply duct hookup was blocked by a pier, Pollack was forced to place a three or four foot high supply duct in a bedroom closet. Without advising the Swerdlens as to the extent or nature of modifications needed to bypass the pier, Pollack cut a large, unsightly hole in the closet floor. It was also necessary to penetrate the vapor barrier when the hole was cut. The cut was never resealed. The new duct took up much of the closet space and was vulnerable to puncture damage. A photograph of the supply duct is found in petitioner's exhibit 14. After the work was completed, Pollack did not advise the Swerdlens that the vapor barrier had been broken or that it needed to be resealed to avoid moisture damage to their floor. The power source to the air-conditioning unit was a 10-gauge wire. Since the unit required a larger gauge, it was necessary that an 8-gauge wire be installed. Pollack and his helper left for one and one-half hours at lunch during the day of installation, and Pollack claims the wire was changed by someone during the time he was gone. The Swerdlens contended they knew nothing about electrical wiring and could not perform the task themselves. Their testimony is accepted as being more credible and it is found that Pollack, even though he was not licensed as an electrician, changed the electrical power source wiring. In addition, Pollack did all other electrical work required for the installation of the unit. In doing so, he made no provision for overload, left exposed wiring in the closet by the thermostat and failed to provide a service disconnection switch for the unit inside the home. Until these deficiencies were corrected several months later, the Swerdlens could smell a burning odor in their home. According to industry standards and local building code requirements, the unit should have been placed on a concrete slab. However, Pollack used two sets of concrete runners obtained from the unit manufacturer. He justified this on the ground that many other homes in the same subdivision did not have slabs under their units. Even so, this did not justify a deviation from code requirements. Because a slab was not used, the unit sank into the ground after the first rainfall. Pollack eventually installed a cement slab in November, 1986 after being ordered to do so by local building officials. The Swerdlens' floors began to buckle and ripple within a short time after the unit was installed. It began in the bathroom directly above the area where Pollack had penetrated the vapor barrier to install the supply duct and was exacerbated by the closure of one of the two vents under the floor when Pollack installed the unit. The damaged floor is memorialized in photographs received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 14. Mrs. Swerdlen contacted respondent after the above problems began to occur. Other than adjusting the thermostat to get better cooling, Pollack did nothing since he did not think he was responsible for the other problems. He offered to make the other changes for additional compensation and if the Swerdlens would agree to release him from all liability. After declining Pollack's offer, Mrs. Swerdlen had other persons or companies make the needed repairs. Most of the costs were paid by her insurance company. She also contacted the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Department) and the Board. The Department learned that no permit had been obtained by Pollack even though one was required and that no inspections had been made during and after the work. Pollack obtained an after-the-fact permit on November 24, 1986, after paying a double fee and a $100 violation fee for failing to timely obtain the permit. After being contacted by Mrs. Swerdlen, a Department mechanical inspector made an inspection of the Swerdlens' home on November 24, 1986. He found several violations of the local building code including (a) a failure to obtain a permit and have required inspections made, and (b) improper electrical work. A summons was issued against Pollack for these violations. The disposition of the summons is not of record. The inspector also noted that the vapor barrier around the closet supply duct had not been resealed, that the flooring was warped above the cut and that the unit was not on a concrete slab. Although the inspector suggested that Pollack correct these deficiencies, only the latter deficiency was corrected. The work never passed final inspection. The Board employed a Jacksonville residential contractor as its expert in this case. Although the expert did not personally inspect the property, he reviewed photographs of the site, respondent's deposition and the investigative file and spoke with the Swerdlens by telephone. According to the Board's expert, Pollack was guilty of gross negligence by performing work that exceeded the scope of his license, performing potentially hazardous electrical wiring, installing a non-efficient system in the Swerdlens' home, failing to follow accepted industry rules concerning static friction, velocities, noise levels and filtration, failing to properly inspect the home prior to installation, improperly installing the unit, damaging the vapor barrier, installing a large supply duct in the closet without obtaining the Swerdlens' approval and failing to use a cement slab to support a heavy unit. He further opined that respondent was deceitful by selling the system in the manner that he did, particularly since it was sold and installed within a four day period with no thought given to or preparation taken as to the problems that might be encountered. The expert agreed that the work was made more difficult by the position of the pier but stated that Pollack should have explained this problem to the Swerdlens and obtained their approval prior to cutting through their closet floor. Pollack has worked in the air-conditioning business for around 26 or 27 years, of which two were spent as a building inspector for Dade County in the late 1960s. He contended he warned Mrs. Swerdlen about the penetrated vapor barrier, the blocked air duct and the lack of a sufficient number of vents. Pollack also stated he advised Mrs. Swerdlen it was her responsibility to get an electrician to do all electrical work. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Moreover, if there were special problems with the Swerdlens' home, it was respondent's responsibility to design and install a system that was compatible with those special needs. Pollack asserted that the Swerdlens' home was actually a mobile home, and he was under the impression that permits were not required for work on this type of home. However, this contention is irrelevant since Dade County has required permits for air conditioning work on both fixed and mobile homes for at least the last ten years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), that he pay a $3,000 civil fine within thirty days from date of a Final Order in this cause, and that his license be suspended for thirty days, or until the fine is paid if after the expiration of said thirty day period. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of June, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is be Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is John Anthony Fantasia, at all times pertinent to these proceedings holder of certified air conditioning contractor license number CA-C024378 and qualifying agent for Fantasia Air Conditioning Refrigeration Appliance Service. Nat Weintraub contracted with Respondent on or about June 25, 1986. Under terms of the contract, Weintraub gave Respondent a $2,500 down payment to have a central air conditioning system installed in the Weintraub home. Weintraub paid Respondent an additional $1,250 when the central air conditioning unit was delivered on or about July 1, 1986. A third and final payment of $1,250 due upon completion of the work set forth in the contract has not been made by Weintraub dub to difficulties he has encountered with the Respondent concerning the quality of work on the project. While he timely commenced work shortly after delivery of the central air unit and receipt of two monetary payments from Weintraub, Respondent damaged a screen covering an opening in an overhanging eave to the Weintraub's flat roofed house. This occurred when he inserted equipment into the opening of the eave in order to place additional insulation between the roof and the ceiling of the home. Weintraub later paid someone else $52 to repair the damage. Respondent made an opening in the roof through which he placed a ventilation pipe. The opening was too large and emitted daylight around the pipe into the closet where the air conditioning unit was installed. As a result, rainwater accumulated in the closet. Weintraub later paid repair costs of $185 to another contractor to seal the opening around the pipe and replace the closet door. While repair of the opening was not a part of the written contract, the Respondent had orally promised to make this correction. A noise problem associated with overly small grillwork on the main air outlet to the air conditioning unit was fixed by another contractor at a cost of $236 to Weintraub. Dry wall covering a soffit containing duct work in the Weintraub living room was not properly finished off. Weintraub has received estimates leading him to believe correction of this deficiency will cost him approximately $510 in repairs. During installation of the air conditioning unit, closure of an existing line supplying natural gas to a heat furnace was required. Respondent "pinched off" the line in an improper manner. Further, Respondent's license does not authorize him to engage in work on heating equipment gas lines. As a result of the manner in which Respondent installed the air conditioning unit, it is extremely inconvenient if not impossible to change the unit's air filters. The job at the Weintraub home was approximately eighty percent completed when the Respondent exhausted his supply of insulation. He left the job site at that time. Later he called Weintraub demanding additional funds. Weintraub refused to pay anything additional until, in accordance with the contract terms, the job was completed. Al Childress is an enforcement officer with the Metro-Dade County Building and Zoning Department. He went to the Weintraub home on December 3, 1986. He noted the air conditioning unit had been installed without a proper permit and issued a citation by certified mail to the Respondent. The Respondent subsequently paid a $50 civil penalty for the citation. William Huckstep was a mechanical inspector for the Metro-Dade County Building and Zoning Department when he was called to the Weintraub home on or about February 3, 1987. He observed the gas line which had been altered by the Respondent. Huckstep subsequently issued a Notice of Violation by certified mail to Respondent for performing such a task without a certificate of competency as required by the Dade County Building Code. On or about April 22, 1987, Huckstep issued a second notice of violation to Respondent for failure to have called for rough and final inspections of the air conditioner installation as required by the Dade County Building Code. To date, these inspections have not been performed by local authorities or requested by the Respondent. Considerably more than 90 days have elapsed since the fall of 1986 when Respondent left the Weintraub project, prior to its completion, without notification, and without just cause to depart. The improper installation of air conditioning equipment, insulation and duct work exhibited gross negligence by the Respondent in the performance of these tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this cause assessing the Respondent a fine of $1,500 and placing him on probation for a period of two years upon terms and conditions to be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 17th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5602 The following constitutes my specific ruling on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Those proposed findings consisted of 18 paragraphs. Only the first five paragraphs were numbered. Numbers 6 through 18 were applied to the remaining paragraphs by the Hearing Officer. Included in finding number 2. Included in finding number 3. Included in finding number 12. Included in finding number 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in part in findings numbered 3 and 4. Included in findings numbered 13 and 14. Included in findings numbered 6 and 9. Included in finding number 11. Included as to the soffit in finding number 8. The remainder is rejected. Included in finding number 11. Included in finding number 12. Included in findings numbered 11 and 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in findings numbered 5, 6, 7, and 8. Included in finding number 13, with the exception of Petitioner's dates which are reflective of the deadline given Respondent on the citations. Included in finding number 13. Included in finding number 14, with exception of hearsay relating to testimony of Bob Wolf which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John Anthony Fantasia 149-10 Northeast Eighth Avenue North Miami, Florida 33161 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Whether, as alleged by Petitioners in their Petition for Relief, Respondents have committed, and are continuing to commit, a discriminatory housing practice in violation of the provisions of Florida's Fair Housing Act by denying Petitioners approval "to install a 22,500 BTU air conditioner unit in the wall of their [Fairmont House] apartment." If so, what affirmative relief should Petitioners be provided.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made:1 Petitioner Larry Tresize and his 91 year-old wife, Edith Tresize, who suffers from osteoporosis and a heart condition and is unable to perform normal activities of daily living without assistance, have resided in Apartment 50 of Fairmont House, a residential cooperative located in North Miami, Florida, since 1982. In January of 1991, the Tresizes sold their interest in the apartment to Werner Bischoff, but continued to occupy the apartment inasmuch as they had "reserved[d] unto themselves a life estate in and to the aforementioned real property with the sole right of possession during the life of the grantor EDITH TRESIZE only, with the proviso that [they] w[ould] pay all maintenance, taxes and assessments and utilities for the subject apartment." Fairmont House, Inc. (Corporation) is a non-profit corporation responsible for the operation of the Fairmont House cooperative. The purpose of the Corporation is stated in Article II.A. of its Articles of Incorporation as follows: The general nature of the object of the Corporation is to provide for and promote the general welfare, comfort, safety, and mutual friendliness between its members, to provide the facilities necessary to promote such purposes and to maintain, manage and keep in good repair the roof, outer walls of the building, all common ways, and areas within and without the building, common rooms, parking areas, grounds (meaning all grass sod, shrubbery, and general landscaping), sea walls, swimming pool and pool area, fences, common electrical equipment and fixtures situated within the common areas of the building and on the grounds for the use and enjoyment of the members of the corporation. . . . In accordance with the provisions of Article III.A. of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation, "[a]ny person, or persons, individual or corporate, are qualified to become a member of this corporation upon securing by purchase, devise, gift, or assignment, any leasehold interest in the [Fairmont House apartments]," provided they are deemed "acceptable" for membership by the Corporation's membership committee. Pursuant to Article VI.A. of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation, the "affairs of the [C]orporation [are] managed by a nine (9) member board of governors." The Corporation has adopted Rules and Regulations governing member conduct and activities. Item 5.c. of the Corporation's Rules and Regulations provides that "[m]embers or non-members shall make no alterations to said exterior premises without the consent of the Board of Governors." The apartments in Fairmont House do not have central air conditioning. They are cooled by room air conditioners. There are both window and "through-the-wall" units. The "through-the-wall" units protrude through openings that were a part of the original design of the building. Subsequent to the building's construction, no additional openings for "through-the- wall" units have been made. When the Tresizes moved into their Fairmont House apartment, there was a "through-the-wall" air conditioning unit in one of the apartment's two bedrooms. The Tresizes subsequently removed the unit and closed the opening in the wall through which the unit had protruded. The Tresizes now have three window air conditioning units in their apartment (including one in the bedroom which previously had a "through-the-wall" unit). In or about April of 1996, the Tresizes contacted their local Sears store to inquire about replacing the window air conditioning unit in the living room of their apartment. Sears sent a "contractor" to the Tresizes' apartment to discuss the matter further with the Tresizes. The Sears "contractor" told the Tresizes that, to comfortably cool their living room, they would need a 22,500 BTU air conditioner. He further advised them that such an air conditioner was too large to install in the living room window and that it would have to be installed, instead, through the wall. The Tresizes authorized the "contractor" to install such a "through-the-wall" unit in their living room. After a building permit from the City of North Miami was obtained, the "contractor" returned to Fairmont House to perform the work necessary to install the unit (Project). The "contractor" was with Larry Tresize on the walkway outside the Tresizes' apartment about to drill a hole in the exterior wall outside the Tresizes' living room, when he was approached by three members of the Corporation's Board of Governors, who directed that he not proceed with the Project unless and until the necessary approval was formally obtained from the Corporation's Board of Governors. The "contractor" gathered his tools and left without performing any more work on the Project. By letter dated April 24, 1996, the Tresizes requested the Corporation's Board of Governors to "grant [them] permission to install a larger air condition[er] in the wall of [their] apartment." The Board of Governors responded by informing the Tresizes that it would not consider their request absent proof that Werner Bischoff approved of the Project. The Tresizes thereafter asked Mr. Bischoff if he would consent to the installation of a "through-the-wall" air conditioning unit in the living room of the Tresizes' apartment. Mr. Bischoff refused to give such consent. The Project never received the approval of the Board of Governors. One member of the Board of Governors, Sherwin Kresshauer, personally attempted to assist the Tresizes in finding an adequate replacement for the window air conditioning unit in the their living room. Mr. Kresshauer measured the space in the window occupied by the air conditioning unit that needed to be replaced (it measured 19 inches by 27 inches) and made arrangements for an air conditioning specialist to visit the Tresizes' apartment and to evaluate the apartment's air conditioning needs and how those needs could be met. Mr. Kresshauer was present when the air conditioning specialist visited the Tresizes' apartment. The air conditioning specialist told the Tresizes that either an 18,000 or 24,000 BTU Goodman air conditioning unit could be installed in the window of their living room (in the 19- inch by 27-inch space occupied by their present unit). When the air conditioning specialist told the Tresizes how much it would cost them, the Tresizes said that they did not want to pay that much.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Tresizes' discriminatory housing practice complaint and their Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, 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 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1998.
