The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed in Florida as a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C018621, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's license had been suspended. At no time material was Respondent licensed to practice contracting in Florida through Florida East Coast Properties, Inc. On or about November 13, 1995, Respondent, doing business as Florida East Coast Properties, entered into a contract with Kazimierz and Maria Charchut (the Charchuts) for construction of a single family residence to be located at 8 Farmsworth Drive, Palm Coast, Flagler County, Florida. The original contract price was $124,000. At the time of the signing of the contract, the Charchuts lived in Brooklyn, New York, and continue to reside there. The Respondent's license number does not appear on the contract. The Respondent's notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund does not appear on the contract. Between September 13 and November 28, 1995, the Charchuts paid Respondent a total of $44,000 of the contract price towards construction of the residence. This amount constituted more than 10% of the contract amount (10% of the contract amount would have been $12,400). A closing on the construction loan was scheduled for October of 1995. Respondent called Mr. Charchut a couple of days before the first scheduled closing telling him they could stop the closing so that they could get better interest rates. Between October 1995 and June of 1997, Respondent failed to appear at a total of three scheduled closings on the construction loan. The Charchuts wrote several letters and made several phone calls to Respondent expressing concern that the closing had not yet occurred although they had already paid him a substantial amount of money. The closing finally took place in October of 1997. Because of some change orders that were to be made to the house, including wooden floors and a longer driveway, the Charchuts paid an additional $14,813.75 at the closing bringing the total cost of the construction of the home to $138,813.75. Included on the Change Order form was an amount of $2,001.75 for water and sewer assessments, which comprised part of the $14,813.75 total additional moneys paid by the Charchuts. The closing agent testified that this closing was atypical, because the bank was concerned that Respondent held too much money in the construction project. She testified that the bank requires that builders have no more than ten percent deposit. Consequently, Respondent was required to reimburse the bank $16,786.25 of the Charchut's $44,000 deposit at the closing. This was accomplished by Respondent bringing a check to the closing in the amount of $25,000 and receiving a refund overage check from Flagler County Abstract Co., (written to Florida East Coast) in the amount of $8,213.75, resulting in Respondent paying a net amount of $16,786.25 at the closing. At the closing, the bank received a check from Flagler County Abstract Co. for $31,600 to put in the construction loan account. This amount was composed of the Charchut's payment of $14,813.75 plus Respondent's payment of $16,786.25. Mr. Charchut wrote to Respondent in March of 1998 expressing concern that the closing had taken place in October of 1997 but the construction of his home had not yet begun. Respondent replied to Mr. Charchut in a letter dated April 8, 1998, stating that he was sorry for the delay in beginning construction of the home and that he intended to begin construction the week of April 20, 1998. Respondent applied for the building permit on May 7, 1998. Respondent applied for water and sewer service on May 5, 1998. He began construction of the house in June or July of 1998. By the end of July 1998, Respondent finished the slab foundation and rough plumbing of the Charchut's home. Consequently, the mortgage company paid $14,769.40 out of the first draw payment on the construction loan to Respondent's company. Of that amount, $3,485.86 was for reimbursement for payment to subcontractors. In addition to the amounts paid to Respondent, the mortgage company paid Mastercraft Plumbing $1,894 and $5,656.60 to CRS Rinker Materials Corp. The total first draw was $22,320. After payment of the first draw in August of 1998, little if any work was done on the construction of the Charchut's home. After the initial work on the slab, Respondent stopped construction and told the Charchuts that he did not want to continue to build their home and was looking for another contractor to finish the house for them. After being told that Respondent did not want to work on the home, the Charchuts wrote to Respondent on October 5, 1998, notifying Respondent to stop doing further work on the property and asking him to notify the Building Department so a transfer of the construction permit to another builder could take place. The Charchuts subsequently engaged another contractor, Mr. V. M. Zarbo. Mr. Charchut testified that he paid approximately $160,000 for the house to be built, including the money paid to Respondent. Mr. Charchut testified that when Mr. Zarbo began his work, Palm Coast Utility asked him to pay the impact fee for water and sewer. Despite the Charchut's having paid Respondent $2,001.75 toward water and sewer assessments, Respondent's check for that amount made out to Palm Coast Utility Company was returned for insufficient funds. Consequently, the Charchuts had to pay $2,116.75 for this fee again through their subsequent general contractor, notwithstanding Respondent claiming that he had incurred this expense. When added together, the Charchuts paid Respondent a total of $51,650.50 for the work Respondent did on the house. The total is composed of the sum of $27,213.75 (the net Respondent retained on the original down payment), $14,769.40 paid to Respondent from the first draw, and $1,894 and $5,656.60 paid to Respondent's suppliers/subcontractors from the first draw. Additionally, the Charchuts paid $2,116.75 for payment of the utility impact fee that the Charchuts had to pay twice. The Charchuts asked their subsequent contractor to prepare an estimate of the cost of the work that Respondent performed on the home. His written estimate was for a total of $21,536.68. The Charchuts included that written estimate in a letter to Respondent dated November 16, 1998, asking for a refund of amounts they paid in excess of his costs. Roy Brand testified as an expert witness for Petitioner. Mr. Brand has been a certified commercial contractor for about 20 years. He reviewed the estimate of Respondent's expenses that was provided by the Charchut's subsequent contractor. It was Mr. Brand's opinion that the cost estimate was appropriate and, if anything, Respondent's expenses might have been less. Respondent testified that he spent more on some items that were listed in the estimate. Respondent, during the investigation leading up to this case, was given an opportunity to provide receipts to Petitioner's investigator of expenditures made to the house. The receipts supplied to Petitioner's investigator do not total an amount in excess of the estimate made by the Charchut's subsequent builder. Based upon Respondent's failure to provide receipts to prove that the estimate total was too low, Mr. Zarbo's good faith estimate of building expenses made after his inspection of the property, and testimony of Petitioner's expert witness as to the reasonableness of the estimate, the estimate of expenses for Respondent's work in the amount of $21,536.68 is accepted as appropriate. Thus, Respondent has failed to account for or return to the Charchuts $30,113.82, the difference between the amount paid by the Charchuts and the estimate of expenses.1 As of September 20, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $1,498.66. Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, (Final Order No. BPR-2000-01399) dated April 4, 2000, which found Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations to a client; Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes,2 by acting in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as set forth on the issued certificate or registration; Section 489.129(1)(h)1, Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing a statement with respect to a project or contract with false information; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting and imposing the penalties of placing Respondent on probation for two (2) years and payment of an administrative fine, costs and restitution to a customer. The second occasion that Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, (Final Order No. BPR-2000-01443) also dated April 4, 2000, which found that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a certificate or registration other than in the name of the certificateholder; Section 489.129(1)(h)1 and 3, Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing a statement with respect to a project or contract falsely indicating that payment had been made for all subcontracted work; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; and imposing the penalties of probation, payment of fines, costs and restitution. Respondent apparently did not satisfy the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders as Respondent's license was suspended on May 17, 2000, for non-payment of fines, costs or restitution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $11,250, revokes Respondent's license, orders that Respondent pay restitution to the Charchuts in the amount of $30,113.82, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through September 20, 2000) in the total sum of $1,498.66 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the Respondent violated Subsections 455.227(1)(h) and 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), as alleged in the Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building contractors pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes (2004). Joshua Woodruff is a Florida Specialty Structure Contractor who holds license number SC C131149603. He owns a business called Simply Aluminum. His last known residence is in Winter Springs, Florida. On June 19, 2003, Mr. Woodruff submitted an application for the Specialty Structure Contractor license he now holds. On page 6 of the application form, question 1 under "BACKGROUND INFORMATION" asked the applicant whether he or she has ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal charge. At the end of the question, in larger print, is the following statement: THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. Mr. Woodruff checked the "Yes" box for this question. The application form directed any person answering, "Yes," to complete form 0050-1. Form 0050-1 is included as page 14 of the license application. In the space on the form with the heading, "Offense," Mr. Woodruff wrote "Sale and Delivery." In the space with the heading, "Penalty/Disposition," Mr. Woodruff wrote, "2 months county jail, 6 months @ Bridge Program." On page 13 of the license application, question number 3 under "FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY/BACKGROUND QUESTIONS," asks the applicant whether he or she has ever: Undertaken construction contracts or work which resulted in liens, suits or judgments being filed? (If yes, you must attach a copy of the Notice of Lien and any payment agreement, satisfaction, Release of Lien or other proof of payment.) Mr. Woodruff answered this question, "No." The Department contends that Mr. Woodruff's responses on the license application form constituted misrepresentations because Mr. Woodruff failed to disclose that he had been adjudicated guilty in Orange County for possession of drug paraphernalia, and failed to disclose that he had filed a claim of lien on a construction project. Criminal History There is no dispute with regard to Mr. Woodruff's disclosure of the felony of "sale and delivery" (of a controlled substance) that he noted in his license application. Mr. Woodruff entered a plea of guilty to this offense on January 13, 2000, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. The official records of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for Orange County indicate that Mr. Woodruff was adjudicated guilty on July 25, 2002, of possession of paraphernalia, a first degree misdemeanor under Subsection 893.147(1), Florida Statutes (2002). The Respondent argues that his sentence on the conviction for possession of paraphernalia (two days in jail, fines and court costs of $371, 180 days probation) was not rendered until July 23, 2004, more than a year after he submitted his license application to the Department. However, the application form clearly requested Mr. Woodruff to describe whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal charge. With regard to Mr. Woodruff's misdemeanor, all of these events occurred approximately one year before he submitted the license application. Claim of Lien On or about June 11, 2003, Mr. Woodruff filed a Claim of Lien against Itzhak and Ayala Stark for $5,600 for work commenced in March 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: finding that Joshua Woodruff violated Subsection 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2003), by failing to disclose a misdemeanor conviction and a claim of lien on his license application, and imposing a fine against Mr. Woodruff of $4000, and suspending his license for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Jeffery T. Kipi, Esquire 100 West Citrus Street Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), by being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime directly related to the practice or the ability to practice contracting. If so, it must also be determined what penalty should be imposed for the violation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent holds an active license as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 1515398 on April 30, 2008. He is also the qualifier for Pro Group Construction, Inc. Respondent's license expires August 31, 2014. On or about October 15, 2009, Respondent was charged by the United States Government in a one-count Information with conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On April 5, 2011, Respondent pled guilty to Count I of the Information, and was adjudicated guilty. On March 20, 2012, Respondent was sentenced to incarceration for one year and one day, supervised release for a period of three years upon completion of his prison sentence, and payment of restitution in the amount of $182,294.83 to Wells Fargo Bank. Included in the terms of supervision, are the following: The Defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. The defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new credit charges, opening additional lines of credit, acquisitions or obligating himself for any major purchases without approval of the probation officer. The defendant shall be prohibited from engaging in any employment related to the buying and selling of real estate. The scheme to which Respondent pled guilty involved fraudulent statements to a lending institution, i.e., Wells Fargo Bank, to induce the lender to believe that buyers had the funds to make down payments on foreclosed properties in order to qualify for loans when in fact the buyers did not have those funds. The conduct from which the criminal charges arose occurred prior to Respondent's licensure as a certified general contractor. The guilty plea and the judgment and sentencing all occurred while Respondent held his contractor's license. Respondent admitted at hearing that his actions, which resulted in the criminal proceedings, were wrong, and he takes responsibility for his wrongdoing. He asserts, however, that because he was not licensed at the time of the conduct, it has nothing to do with his license as a certified general contractor. He was, instead, licensed as a mortgage broker. However, contractors routinely interact with customers, deal with contracts for the building of or improvement of buildings, handle money and checks, and have direct involvement with lending institutions. Respondent admitted that, if he had an employee with a conviction for a crime such as the crime for which he pleaded guilty, that employee would not be permitted to handle money on behalf of his company.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice as building contractors. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed individually as a Certified General Contractor pursuant to license number CG C 0055328 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board"). Respondent has never been licensed by the Board as the qualifying agent for Mr. Gary Butler ("Butler"), an unlicensed contractor. In 1993, Respondent entered into an agreement with Butler who has never been licensed by the Board. The terms of the agreement require Respondent to pull permits for construction projects entered into by Butler. Butler pays Respondent for each permit or weekly. Respondent supervises some, but not all, of the projects undertaken by Butler. In August, 1993, Mr. Lynn Kyler ("Kyler"), the owner of a residence constructed by Ms. Denise Pyke ("Pyke"), a Certified Residential Contractor, asked Pyke to find a contractor to build a new dock and boat house at Kyler's residence. The Kyler residence is a lake front home located at 10250 State Road 561 A, Clermont, Lake County, Florida. Kyler authorized Pyke to act as Kyler's agent for construction of the dock and boat house. Kyler resided in Indiana from August through late fall of 1993. Pyke obtained recommendations of various candidates including Butler. Butler represented himself as a licensed and insured builder of docks and boat houses. Butler provided Pyke with a business card representing that Butler is licensed and insured. Pyke obtained cost and design proposals from Butler and Norquist Construction Company and communicated the proposals to Kyler. Kyler chose Butler. Butler agreed to demolish the existing dock and construct a new dock and boat house (the "project"). Kyler paid Butler the full contract price of $6,897.60. Prior to the completion of the project, neither Respondent nor Butler disclosed to Pyke or Kyler that Butler was unlicensed. Nor did they disclose that Butler would use Respondent's license to pull the permit for the project. Respondent knew that Butler is not licensed as a contractor, in any capacity. On August 25, 1993, Respondent and Butler went to the Lake County Building Department. Respondent used his license to pull Permit Number T93- 04793 for the project. The permit was issued to Respondent, listed Respondent's license as the certified general contractor, and was maintained in the official records of the Lake County Building Department. Respondent listed himself on the permit as the contractor for the entire project without limitation and without reference to Butler. Respondent was not authorized by Pyke or Kyler to pull the permit or to participate in the project. At the time, neither Pyke nor Kyler were aware of Respondent's existence or his role in the project. Respondent did not participate and had no involvement in the project except pulling the permit. The project was commenced by Butler in August, 1993, and completed shortly thereafter. Respondent did not supervise or participate in the construction of the project. Butler began the project without first filing a Notice of Commencement. Butler constructed the project with only a 10 foot setback in violation of the 25 foot setback required in Lake County Code Ordinance 10.0401(3)(d). Butler also failed to obtain an electrical permit in violation of Standard Building Code, Section 103.1.1. (1991). The project, as built by Butler, has no value to Kyler. The project failed final inspection for violation of the 25 foot setback and failure to obtain an electrical permit. The roof tiles on the boat house had to be removed because they were falling off the roof. The project itself is coming apart. It will cost between $10,000 and $12,000 to bring the project into compliance with local code requirements and to make it usable. Respondent was aware of the 25 foot setback when he pulled the permit for the project. The project plans submitted for the permit reflect the 25 foot setback. Lake County allows contractors to withdraw permits that have already been pulled. Respondent never withdrew the permit for the project. Butler was unable to obtain a final inspection because he failed to file a Notice Of Commencement at the outset of the project. Pyke and Kyler filed the Notice Of Commencement in order to obtain the final inspection. As the contractor of record, it was Respondent's responsibility to ensure that a Notice of Commencement was filed and that the project passed final inspection. While obtaining the information necessary to file the Notice Of Commencement, Pyke and Kyler learned that Butler was unlicensed and uninsured and that Respondent had used his license to pull the permit. When confronted by Pyke, Respondent did not deny knowledge of the project and assured Pyke that the problems with the project would be corrected. Despite Respondent's assurances, the code violations have not been corrected. Nor have the defects in construction been corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating: Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a); and Sections 489.129(1) (e), (f), (n), and (p). It is further recommended that the Board place Respondent on probation for three years, subject to reasonable conditions, impose an administrative fine of $5,000, and assess costs of $717.50 plus reasonable costs incurred by Petitioner subsequent to the date of this Recommended Order to investigate and prosecute this proceeding to its conclusion. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent performed an act which assisted a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, or whether he applied for and obtained a permit without having entered into a contract to perform the work specified in the permit, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of construction contracting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Mr. Jenkins was licensed as a certified general contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1513481. Mr. Jenkins' license is current and active. At all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Jenkins was the primary qualifying agent of Abacoa Construction, LLC (Abacoa). Mr. Jenkins was responsible for supervision of all operations of Abacoa; for all field work at all sites; and for financial matters, both for Abacoa in general and for each specific job. On or about October 29, 2015, Robert Maione entered into a contract with John Martinache, d/b/a All 4 One Project, LLC, for renovations to his residence located at 364 Golfview Road, Unit 407, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408. Mr. Maione was aware that Mr. Martinache was unlicensed. On or about December 8, 2015, Mr. Jenkins, d/b/a Abacoa, obtained Building Permit No. 16063 from the Village of North Palm Beach Building Department for electric, HVAC, and plumbing. The permit was for the renovations at the Golfview Road residence. Mr. Martinache proceeded on interior renovations requiring proper licensure without having been certified or registered to engage in the practice of construction contracting in the state of Florida. Mr. Jenkins was aware that Mr. Martinache was not licensed for this work. Mr. Jenkins did not have a contract for the construction at Golfview Road, did not supervise it, and received no compensation for it. Restitution cannot be calculated based on the available facts, as the value of the work and actual damages are unclear. There is no evidence of financial loss suffered by a consumer in this case. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Jenkins assisted a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Jenkins applied for and obtained a permit without having entered into a contract to perform the work specified in the permit. Mr. Jenkins has not been subject to prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Mark Lewis Jenkins in violation of sections 489.129(1)(d) and 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes; placing his contractor's license on probation for a period of two years; imposing an administrative fine of $8,500.00; and requiring him to complete an additional live continuing education course of seven hours emphasizing chapter 489 and implementing rules and to pay costs in the amount of $171.66. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 14th day of September, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Labeed A. Choudhry, Esquire Ward Damon, Attorneys at Law 4420 Beacon Circle, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-3281 (eServed) Ramsey D. Revell, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Capital Commerce Center 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) James David Burkhart, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Capital Commerce Center 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Jason Maine, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Capital Commerce Center 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Daniel Biggins, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Capital Commerce Center 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Construction Industry Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent for alleged violation of Section 489.129(1)(n) and (r), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Gary Kinney, holds General Contractor License No. CG C040517, issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on August 18, 1987. For almost the entire period of his licensure, the Respondent also qualified his company, Florida Construction and Development Inc. of Melbourne, to do business in Florida as a general contractor. (The Respondent was the sole owner, president and vice-president of the company.) Effective September 1, 1996, the Respondent’s license was placed on a delinquent status for non-renewal and is considered invalid. On or about May 20, 1992, the Respondent executed a personal guaranty in order for his company to obtain credit from Cox Lumber Co. Subsequently, his company purchased building materials from Cox Lumber, using credit, and incorporated the building materials into one of his company’s residential construction projects. The Respondent and his company paid only a portion of the purchase price, and January 23, 1994, Cox Lumber obtained a Second Amended Final Judgment against the Respondent under the personal guaranty in the amount of $8,829.56, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $1,176 and post judgment-interest until satisfied. The Respondent has made no payments on the Second Amended Final Judgment since its entry. In his request for formal administrative proceedings, the Respondent defended on the alleged grounds: (1) he had no prior knowledge of the purchase from Cox Lumber; (2) he did not request or submit a written credit application; and (3) he had no prior knowledge of the complaint or judgment. Based on the evidence, those alleged grounds are false. Based on the evidence, there is no basis to mitigate penalties recommended in the Construction Industry Licensing Board’s penalty guidelines. To the contrary, the Respondent’s cavalier attitude and false defenses are grounds to aggravate the recommended penalties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(r), Fla. Stat. (1995); (2) requiring that he satisfy the Second Amended Final Judgment against him; (3) imposing a $1,000 fine; and (4) revoking his license. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Chaves Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert Gary Kinney 920 Mesa Grande Road Aptos, California 95003 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7060 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
