Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent owned a commercial vehicle identified as a 1983 KW, VIN:IXKKD28X3DJ298929 (vehicle) which was operated by Trinity Trucking of Tampa, Florida. On August 7, 1990 the Respondent's vehicle while traveling on S.R. 5 in Monroe County, Florida was stopped and weighed by the Department. The total weight of the vehicle was 79,440 pounds consisting of 10,380 pounds on the steering axle, 35,900 pounds on drive tandem and 33,160 pounds on rear tandem. A Load Report and Field Receipt was completed and indicated the legal weight to be 35,000 pounds. This is the legal weight established for a commercial vehicle by Section 316.545(2)(b), Florida Statutes when that vehicle has an expired registration. The Respondent's Florida International Registration Plan (IRP) Temporary Operational Permit No. 061084 had expired on August 3, 1990, and Respondent had not obtained another Florida IRP Temporary Operational Permit or a current registration for the vehicle on August 7, 1990 when the vehicle was stopped and weighed. Using the "no tag" tax class weight of 79,440 pounds and subtracting the legal weight of 35,000 pounds as established by statute the vehicle was 44,440 pounds overweight. The Department assessed the Respondent a penalty of $0.05 per pound for each pound the vehicle was overweight which resulted in a total penalty assessed the Respondent of $2,222.00. After the Respondent purchased a valid tag for the vehicle and paid the penalty the vehicle was released. Respondent applied for registration in the Florida IRP in accordance with Section 320.0715, Florida Statutes, and was issued a 60-day Temporary Operational Permit in accordance with Section 320.0715(3), Florida Statutes, on June 4, 1990 with an expiration date of August 3, 1990. Sometime around June 28, 1990 Respondent was advised by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) that additional information was needed in order to further process his application for registration in the Florida IRP. Sometime around the week of July 9, 1990 Respondent mailed the requested information to IRP, Motor Carrier Service. DHSMV, however, the letter was misdirected to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), possibly the U.S. Postal Service confused IRP with IRS, but, in any event, the information was returned to the Respondent in October 1990 by IRS. By this time, the Respondent had purchased a valid Florida tag and decided not to pursue registration of this vehicle in the Florida IRP. Respondent admitted that he was aware that the temporary operational permit for the vehicle expired on August 3, 1990 even though he was not personally operating the vehicle. Respondent also admitted that he made no inquiry to the DHSMV as to the status of his application for registration and did not request any extension of his temporary operational permit before the permit expired or before the vehicle was found to be overweight on August 7, 1990. It was only after the vehicle was found to be overweight due to the expired permit that Respondent checked with DHSMV and was advised that the requested information had not been received. There was no evidence that it was the policy of the Department to disregard the provision of Section 316.545(2)(b), Florida Statutes, establishing a legal weight of 35,000 pounds for a vehicle with an expired registration when the DHSMV had an application on file for registration in the Florida IRP which was being processed by DHSMV. On August 7, 1990 the Respondent's vehicle was 44,440 pounds overweight when it was stopped and weighed in Monroe County, Florida on S.R. 5, and the calculation of the penalty ($0.05 x 44,440 pounds = $2,222.00) is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order finding the Respondent subject to the penalty as assessed and denying his request for refund of the penalty. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 21st day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-4945 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4 and 5. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 10. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Respondent waived the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Copies furnished to: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Glenn E. Porter 5213 Fourth Street Bradenton, FL 34203 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Pedro P. Landera, was a certified general contractor having been issued license number CG C005371 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), in March 1973. In January 1986 the license was suspended by the Board for three years and, except for the charges pending in this proceeding, Landera would be eligible to have it reactivated in early 1989. Thus, Landera has been without authority to use his license for the last three years. Landera did not contest the Board's suspension action and, in a settlement stipulation, admitted he violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (m), Florida Statutes (1981), by certain conduct taken in December 1983. On August 11, 1986, an individual using the name of James Burke entered into a construction contract with Charlie E. Mincey, the owner of Charlie Tires Service, 1700 N. W. 79th Street, Miami, Florida. The contract, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4, called for Burke, "in a timely manner," to make the following additions to Mincey's tire shop: construct a 34' X 40' room onto the existing building, erect an aluminum shed across the front of the building, including a four foot concrete slab floor, and add a five foot wall across the back side of the building. Burke represented on the contract that he held license number 254514-4. However, a search of the Board's records revealed Burke held no state license. The total price for the work was $15,650. On August 13, Mincey paid Burke $3,000 as a down payment on the job. According to Mincey, Burke began work on the additions several weeks after the contract was executed and continued to do so on and off for a few months. Eventually, a concrete block wall for the 34' x 40' room was built, but it had no roof, windows, doors, electric wiring, plumbing or paint. The aluminum shed was never built nor did Burke construct a five foot wall at the rear of the building as required by the contract. During October and early November 1986 Mincey made additional payments to Burke in the amount of $3,175, 1,000, $500, $400, $300, $300, and $40. This made a total of $8,715 paid by Mincey to Burke. Despite these payments, several subcontractors came to the job site during the same time period to unload materials but requested payment from Mincey before they would release them. Mincey paid the subcontractors $2,593.64, as evidenced by receipts received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. When Burke did not return to the job site, and the project was still far from completed, Mincey attempted to contact Burke but could not find him. When he left the job site for the final time, Burke gave Mincey no notice of his intention to leave the job unfinished or any reason for doing so. Burke's whereabouts are still unknown, and there is now pending an outstanding warrant for his arrest. On September 30, 1986, a building permit application was filed with the Metropolitan Dade County building and zoning department seeking a permit for work to be done on Mincey's business. The application was filled out with three different colors of ink and in more than one person's handwriting. A carbon copy of the application has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9. The document was authenticated by a permit clerk of the Metropolitan Dade building and zoning department who identified the cashier's validation stamp, issuance date and permit number affixed to the document, all being indicia that the application was received and processed by that department. Further, the clerk attested to the fact that the carbon copy was a document normally kept in the regular course of business by her department. The application carries the signature, license number and social security number of respondent. The authenticity of respondent's signature was confirmed by a questioned document examiner whose testimony has been accepted as being credible and persuasive and was corroborated by respondent's own admission that the signature was his own. The author of the remaining writings on the document is unknown. Pursuant to the above application, a building permit was issued on October 1, 1986, for the work performed by Burke. The inspection record, which has been received as petitioner's exhibit 8, reflected that the job site was inspected by a Dade County inspector on October 1 and November 12, 1986. Also, the inspection record reflected that Gila Construction Company (GCC) was the contractor on the job. GCC is a Miami firm that Landera qualified in March 1984. Its owner is Gilbert Castillo. Mincey's building remains unfinished as of this date, and he contends the value of the work is less than the $11,308 that he paid to Burke and the subcontractors. In attempting to resolve the matter, Mincey learned that Landera's license number was on the permit application, and a complaint was eventually filed with the Board. However, prior to hearing, Mincey had never seen or talked to Landera, knew nothing of GCC, and considered the business transaction to be between he and Burke. Landera denied knowing Burke or authorizing him to use his license. Also, he maintained that he has not used his suspended license since the Board's action in early 1986. He denied signing the application in question and had no explanation as to how his signature got on the application except to suggest that someone may have obtained one with his signature and then fraudulently used the same to obtain a permit. Even so, there was no reason for Landera to sign an application during this period of time since his license was under suspension. Castillo, who owns GCC, denied knowing Burke or Mincey or having any knowledge of or participation in the Mincey job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law, that he pay a $3,500 fine, and that his license be suspended until January, 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 3. and 5. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 1. Respondent: Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2. Covered in findings of fact 3 and 5. Covered in findings of fact 4 and 5. 4-5. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 2, 5 and 6. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 9. Covered in finding of fact 6. 9 Covered in findings of fact 9 and 10 COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Luis F. DeLaCruz, Jr., Esquire 300 Sevilla Avenue Suite 313 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-16.012(5)1/ (the “Rule”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony and exhibits admitted at the final hearing and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. Parties Petitioner, FADA, is a not-for-profit trade association of licensed franchise motor vehicle dealers in Florida. FADA is organized and maintained for the benefit of approximately 800 members, which includes 85 to 90 percent of the licensed franchise motor vehicle dealers in Florida. FADA regularly coordinates the common interests of its members and represents its members before the Legislature with respect to legislation and rules affecting franchised dealers. Respondent, the Department, is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for regulating electronic filing system (“EFS”) and the EFS agents. The Department adopted the Rule, which became effective December 14, 2010. The Rule was amended on November 22, 2011, but has not been amended since that time. Titling and Registration of Vehicles Every motor vehicle that is to be driven on a road in Florida must be registered with the Department. § 320.02(1), Fla. Stat. The initial registration a customer receives may either be temporary or permanent. If the initial registration is temporary, there is a period of 30 days during which the temporary registration must be converted to a permanent registration. In Florida, sellers of motor vehicles are required to effect transfers of title and registration as part of a sale of motor vehicles. The EFS provides an electronic method for the titling and registration of motor vehicles. EFS agents are those persons or entities who are engaged in selling products for which a title or registration is needed. Fla. Admin. Code R. 15C-16.010(1)(a) and (b). A substantial number of FADA’s members are EFS agents. The EFS was developed in the 1990s to permit dealers to make titling and registration more efficient. The system also enhanced safety during a roadside stop for law enforcement by making registration information readily available. At the beginning of the process, an EFS agent, who could be a motor vehicle dealer, like the members of FADA, sells a vehicle and electronically submits information through the EFS to a Certified Service Provider (“CSP”). The CSP provides the software system that is used by EFS agents to submit titling and registration transactions for processing. Tax collectors are also part of the process and are responsible for preparing the paperwork that is submitted to finalize a titling or registration transaction. Some tax collectors outsource these responsibilities to private entities, which function as private tag agents (“PTAs”). While the EFS is a comprehensive method to electronically file vehicle title and registration transactions, there is also a limited sub-system of the EFS, Electronic Temporary Registration (“ETR”). The ETR is limited to temporary registration of vehicles. It does not involve titling. There are multiple methods for submitting the necessary paperwork for titling and/or registering a motor vehicle. This can be done manually by taking it to a public or private tag agency, and electronically by using the ETR and the EFS or the EFS only. EFS agents are subject to statutes and rules pertaining to titling and registration of motor vehicles in Florida. Rule and Statutory Authority The rule at issue in this case concerns the Department’s authority over the EFS. The Rule, 15C-16.012(5), provides: If an EFS agent charges a fee to the customer for use of the electronic filing system in a title or registration transaction, the fee shall be disclosed separately and in a clear and conspicuous manner in the sales agreement along with the other options for titling and registration. The EFS agent may not disclose or disguise this as a State or Government fee. The Rule requires that an EFS agent charging a fee to use the EFS, disclose the EFS filing fee separately and in a clear and conspicuous manner and provide other options for titling and registration. The Rule cites section 320.03(10)(a), Florida Statutes, as the law being implemented. Section 320.03(10) provides: Jurisdiction over the electronic filing system for use by authorized electronic filing system agents to electronically title or register motor vehicles, vessels, mobile homes, or off-highway vehicles; issue or transfer registration license plates or decals; electronically transfer fees due for the title and registration process; and perform inquiries for title, registration, and lienholder verification and certification of service providers is expressly preempted to the state, and the department shall have regulatory authority over the system. The electronic filing system shall be available for use statewide and applied uniformly throughout the state. An entity that, in the normal course of its business, sells products that must be titled or registered, provides title and registration services on behalf of its consumers and meets all established requirements may be an authorized electronic filing system agent and shall not be precluded from participating in the electronic filing system in any county. Upon request from a qualified entity, the tax collector shall appoint the entity as an authorized electronic filing system agent for that county. The department shall adopt rules in accordance with chapter 120 to replace the December 10, 2009, program standards and to administer the provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, establishing participation requirements, certification of service providers, electronic filing system requirements, and enforcement authority for noncompliance. The December 10, 2009, program standards, excluding any standards which conflict with this subsection, shall remain in effect until the rules are adopted. An authorized electronic filing agent may charge a fee to the customer for use of the electronic filing system. Section 320.03(10) gives the Department regulatory authority over the EFS and requires the Department to adopt rules to administer the EFS. The statute also requires that the Department adopt rules to replace the 2009 program standards. Section 320.03(10) also explicitly provides that an EFS agent is permitted to charge a fee to the customer for use of the EFS. However, there is no requirement in the statute that an EFS agent satisfy any conditions when charging the fee. Specifically, the statute does not require that the EFS agent make any type of disclosure regarding the fee or other options for titling or registration. 2009 Program Standards Respondent relies upon the language in the statute related to replacement of the 2009 program standards to support its position that section 320.03(10) provides authority for the Rule. Over the course of legislative sessions in 2009 and 2010, the regulatory authority for the EFS was transferred from the Florida Tax Collectors Service Corporation (“FTCSC”) to the Department as provided in section 320.03(10). The 2009 program standards were a set of standards used by the FTCSC for administering participation in the EFS when the FTCSC had responsibility for administering the EFS. The 2009 program standards were to remain in place until adoption of the Rule. The 2009 program standards expressly regulated certain participation requirements placed upon dealers seeking to become an approved Limited Branch Office (“LBO”), which is the equivalent of an EFS agent. One of the 2009 program standards required that dealers seeking “appointment as a participating LBO” must submit a letter agreeing to comply with certain disclosure requirements as part of a sale, including the contents of a buyer’s order. The “buyer’s order” referenced in the 2009 program standards has the same meaning in the industry as the term “sales agreement” in rule 15C-16.012(5). Under the 2009 program standards, failure of a dealer to adhere to the standards could result in loss of its LBO status. The relevant portions of the LBO participation requirements are discussed further below. Section III.A.2.a. of the 2009 program standards provided that the letter requesting approval for LBO status shall include a statement that use of the EFS will be an optional transaction and will be disclosed on the buyer’s orders as “Electronic Filing.” Similarly, section V.C.2.(d)4.b.ii. provided that a dealer’s application for LBO status may be rejected if the letter provided to the tax collector does not mention the information required in section III.A.2.a. Section III.A.2.c. provided that a dealer seeking LBO status must include in their letter to the tax collector a statement that the dealer will not represent to the EFS customers that they are required to transact title transaction business through the EFS. Likewise, section V.C.2.(d)4.b.iv. provided that a dealer’s application for LBO status may be rejected if the dealer’s letter does not include a statement that the dealer agrees not to represent to potential EFS customers that the customer is required to transact title transaction business through the EFS and pay additional charges, if applicable. The undersigned finds that these requirements of the 2009 program standards required dealers utilizing the EFS at that time to make certain disclosures for the purpose of participation as an LBO. The disclosure of fees charged to customers for use of the EFS system was not addressed in the 2009 program standards. In fact, the 2009 version of section 320.03(10) provided that a dealer “may charge a fee to the customer for use of the electronic filing system, and such fee is not a component of the program standards.” § 320.03, Fla. Stat. (2009). Different Methods for Titling and Registration In addition to the requirement to disclose the fee for use of the EFS, the Rule requires EFS agents to disclose “other options for titling and registration.” In the motor vehicle industry, there are multiple methods for titling and registration. Dealers can deal directly with county tax collectors for titling and registration, which is performed manually. Dealers can use ETR vendors for the temporary registration process. Like with the EFS, the ETR providers charge dealers a fee for use of the ETR system. A dealer that has a contract with one of the PTAs in Florida can use that PTA to process components of the titling and registration process. PTAs are entities that dealers may hire as a service provider to process registration and titling work manually. Like with EFS providers and ETR providers, PTAs charge dealers a fee for the services they provide in the titling and registration process. Given that dealers must have contracts with PTAs in order to utilize their services and that PTAs charge dealers a fee for use of their services, a dealer using a PTA for components of the titling and registration processes is not the same as a dealer interacting directly with a county tax collector. The multiple methods for titling and registration could result in multiple options for EFS agents. Uncertainty about Meaning of “Other Options” During and after the rulemaking process, Mr. Smith, the president of FADA, expressed concern about the interpretation of the requirement in the Rule to disclose “other options for titling and registration.” Mr. Smith sent a number of emails seeking clarification regarding this requirement. On December 8, 2010, Mr. Smith sent an email on behalf of FADA to Julie Baker at the Department inquiring whether the Rule meant that a dealer would have to disclose all the potential options available in the marketplace or only those options available to that particular dealer. On December 19, 2010, Mr. Smith received a response from Boyd Walden, the Department’s then chief of the Bureau of Titles and Registrations, stating that a legal opinion on the issue was being requested. Mr. Smith never received the legal opinion on the issue. Approximately two years later, on January 7, 2013, Mr. Smith sent Mr. Walden another email notifying the Department that the importance of this issue had escalated because FADA members were being sued by consumers or their representatives for failure to comply with the Rule. Mr. Smith requested guidance from the Department regarding interpretation of the Rule. Mr. Walden, as the then director of the Division of Motorist Services, responded on January 8, 2013, and offered an example of other options. For example, he suggested “the dealer informing the buyer of the option for the dealer to file the paperwork with the tax collector manually.” On January 8, 2013, Mr. Smith emailed Mr. Walden and requested a letter from the Department’s counsel clarifying what the Rule required. On October 30, 2013, Mr. Smith emailed Mr. Walden notifying the Department that dealers were continuing to be sued regarding compliance with the Rule and requesting clarification regarding the Rule. On October 30, 2013, Mr. Walden stated, “there are other options such as manual registration through the tax collector. How you offer those ‘other options’ is up to you.” Mr. Walden continued that FADA’s legal team “should decide how to best meet the ‘other options’ requirement based on the level of risk your clients are willing to assume.” Mr. Smith still had questions regarding compliance with the Rule. Mr. Walden’s responses did not clarify the meaning of “other options for titling and registration.” For example, the Rule fails to provide guidance whether the options include all possible options or only options available to the specific individual dealer. The Rule did not provide specific clarification regarding the type (permanent or temporary) of titling and registration. The ETR is an option that offers titling. However, use of EFS would be required to complete the permanent registration. Further, the Rule requires that a dealer disclose other options for titling and registration, but did not provide guidance regarding the type of options, (i.e., manual, electronic, private, or public). It also specifies “other options” but does not specify whether the disclosure includes other options that also may involve a fee. There are both electronic and manual options that require a fee. Standing The Rule affects EFS agents that charge a fee to customers for EFS filing. A substantial number of FADA members are EFS agents and charge a fee to their customers and are, thus, directly and substantially impacted by the Rule.
The Issue Petitioner, Sara Wright, alleges that the Department discriminated against her because of age by demoting her into a position she could not perform in order to get rid of her, and retaliated against her for filing her complaint with the Commission, in violation of section 760.10, F.S. The issues are whether the alleged discrimination and retaliation took place, and, if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sara Wright has been continually employed by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for twenty-seven years. She started as a clerk and moved up the career ladder to inspector, then to supervisor and was assigned duties as a records technician. She was demoted back to inspector (License and Registration Inspector) in February 1992, with no reduction in pay. This is her current position. She is sixty years old. Glenn Turner is currently the assistant director of the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Prior to becoming assistant director, Glenn Turner was chief of the Bureau of Licenses and Enforcement (herein after "the Bureau") having assumed that position on July 9, 1990. The Bureau has two primary missions, to handle consumer complaints against motor vehicle dealers and to license motor vehicle dealers and auctioneers. When Mr. Turner became the bureau chief, a review of the Bureau's needs was developed, entitled "State of the Bureau", setting forth the Bureau's mission, goals and objectives, and needs assessment for fiscal years 1990-91 and 1991-92. At the time the State of the Bureau Report was issued, there were 63 License and Registration Inspector positions assigned to the Bureau. The Bureau's goal was to bring that number up to 65. Additional inspector positions were needed because of the increased volume of work. Inspectors carry out the functions of the Bureau by investigating consumer complaints, regulating motor vehicle dealers, issuing notices of violations to improperly registered motor vehicles and verifying motor vehicle identification numbers. Since becoming bureau chief, Mr. Turner has instituted a program to upgrade inspectors as money becomes available. To date, 56 inspector positions have been upgraded. Ms. Wright's position is the next one scheduled to be upgraded. At the time Mr. Turner became bureau chief, Ms. Wright was a records technician in the Bureau's Region V, Winter Park office, but reported directly to the bureau chief rather than the regional administrator, which was unusual. Based upon his review of the State of the Bureau Report and his knowledge of the Bureau, Mr. Turner determined that Ms. Wright's position should be changed to an inspector position to better utilize her position. Ms. Wright's duties as a records technician should have been performed by other personnel. Around August of 1990, Ms. Wright told Mr. Turner that she was dissatisfied with her current position because she was not receiving a uniform allowance and did not have a state vehicle to drive to and from work. Mr. Turner told Ms. Wright that he had concerns about her position of records technician and thought it would be better for her to be an inspector. Bureau reorganization was under way, but had not been completed and reclassification was not done at that time. In 1991, Ms. Wright requested that her position be audited, claiming that she was being worked out of class. On October 29, 1991, Hazel Drombolis, chief of personnel services for the Department, submitted a position audit report to Mr. Turner. The audit concluded that Ms. Wright was being worked out of class and recommended that Ms. Wright's position be reclassified to Highway Safety Specialist. Mr. Turner agreed with the finding in the position audit that Ms. Wright was working out of class, and as a result of the analysis of the needs of the agency, he felt that Ms. Wright should be reassigned to the position of License and Registration Inspector. Mr. Turner prepared a response to the audit in the form of a memorandum to Charles J. Brantley, Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, recommending that Ms. Wright's position be reclassified to License and Registration Inspector, a one paygrade demotion. The work load for inspectors in Region V had increased significantly from fiscal year 1989/90 to fiscal year 1990/91. For example, notices of violation increased 261 percent; consumer complaints increased 113 percent; dealer location inspections increased 23 percent and dealer application assists increased 34 percent. Even though the work load had increased, as of the date of the report, there was one less inspector position in the region than there had been in 1988. There was a need for another inspector position and a legitimate basis to reclassify Ms. Wright's position. Ms. Wright suffered no reduction in salary as a result of her demotion. Ms. Wright has been doing an outstanding job as a License and Registration Inspector, according to the Region V Administrator. The Department has received a written report of a physical examination by a medical doctor which concluded that Ms. Wright was physically able to perform her job functions. The Department has not been supplied by Ms. Wright with any written doctor's report stating that she was unable to perform her job functions. The regional administrator in charge of Ms. Wright's office has told her that if she needs to rest on the job that she could do so. Ms. Wright's work load is about average for her position. Inspectors, including Ms. Wright, are not required to walk parking lots, and are permitted to drive; they are not required to crawl under automobiles.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Ms. Wright's petition. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sara Wright, pro se Post Office Box 142 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered general contractor having been issued license No. RG 0019051. (Stipulation.) At all times pertinent to the charges, respondent engaged in the business of contracting under the name of Atlas Associates, Inc., of which he was the president. (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) Atlas Associates, Inc., however, was not qualified, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes (1977), to engage in the business of contracting. (Stipulation.) Respondent's registration authorized him to engage in the business of contracting only in Hillsborough County. He was not qualified to contract in any other county. He knew that he was not authorized to pull building permits in Pasco County. (Tr. 5, 171-172.) (Testimony of Robinson; Stipulation.) II. Atlas Associates, Inc., entered into a contract with Darryl R. Sutphin and his wife to construct a residence in Pasco County at 631 North Shore Drive, Lake Padgett, Florida. Respondent executed and performed under this contract as president of Atlas Associates, Inc. (Stipulation.) Respondent obtained the assistance of his brother-in-law, James Weinman, president of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., which was authorized to engage in contracting and pull building permits in Pasco County. At Mr. Weinman's request, John Weinman, an employee of Masterpiece Homes, Inc., pulled the building permits for the Sutphin job in the name of Masterpiece Homes, Inc. However, neither Salvatore Carollo, its licensed contractor, nor any other licensee employed by Masterpiece Homes, Inc., was involved in or supervised the subsequent construction of the Sutphin residence. (Tr. 71.) (Testimony of Weinman, Robinson, Carollo, Sutphin.) Construction of the Sutphin residence was financed by Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Fidelity Federal"). An agreement was entered into between Fidelity Federal, the Sutphins, and Atlas Associates, Inc., whereby Fidelity Federal was to disburse the loan proceeds to Atlas Associates, Inc., in four draws. In conjunction with the payment of each draw, Fidelity Federal required respondent, on behalf of Atlas Associates, Inc., to execute standard no-lien affidavits certifying the following: All the persons, firms, and corporations who have furnished any labor, services and/or materials in connection with the construction or improvements on the real estate [in question]. . .have been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit. . .The undersigned owner further certifies that he has received no notices of unpaid bills or claims affecting the foregoing real estate except as are shown above. (P-5, P-6, P-7.) (Testimony of Hager; P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7.) Atlas Associates, Inc., contracted with Nu-Air Manufacturing Company ("Nu-Air") to install windows and screens at the Sutphin residence. On October 16 and 22, 1979, Nu-Air installed the windows and, except for installing the screens, provided all the services and materials required under the contract. In November, 1979, Nu-Air mailed invoices totaling $700.56 to Atlas Associates, Inc. When the invoices were not paid, Nu-Air's credit manager sought payment by directly contacting a representative of Atlas Associates, Inc. No payment has been made, and the $700.56 remains unpaid. A claim of lien was subsequently filed on January 14, 1980. Yet, on October 19, 1979, and February 14, 1980, respondent executed Fidelity Federal's standard affidavits certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms who furnished labor or materials in connection with the Sutphin job had "been paid in full as of the date of this affidavit." As a result, Nu- Air suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Boyles; P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10.) On October 24, 1979, another subcontractor, Nuccio Heating and Air Conditioning ("Nuccio"), contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to furnish and install central heating and air conditioning units at the Sutphin job. Nuccio completed installing the units required by the contract on November 4, 1979. An invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., by November 6, 1979. When it was not timely paid, Nuccio contacted respondent in December, 1979. Nuccio was never paid for its labor and materials; on July 22, 1980, it filed a claim of lien for a total of $2,927. Since Nuccio subsequently repossessed the condensing units, the amount that is now due and remains unpaid is $1,462. Yet, on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal the required affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and material for the Sutphin job had been fully paid. As a result, Nuccio suffered financial loss. (Testimony of Nuccio; P-7, P-8, P-9, P-12.) On January 2, 1980, another subcontractor, W. W. Drywall, contracted with Atlas Associates, Inc., to install drywall for the Sutphin job. The drywall work was completed in early January, 1980, and an invoice was mailed to Atlas Associates, Inc., on or about January 12, 1980, for $2,591.06. On February 14, 1980, W. W. Drywall received a partial payment of $1,000, but the balance of $1,591.06 remains due and unpaid. W. W. Drywall subsequently filed a claim of lien for this amount. Yet on February 14, 1980, respondent executed and submitted to Fidelity Federal a standard affidavit certifying that there were no unpaid invoices and that all firms furnishing labor and materials for the Sutphin job had been paid. As a result, W. W. Drywall has suffered financial loss. (Testimony of West; P-7, P-13, P-14.) III. Respondent admits that when he executed the first October 19, 1979, affidavit, he knew that there were subcontractors which had not been paid. (Tr. 182-183.) He explains that he intended to pay them with the money he received from the draw. By the time he signed the February 14, 1980, affidavit, subcontractors had begun submitting bills directly to the loan officer of Fidelity Federal. He assumed, without checking or inquiring, that the subcontractors had been paid. (Testimony of Robinson.) Respondent was unaware of the Construction Industry Licensing Law requirement that registered contractors must register the corporate names under which they are doing business. Thus, his failure to qualify Atlas Associates, Inc., was not a willful or intentional violation of the Construction Industry Licensing Law. (Testimony of Robinson.) Between October, 1979, and February, 1980, respondent's working relationship with Mr. Sutphin began to deteriorate for reasons not material here. As a result, Mr. Sutphin began to actively participate in the project and deal directly with the various subcontractors. (Testimony of Robinson, Sutphin.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license be suspended for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1982.
