05-000082PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Wayne H. Wagie Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 31, 2005.

Summary: Respondent allowed unlicensed contractors to use his license number.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING )

BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 05 - 0082PL

)

WAYNE H. WAGIE, )

)

Respondent. )

__________ _______________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, A final hearing was held in this case

before Larry J. Sartin, an Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 10, 2005, in

Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Pet itioner: Theodore R. Gay

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace,

Suite 100

Miami, Florida 33166

For Respondent: Wayne H. Wagie, pro se

220 Northeast 45th Street

Miami, Florida 3 3137

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Wayne H.

Wagie, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative

Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, on August 11, 2004, and , if so, what

penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 11, 2004, an Administrative Complaint was filed

with Petitioner alleging that Respondent had violated certain

statutory provisions governing certified general contractors in

the State of Florida. Respondent filed a document titled

Election of Rights, disputing the factual allegations of the

Administrative Complaint and requesting a hearing pursuant to

Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2004). A copy of the

Administrative Complaint and the Election of Rights form was

filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on

January 10, 2005. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 05 -

0086PL and was assigned to the undersigned.

The final hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2005, by

Amend ed Notice of Hearing issued March 4, 2005. On March 9,

2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Present Testimony by Late -

Filed Deposition. In the Motion, Petitioner requested that a

witness, Candice Sicre, be allowed to testify via late - filed

deposition due t o the witness's medical condition. At the

commencement of the final hearing, the Motion was granted.

Ms. Sicre's deposition was taken June 22, 2005.

At the final hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of

Amy Aronson and Abdel Cedeno. Petitioner also offered

18 Exhibits which were marked and admitted. The deposition

testimony of Ms. Sicre included two additional exhibits,

Petitioner's Exhibits 19 and 20, which are hereby admitted. The

deposition transcript has been marked as Petitioner's

Exhibit 21. Respondent testified on his own behalf and had

admitted one Exhibit.

At the conclusion of the hearing it was agreed that post -

hearing argument would be filed ten days from the later of the

filing of the transcript of the final hearing or the deposition

t estimony of Ms. Sicre. The Transcript of the final hearing was

filed April 27, 2005. The Transcript of Ms. Sicre's testimony

was filed August 9, 2005. Post - hearing submittals were due,

therefore, on or before August 19, 2005. Petitioner filed

Petitione r's Proposed Recommended Order on August 19, 2005.

That pleading has been fully considered in issuing this

Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Parties .

1. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional

Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the

agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility

for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish

to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the

investigation and prosecution of complaint s against individuals

who have been so licensed. See Ch. 689, Fla. Stat (2005).

2. Respondent, Wayne H. Wagie, is and has been at all

times material hereto a licensed certified general contractor in

Florida.

3. Mr. Wagie was originally licensed as a cer tified

general contractor on or about December 28, 1978, license number

CGC 13331. At all times material hereto, the status of his

license has been "Current, Active."

4. At all times material, Mr. Wagie was the qualifying

agent for Unified Construction T echnologies, Inc (hereinafter

referred to as "Unified Construction"), a Florida corporation.

Unified Construction did not have a certificate of authority as

a qualified business organization.

5. The Department has jurisdiction over Mr. Wagie's

license.

B . The Spiegel Brothers .

6. At the times material to this matter, Mr. Wagie engaged

in a business arrangement with two brothers, Abraham and Yosef

Spiegel (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Spiegel

Brothers), whereby Mr. Wagie allowed the Spiegel Bro thers to use

his general contractor's license number and qualifying number to

pull permits for a company through which the Spiegel Brothers

conducted construction business.

7. The Spiegel Brothers' construction company was Mega

Construction Group, Inc., d /b/a Mega Construction Group, Inc.

(hereinafter referred to as "Mega Construction").

8. Pursuant to their agreement, Mega Construction, through

the Spiegel Brothers, was to handle all aspects of any

construction contracts the Spiegel Brothers were able to enter

into, including negotiating the contract, handling funds

received from customers, and performing all necessary work. The

only function not to be carried out by the Spiegel Brothers or

Mega Construction was to actually obtain the necessary building

permits; that was Mr. Wagie's responsibility. In exchange for

his services, Mr. Wagie was to receive a percentage of the sales

price, with half paid upon execution of the contract and half

after completion of the work.

9. Neither of the Spiegel Brothers w as a licensed general

contractor in Florida. Nor was Mega Construction certified as a

contractor qualified to do construction business in Florida.

Mr. Wagie was aware of these facts.

C. The Sicre Contract .

10. In 2001, Candida Sicre owned and resided at a house

located at 650 82nd Street, Miami Beach, Florida.

11. Ms. Sicre was interested in adding a handicap

accessible bathroom to her home and, when she received a flyer

in the mail advertising Mega Construction, she contacted the

Spiegel Brothers.

12 . On August 13, 2001, Ms. Sicre entered into a written

contract with Mega Construction (hereinafter referred to as the

"Sicre Contract"). Pursuant to the Sicre Contract, Mega

Construction agreed to construct a new handicap - accessible

bathroom for which M s. Sicre agreed to pay a total of

$15,762.00. As part of their contract, it was agreed that an

air - conditioning unit would be relocated. While the relocation

of the air - conditioning unit is listed as "1" and the

construction of the new bathroom is listed as "2" in the Sicre

Contract, in fact the relocation of the air - conditioning unit

was a necessary component of the construction of the new

bathroom, for the new bathroom was to be constructed from where

the air - conditioning unit was to be relocated.

13. Ms. Sicre paid a total of $7,762.00 on the agreed

Sicre Contract price.

14. On September 17, 2001, Mr. Wagie, pursuant to his

agreement with the Spiegel Brothers, signed a building permit

application required to complete the Sicre Contract. That

applicat ion was filed with the City of Miami Beach building

department on or about January 4, 2002. On the permit

application, Unified Construction was listed as the "Company,"

Mr. Wagie was listed as "Qualifier," and Mr. Wagie's license

number was listed as the "License No." under "Contractor

Information".

15. The permit application was approved by the City of

Miami Beach on or about May 31, 2002, and permit number

KB0201178 was issued.

16. Pursuant to an agreement between the Spiegel Brothers

and Ms. Sicre, th e starting date for the Sicre Contract was

postponed to August 15, 2002, just over a year after it had been

entered into.

17. At some time after the Sicre Contract was entered

into, the air - conditioning unit was relocated as specified in

the contract.

18. Except for the relocation of the air - conditioning

unit , no further work specified under the Sicre Contract was

performed. The actual construction of the new bathroom was

never started. Eventually, Ms. Sicre was told that the work

would not be performed because Mega Construction was going to

declare bankruptcy.

19. After being told that the new bathroom would not be

completed, Ms. Sicre sold her house. She attempted, however, to

obtain a refund of some of the $7,762.00 she had paid Mega

Construction.

2 0. Eventually, Ms. Sicre learned of Mr. Wagie's

involvement with the Spiegel Brothers and, through a series of

negotiations, it was agreed that she would receive a refund of

$2,000.00 through Mr. Wagie from the Spiegel Brothers. She was

eventually given two $1,000.00 checks in furtherance of this

agreement, but the checks ultimately "bounced."

21. The only work performed on the Sicre Contract by Mega

Construction was the drawing of a building permit and the

relocation of the air - conditioning unit . For t his work,

Ms. Sicre paid a total of $7,762.00. Ultimately, Mega

Construction, although beginning the project by relocating the

air - conditioning unit , abandoned the project without its

completion.

D. Prior Disciplinary Action .

22. On July 15, 1996, the D epartment filed a Final Order

reflecting that a settlement stipulation had been approved by

the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred

to as the "Board"), pursuant to which Mr. Wagie agreed to pay an

administrative fine in the amount o f $250.00, plus investigative

and legal costs in the amount of $368.30 to resolve charges

against his license, which Mr. Wagie denied.

E. The Department's Costs of Investigation and

Prosecution .

23. The Department has incurred $597.69 in the

investigati on and prosecution of this matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction .

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

the parties thereto pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2005).

B. The Burden and Standard of Proof .

25. In the Administrative Complaint, the Department has

sought, among other penalties, the revocation of Mr. Wagie's

general contractor's license. Therefore, the Department has the

burden of proving the allegations in the Administrative

Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. See Department of

Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor

Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996);

Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); and McKinney

v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

26. Clear and Convincing evidence has been defined as

evidence which:

[r]equires that the evidence must be found

to be credible; the facts to which the

witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the testimony must be precise

and explicit and the witnesses must be

lacking in confusion as to the facts in

issue. The evidence must be of such weight

that it produces in the mind of the trier of

fact a firm belief or conviction, w ithout

hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983).

C. The Department’s Authority to Discipline General

Contractors; The Charges Against Mr. Wagie .

27. Section 489. 129(1), Florida Statutes (2000), gives the

Board the authority to revoke or suspend the license of any

General Contractor , if he or she commits certain acts specified

in the statute.

28. In this case, Mr. Wagie has been alleged to have

committed the acts p roscribed by Section 489.129(1)(d), (g)3 . ,

(i), and (m), Florida Statutes (2000).

D. Counts I and III; Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida

Statutes (2000) .

29. Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000),

provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a

general contractor is guilty of:

(i) Failing in any material respect to

comply with the provisions of this part or

violating a rule or lawful order of the

board.

30. In Count I, it has been alleged that Mr. Wagie

violated this provision by having violated Section 489.127(4),

Florida Statutes (2000), which provides, in pertinent part:

(4)(a) A certified or registered

contractor, or contractor authorized by a

local construction regulation board to do

contracting, may not enter into an

a greement, oral or written, whereby his or

her certification number or registration

number is used, or to be used, by a person

who is not certified or registered as

provided for in this chapter, or used, or to

be used, by a business organization that is

not duly qualified as provided for in this

chapter to engage in the business, or act in

the capacity, of a contractor.

(b) A certified or registered contractor,

or contractor authorized by a local

construction regulation board to do

contracting, may not k nowingly allow his or

her certification number or registration

number to be used by a person who is not

certified or registered as provided for in

this chapter, or used by a business

organization that is not qualified as

provided for in this chapter to eng age in

the business, or act in the capacity of, a

contractor.

(c) A certified or registered contractor,

or contractor authorized by a local

construction regulation board to do

contracting, may not apply for or obtain a

building permit for construction work unless

the certified or registered contractor, or

contractor authorized by a local

construction regulation board to do

contracting, or business organization duly

qualified by said contractor, has entered

into a contract to make improvements to, or

per form the contracting at, the real

property specified in the application or

permit. This paragraph does not prohibit a

contractor from applying for or obtaining a

building permit to allow the contractor to

perform work for another person without

compensati on or to perform work on property

that is owned by the contractor.

31. Section 489.127(4), Florida Statutes (2000), prohibits

a contractor from agreeing to, or knowingly allowing, the use of

his or her general contractor's license number by a nonlicensee

to engage in contracting activities. The evidence proved

clearly and convincingly that Mr. Wagie violated this provision,

and thus violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes

(2000), when he allowed the Spiegel Brothers and Mega

Construction to use his license number to obtain permits for the

Sicre Contract.

32. In Count III, it has been alleged that Mr. Wagie

violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), by

having violated Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (2000),

which provides, in p ertinent part:

If the applicant proposes to engage in

contracting as a business organization,

including any partnership, corporation,

business trust, or other legal entity, or in

any name other than the applicant's legal

name or a fictitious name where t he

applicant is doing business as a sole

proprietorship, the business organization

must apply for a certificate of authority

through a qualifying agent and under the

fictitious name, if any.

33. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that

Mr. Wagie 's qualified construction company, Unified

Construction, did not have a certificate of authority as

required by Section 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (2000).

Mr. Wagie is, therefore, guilty of having violated Section

489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Count III

of the Administrative Complaint.

E. Count II; Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes

(2000) .

34. Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000),

provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a

general contract i s guilty of:

(d) Performing any act which assists a

person or entity in engaging in the

prohibited uncertified and unregistered

practice of contracting, if the

certificateholder or registrant knows or has

reasonable grounds to know that the person

or en tity was uncertified and unregistered.

35. Mr. Wagie admitted that he knew that the Spiegel

Brothers were not licensed to practice contracting in Florida.

He also knew that Mega Construction was uncertified and

unregistered. Despite this knowledge, Mr. Wagie assisted the

Spiegel Brothers and Mega Construction to engage in the practice

of contracting. Mr. Wagie's suggestion that he was told by some

unnamed individual at the Department that his arrangement with

the Spiegel Brothers and Mega Construction was okay is not

credited.

36. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that

Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes

(2000), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.

F. Count IV; Section 489.129(1)(g)3 . , Florida Statu tes

(2000) .

37. Section 489.129(1)(g)3 . , Florida Statutes (2000),

provides that disciplinary action may be taken by the Board if a

general contract or is guilty of:

(g) Committing mismanagement or

misconduct in the practice of contracting

that causes fi nancial harm to a customer.

Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs

when:

. . . .

(3) The contractor's job has been

completed, and it is shown that the customer

has had to pay more for the contracted job

than the original contract price, as

ad justed for subsequent change orders,

unless such increase in cost was the result

of circumstances beyond the control of the

contractor, was the result of circumstances

caused by the customer, or was otherwise

permitted by the terms of the contract

between the contractor and the customer.

38. The only contract at issue in this case is the Sicre

Contract. As the Department concedes, the Sicre Contract was

never completed. The Department argues, however, the following:

if the verbal negotiations and agreem ent to

refund $2,000.00 to Candida Sicre is

construed as being the equivalent of a

change order, then Section 489.129(1)(g)3,

Florida Statutes, can be readily applied to

this case because the agreement had the

effect of treating the contractor's job as

com pleted at a cost that exceeded the

contract price, as adjusted for the change

order, by $2,000.00.

39. How the foregoing constitutes a job that "has been

completed" is not explained by the Department. The Sicre

Contract, while listing the relocation of the air - conditioning

unit as number "1" and the subsequent construction of the

bathroom as number "2," was actually one "contractor's job."

Only part of that job was completed: the first step, the

relocation of the air - conditioning unit , was completed, b ut that

step was meaningless and unnecessary without the construction of

the bathroom.

40. Even if the Department's argument were reasonable, it

must fail because the Administrative Complaint does not contain

any allegation that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(g)3 . ,

Florida Statutes (2000), through any alleged "change order."

See , e.g. , Cottrill v. Department of Insurance , 685 So. 2d 1371

(Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kinney v. Department of State , 501 So. 2d

129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); and Hunter v. Department of

Professional Regulation , 458 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984).

Due process prohibits the Department from taking disciplinary

action against a licensee based on matters not specifically

alleged in the charging instrument, unless those matters have

been t ried by consent. See Shore Village Property Owners'

Association, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection , 824

So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); and Delk v. Department of

Professional Regulation , 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA

1992).

41. The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly

that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(g)3 . , Florida

Statutes (2000).

G. Count V; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes

(2000) .

42. Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2000),

provides that disc iplinary action may be taken by the Board if a

general contract is guilty of:

(m) Committing incompetency or misconduct

in the practice of contracting.

43. The real violation proved in this case is that Mr.

Wagie unreasonably aided and abetted the Spi egel Brothers to

practice construction in Florida without a license. The

incompetency or misconduct in the actual practice of contracting

was, however, committed by the Spiegel Brothers and not

Mr. Wagie.

44. The Department has argued that, by attempting to

obtain a refund for Ms. Sicre of $2,000.00 and then failing to

do so, Mr. Wagie committed "misconduct in the practice of

contracting." This argument is without merit. Nor was such a

violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

45. The evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly

that Mr. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes

(2000).

H. The Appropriate Penalty .

46. The Department is authorized, upon finding a violation

of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, to impose di scipline

upon a general contractor's license. In particular, the Board

is authorized to take any of the following actions:

. . . place on probation or reprimand the

licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the

issuance or renewal of the certificate,

registratio n, or certificate of authority,

require financial restitution to a consumer

for financial harm directly related to a

violation of a provision of this part,

impose an administrative fine not to exceed

$10,000 per violation, require continuing

education, or assess costs associated with

investigation and prosecution, if the

contractor, financially responsible officer,

or business organization for which the

contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a

financially responsible officer, or a

secondary qualifying ag ent responsible under

s. 489.1195 . . . .

47. Section 455.2273(5), Florida Statutes (2005), requires

that the penalty guidelines of the Board must be followed in

determining what disciplinary action to take under Section

489.129(1), Florida Statutes. Th ose guidelines are set out in

Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G4 - 17.

48. In relevant part, Florida Administrative Code Rule

61G4 - 17.001 provides the following:

(1) The following guidelines shall be

used in disciplinary cases, absent

aggravating o r mitigating circumstances and

subject to other provisions of this chapter.

. . . .

(d) Section 489.129(1)(d), F.S.:

Assisting unlicensed person to evade

provision of Chapter 489, F.S. First

violation, $1,000 to $2,500 fine and/or

probation; repeat violation, $5,000 fine and

suspension or revocation.

. . . .

(i) Section 489.129(1)(i), F.S.: Failing

in any material respect to comply with the

provisions of Part I of Chapter 489, F.S.

. . . .

8. Section 489.119, F.S.: Failure to

register qualified business organization.

First violation, $250 to $500 fine; repeat

violation, $500 to $1,000 fine and/or

probation, suspension or revocation.

No penalty guideline is provided for a violation of Section

489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, due to a vi olation of Section

489.127(4), Florida Statutes.

49. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 17.001 goes on

to provide the following guidelines relevant to this case:

(3) For purposes of these guidelines,

violations for which the Respondent has

previousl y been issued a citation pursuant

to Section 455.224, F.S., and Rule 61G4 -

19.001, F.A.C., shall be considered repeat

violations.

(4) For any violation occurring after

October 1, 1989, the board may assess the

costs of investigation and prosecution. The

assessment of such costs may be made in

addition to the penalties provided by these

guidelines without demonstration of

aggravating factors set forth in Rule 61G4 -

17.002, F.A.C.

(5) For any violation occurring after

October 1, 1988, the board shall or der the

contractor to make restitution in the amount

of financial loss suffered by the consumer.

Such restitution shall be ordered in

addition to the penalties provided by these

guidelines upon demonstration of aggravating

factors set forth in subsection 6 1G4 -

17.002(1), F.A.C., and to the extent that

such order does not contravene federal

bankruptcy law.

50. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 17.002 provides

for the consideration of aggravating and mitigating

circumstances in determining what penalty t o impose on a

licensee. There is one aggravating circumstance in this case:

the monetary damage incurred by Ms. Sicre.

51. The Department has proved the violations alleged in

Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint;

violations of Section 4 89.129(1)(d) and (i), Florida Statu t es

(2000). The Department has suggested the following penalties

for these violations:

a. Count I (Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes

(2000), by reason of having violated Section 489.127(4), Florida

Statutes (2000) ): an administrative fine of $2,500.00;

b. Count II (Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes

(2000)): an administrative fine of $2,500.00; and

c. Count III (Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes

(2000), by reason of having violated Section 489.119(4 ), Florida

Statutes (2000)): an administrative fine of $750.00.

52. The Department has also suggested that Mr. Wagie be

required to pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in restitution, pay the

costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter, and

that his li cense be suspended for a period of two years.

53. The violations of Count s I and II are essentially the

same violation. Therefore, since there is no guideline for a

violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), due

to a violation of Sectio n 489.127(4), Florida Statutes (2000),

provided in the Board's rules, the Department has suggested that

the same maximum penalty provided for a violation of Section

489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), should be imposed for

the Count I violation. This suggestion results in an excessive

violation. Since there was essentially one violation proved to

support Counts I and II (Mr. Wagie's assistance to the Spiegel

Brothers on the Sicre Contract), a maximum administrative

penalty of $2,500.00 is recommended for those Counts.

54. As to Count III, the penalty requested by the

Department is reasonable.

55. Finally, the Department's suggestion s that Mr. Wagie

be required to pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in restitution, pay the

costs of the investigation and prosecuti on of this matter, and

that his license be suspended for a period of two years are all

reasonable and within the guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by t he

Department:

1. Finding that Wayne H. Wagie violated Section

489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Counts I

and III of the Administrative Complaint; and violated Section

489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Count II

of t he Administrative Complaint;

2. Dismissing Counts IV and V of the Administrative

Complaint; and

3. Imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of

$3,250.00; requiring that Mr. Wagie pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in

restitution; requiring that Mr. Wagie pay $597.69 as the costs

of the investigation and prosecution of this matter; and that

his license be suspended for a period of two years.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LARRY J. SARTIN

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 31st day of August, 2005.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Theodore R. Gay

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace,

Suite 100

Miami, Florida 3316 6

Wayne H. Wagie

220 Northeast 45th Street

Miami, Florida 33137

Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0792

Leon B iegalski, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.