08-004771PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Daniel F. Acevedo Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 11, 2009.

Summary: Respondent is guilty of failing to renew corporate certificate of authority, assisting unlicensed contract work, and pulling of permit by unlicensed individual.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING )

BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-4771PL

)

DANIEL F. ACEVEDO, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

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

Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 5 and

December 17, 2008, by video teleconference at sites in Miami and

Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Brian Coats

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Kenneth Stein, Esquire

8436 West Oakland Park Boulevard

Sunrise, Florida 33351

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Daniel F.

Acevedo, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count

Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department

of Business and Professional Regulation, on July 11, 2008, and,

if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 11, 2008, a four-count Administrative Complaint was

filed with Petitioner in DBPR Case No. 2006-003454, alleging

that Respondent had violated certain statutory provisions

governing the conduct of individuals in Florida licensed by the

Construction Industry Licensing Board. In particular, it is

alleged in the Administrative Complaint that Respondent violated

Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by failing to renew his

certificate of authority as required by Section 489.119(2)(d),

Florida Statutes (Count I); Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida

Statutes, by having violated Section 489.127(4)(c), Florida

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

“by performing any act which assists a person or entity in

engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice

Statutes, “by committing incompetency or misconduct in the

practice of contracting” (Count IV).

Respondent, by executing an Election of Rights form,

disputed the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint

and requested “a hearing before an administrative law judge

before the Division of Administrative Hearings” pursuant to

Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2008).

Copies of the Administrative Complaint and Election of

Rights form were filed with the Division of Administrative

Hearings on September 24, 2008. The matter was designated DOAH

Case No. 08-4771PL and was assigned to the undersigned.

The final hearing was scheduled for November 5, 2008, by

Notice of Hearing entered October 3, 2008. An Amended Notice of

Hearing by Video Teleconference was entered on October 28, 2008,

notifying the parties that the hearing would be held by video

teleconference between Tallahassee and Miami, Florida.

On October 8, 2008, counsel for Respondent, Kenneth Stein,

Esquire, filed a Motion to Withdraw. That Motion, which was not

opposed by Petitioner as long as the final hearing proceeded as

scheduled, was granted by an Order entered October 22, 2008.

On November 4, 2008, Mr. Stein filed a “Re-Notice of

Appearance” and an Emergency Motion for Continuance. A hearing

was conducted by telephone on the Motion. After hearing

argument of the parties, the Motion was denied. It was ordered,

however, that Petitioner would present its case as scheduled and

that the record would be held open to give Respondent an

opportunity to prepare and present his case at a later, agreed

upon date. It was also ordered that Petitioner would be given

an opportunity to respond to Respondent’s case.

At the portion of the final hearing held on November 5,

2008, Petitioner presented the testimony of Raul Rodriguez and

Grace Esposito. Petitioner also had 17 exhibits admitted.

By Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference November 21,

2008, the hearing was scheduled to recommence on December 17,

2008. At that portion of the final hearing, Respondent

testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Kevin

Vincent Breault. Respondent offered no exhibits. Petitioner

recalled Ms. Esposito.

On February 6, 2009, a Notice of Filing Transcript was

issued informing the parties that the final volume of the two-

volume Transcript of the final hearing had been filed. The

parties were also informed that their proposed recommended

orders were to be filed on or before February 25, 2009.

Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order on

February 25, 2009. Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended

Order on February 26, 2009, at 8:00 a.m. Both proposed

recommended orders have been fully considered in preparing this

Recommended Order.

All references to the Florida Statutes in this Recommended

Order are to the codification applicable to the years in which

the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place,

2005 and 2007, unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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 complaints against individuals

who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat.

2. Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, is and has been at all

times material hereto a certified general contractor in Florida,

having been issued license number CGC 1506071. Mr. Acevedo is

also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license

number CCC 1326888. Both licenses were issued by the

Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to

as the “Board) and are in “current active” status.

3. At all times material, Mr. Acevedo was the primary

qualifying agent for All Design Systems, Inc. (hereinafter

referred to as “All Design”). All Design is a Florida

corporation. Mr. Acevedo is an officer of the corporation.

4. All Design’s certificate of authority, License Number

QB 26737, was issued on September 4, 2003. The license expired

on August 31, 2007, and was in delinquent status from

September 1, 2007, to May 14, 2008. Mr. Acevedo remained the

qualifying agent during the delinquent period.

5. All Design employed three to four sales agents who

“sold” construction projects to commercial and residential

property owners on behalf of All Design. All Design utilized

these individuals because it believed they had experience in the

construction industry and that they held licenses or

certifications which would allow them to perform estimates on

construction projects and make appropriate bids. The sales

agents were to find customers for All Design and enter into

contracts with them on behalf and in the name of All Design.

6. In August of 2005, Mr. Acevedo was approached by

Eduardo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez offered to locate potential

home remodeling customers for All Design in exchange for a

percentage commission. Mr. Acevedo agreed.

7. At no time relevant to this matter was Mr. Rodriguez

licensed in Florida to engage in contracting as a state

certified or registered contractor. Nor was Mr. Rodriguez’s

business entity, Eduardo’s Construction, Inc. (hereinafter

referred to as “Eduardo’s Construction”), licensed with a

certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business.

Mr. Rodriguez was the president and sole officer of Eduardo’s

Construction.

8. Eduardo’s Construction was not incorporated in Florida.

9. Some time during 2005, Grace Esposito obtained a

business card for Eduardo’s Construction. She obtained the card

after discussing with a neighbor construction work that was

being performed by Eduardo’s Construction on the neighbor’s

residence. The neighbor informed her that Mr. Rodriguez was the

contractor performing the work. The business card incorrectly

represented that Mr. Rodriguez was licensed and insured.

10. Ms. Esposito called the number listed for Eduardo’s

Construction and spoke with a man who identified himself as

Eduardo Rodriguez.

11. In August 2005, Mr. Rodriguez met with Ms. Esposito at

her condominium residence, located at 20301 West Country Club

Drive, Aventura, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the

“Subject Property”). Ms. Esposito discussed with Mr. Rodriguez

the work which she desired. Based upon representations from

Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito believed that he was licensed to

perform the work being discussed.

12. The evidence failed to prove, as suggested by

Mr. Acevedo, that Mr. Rodriguez “bid on the Esposito job, [and]

orally agreed to essential terms with Esposito on behalf of All

Design Systems, Inc., Respondent’s Firm.” Mr. Acevedo’s

testimony in this regard was uncorroborated hearsay and was

contradicted by the credible testimony of Ms. Esposito.

13. On September 5, 2005, Ms. Esposito entered into a

written contract with Mr. Rodriguez, doing business as Eduardo’s

Construction, for the remodeling of the Subject Property

(hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Ms. Esposito

agreed in the Contract to pay $24,000.00 for the remodeling.

14. Upon execution of the Contract, Ms. Esposito paid

Eduardo’s Construction with three checks totaling $12,000.00 for

the remodeling.

15. Mr. Rodriguez informed Mr. Acevedo of the project in

September 2005. At that time, without reviewing the Contract,

Mr. Acevedo executed a building permit application which

Mr. Rodriguez provided him for the project. The permit

application had not been signed by Ms. Esposito.

16. In October 2005, Mr. Rodriguez presented the building

permit application to Ms. Esposito for her signature. The

permit application was then submitted to the building

department.

17. The building permit was subsequently approved and

issued under Mr. Acevedo’s license and in the name of All

Design.

18. Ms. Esposito had been told that part of the work would

be completed in October. When this representation proved

untrue, she began contacting Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez told

her that it was taking time to get the permit due to delays at

the building department. Eventually, when she was no longer

able to contact Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito went directly to the

building department where she learned that All Design was the

contactor of record and not Eduardo’s Construction.

20. On or about October 31, 2005, Ms. Esposito telephoned

All Design and spoke with Mr. Acevedo. She informed Mr. Acevedo

about the Contract. Mr. Acevedo agreed to meet with her.

21. On November 1, 2005, Mr. Acevedo visited Ms. Esposito

at the Subject Property. She showed him the work that had been

performed and explained the details of the Contract and what had

transpired with Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito

that his relationship with Mr. Rodriguez was that he merely

allowed Mr. Rodriguez to use his license to pull permits in

exchange for $150.00. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that he

would attempt to get Mr. Rodriguez to complete the job. This

meeting was memorialized in a letter to Mr. Acevedo written by

Ms. Esposito.

22. At some time in November, work recommenced on the

project. Within approximately three days, however, work

stopped.

23. Ms. Esposito sent four emails to Mr. Acevedo

describing the work performed and the cessation of the project.

Ms. Esposito made a final request that the project be completed.

Mr. Acevedo did not respond to the emails.

24. On or about November 17, 2005, Ms. Esposito sent a

letter to Mr. Acevedo outlining the events, requesting

termination of the Contract, and the removal of Mr. Acevedo from

the building permit. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to this

letter.

25. The building permit was cancelled by Mr. Acevedo in

December 2005.

26. The total investigation costs incurred by the

Department, excluding those costs associated with any attorney’s

time, was $381.83.

27. Mr. Acevedo has not previously been disciplined by the

Board.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction .

28. 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 (2008).

B. The Burden and Standard of Proof .

29. The Department seeks to impose penalties against Mr.

Acevedo through the Administrative Complaint that include

mandatory and discretionary suspension or revocation of his

licenses. Therefore, the Department has the burden of proving

the specific allegations of fact that support its charges 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 Pou v. Department of

Insurance and Treasurer , 707 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

30. What constitutes "clear and convincing" evidence was

described by the court in Evans Packing Co. v. Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112, 116, n. 5

(Fla. 1st DCA 1989), as follows:

. . . [C]lear and convincing evidence

requires that the evidence must be found to

be credible; the facts to which the

witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the evidence 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

the firm belief or conviction, without

hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800

(Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

See also In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1997); In re

Davey , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1994); and Walker v. Florida

Department of Business and Professional Regulation , 705 So. 2d

652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(Sharp, J., dissenting).

C. The Charges of the Administrative Complaint .

31. Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, provides that

disciplinary action may be taken against a certificateholder,

registrant, or licensee if it is found that the individual has

committed certain enumerated offenses.

32. In this matter, it has been alleged that Mr. Acevedo

committed offenses described in Section 489.129(1)(d), (i) and

(m), Florida Statutes, which provides:

(1) The board may take any of the

following actions against any

certificateholder or registrant: place on

probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke,

suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of

the certificate, registration, 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 agent responsible under

s. 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the

following acts:

. . . .

(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 entity was uncertified and unregistered.

. . . .

(i) Failing in any material respect to

comply with the provisions of this part or

violating a rule or lawful order of the

board.

. . . .

(m) Committing incompetency or misconduct

in the practice of contracting.

33. Because of their penal nature, the foregoing statutory

provisions must be strictly construed, with any reasonable

doubts as to their meaning being resolved in favor of the

certificateholder or registrant. See Jonas v. Florida

Department of Business and Professional Regulation , 746 So. 2d

1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)("[S]tatutes such as those at issue

authorizing the imposition of discipline upon licensed

contractors are in the nature of penal statutes, which should be

strictly construed."); and Capital National Financial

Corporation v. Department of Insurance , 690 So. 2d 1335, 1337

(Fla. 3d DCA 1997)("Section 627.8405 is a penal statute and

therefore must be strictly construed: . . . . 'When a statute

imposes a penalty, any doubt as to its meaning must be resolved

in favor of a strict construction so that those covered by the

statute have clear notice of what conduct the statute

proscribes.'").

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

34. In support of the allegation of Count I that Mr.

Acevedo violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, it is

alleged that Mr. Acevedo violated Section 489.119(2)(d), Florida

Statutes:

(d) A certificate of authority must be

renewed every 2 years. If there is a change

in any information that is required to be

stated on the application, the business

organization shall, within 45 days after

such change occurs, mail the correct

information to the department.

35. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that

Mr. Acevedo committed this violation when he failed to ensure

that the certificate of authority for All Design was renewed

between September 1, 2007 and May 14, 2007. The Department has,

therefore, proved that Mr. Acevedo is in violation of Section

489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by violation Section

489.119(2)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the

Administrative Complaint.

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

36. In support of the allegation of Count II that Mr.

Acevedo violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, it is

alleged that Mr. Acevedo violated Section 489.127(4)(c), Florida

Statutes:

(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

perform 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

compensation or to perform work on property

that is owned by the contractor.

37. Mr. Acevedo, by signing a building permit application

which was used by Mr. Rodriguez to fulfill a contract entered

into by Eduardo’s Construction and not All Design clearly

violated Section 489.127(4)(c), Florida Statutes. While

Mr. Acevedo may not have known that the Contract and work

thereunder was being performed by Mr. Rodriguez and Eduardo’s

Construction, he did not take the steps which he could have to

ensure that the permitted work was to be performed by All

Design.

38. The Department has proved clearly and convincingly

that Mr. Acevedo violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida

Statutes, by violation Section 489.127(4)(c), Florida Statutes,

as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.

F. Count III; Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes .

39. Based upon the credible testimony of Ms. Esposito that

Mr. Acevedo admitted to her that he was simply pulling permits

for Mr. Rodriguez in exchange for a fee, Mr. Acevedo knew that

he was assisting an unlicensed and uncertified person engage in

the practice of contracting.

40. Even if he actually had not been aware that

Mr. Rodriguez was unlicensed and uncertified or that he was

performing the work rather than allowing All Design to do so,

which the evidence did not prove, he could have taken steps to

ensure that he did not facilitate Mr. Rodriguez’s unlicensed

work. Merely signing a building permit application without

following up to determine if it was being used properly was not

reasonable. Had he followed up, Mr. Acevedo would have

reasonably known what Mr. Rodriguez was up to.

41. The Department has proved clearly and convincingly

that Mr. Acevedo violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida

Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative

Complaint.

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

42. Finally, Count IV alleges that Mr. Acevedo committed

“incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting” in

violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. In

support of this allegation, the Department relies upon Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001(1)(m)2., which defines

misconduct or incompetency in the practice of contracting to

include the violation of any provision of Chapter 489, Part I,

Florida Statutes. Thus, by having violated Section

489.129(1)(d) and (i), Florida Statutes, the Department argues

that Mr. Acevedo is also guilty of misconduct or incompetency in

his practice of contracting.

43. It having been found that Mr. Acevedo has committed

the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the

Administrative Complaint, Mr. Acevedo is technically also in

violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged

in Count IV.

H. The Appropriate Penalty .

44. The only issue remaining for consideration is the

appropriate disciplinary action which should be taken against

Mr. Acevedo for the violations that were proven by the

Department. To answer this question it is necessary to consult

the "disciplinary guidelines" of the Board. Those guidelines

are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G4-17,

and they effectively place restrictions and limitations on the

exercise of the Board’s disciplinary authority . See Parrot

Heads, Inc. v. Department of Business and Professional

Regulation , 741 So. 2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)("An

administrative agency is bound by its own rules . . . creat[ing]

guidelines for disciplinary penalties."); and § 455.2273(5),

Fla. Stat. ("The administrative law judge, in recommending

penalties in any recommended order, must follow the penalty

guidelines established by the board or department and must state

in writing the mitigating or aggravating circumstances upon

which the recommended penalty is based.”).

45. In Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001, the

Board has announced the "Normal Penalty Ranges" within which its

disciplinary action against contractors will fall, absent

aggravating or mitigating circumstances, for specified

violations.

46. Violations of Section 489.129(1)(d), (i), and (m),

Florida Statutes, the violations proved in this case, are

specifically addressed in Subsection (1) of Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.001.

47. No guideline is specifically provided for the Count I,

first time, violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida

Statutes, by reason of having violated Section 489.119(2)(d),

Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-

17.001(6), however, provides that the absence of a specific

guideline should be viewed as an oversight and not that it is

intended that no penalty be imposed. Instead, the penalty

specified for an offense most closely resembling the violation

for which a penalty has been omitted is to be utilized.

48. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department has

reasonably suggested that the penalty guideline for a violation

of Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, for failing to register a

qualified business organization, including obtaining a permit

late, should be referred to for the Count I violation. That

penalty range for a first offense of obtaining a late permit is

an administrative fine of $250.00 to $1,000.00. Fla. Admin.

Code R. 61G4-17.001(1)(i)8.

49. No guideline is specifically provided for the Count II

first time violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes,

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

Statutes. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department has

reasonably suggested that the penalty guideline for a violation

of Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, should be referred

to for the Count II violation. That penalty range for a first

offense of obtaining a late permit is an administrative fine of

$250.00 to $1,000.00. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G4-17.001(1)(o)1.

50. The normal penalty range for the Count III first time

violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is an

administrative fine of $1,000.00 to $2,500.00 and/or probation

or suspension. Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G4-17.001(1)(d).

51. Finally, the normal penalty range for the Count IV

first time violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes,

is an administrative fine of $1,000.00 to $2,500.00. Fla.

Admin. Code R. 61G4-17.001(1)(m)2. and 4.b.

52. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-17.002 lists

"Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances" to be considered in

determining whether a departure from the "Normal Penalty Range"

is warranted in a particular case. These aggravating and

mitigating circumstances include the following:

(1) Monetary or other damage to the

licensee's customer, in any way associated

with the violation, which damage the

licensee has not relieved, as of the time

the penalty is to be assessed. (This

provision shall not be given effect to the

extent it would contravene federal

bankruptcy law.)

(2) Actual job-site violations of

building codes, or conditions exhibiting

gross negligence, incompetence, or

misconduct by the licensee, which have not

been corrected as of the time the penalty is

being assessed.

(3) The danger to the public.

(4) The number of complaints filed

against the licensee.

(5) The length of time the licensee has

practiced.

(6) The actual damage, physical or

otherwise, to the licensee's customer.

(7) The deterrent effect of the penalty

imposed.

(8) The effect of the penalty upon the

licensee's livelihood.

(9) Any efforts at rehabilitation.

(10) Any other mitigating or aggravating

circumstances.

53. The Department has suggested that Mr. Acevedo’s

licenses be placed on probation for two years and that he be

required to pay fines totaling $3,250.00.

54. While the total fine requested by the Department is

reasonable, no amount of fine should be imposed for the

violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Imposing

any fine for this violation ignores the fact that the violation

is a technical one, predicated solely upon the other three

violations. To impose a fine for this violation, would,

therefore, punish Mr. Acevedo twice for the same acts.

55. Finally Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-

17.001(4) provides that, in addition to any other disciplinary

action it may impose, the Board will also "assess the costs of

investigation and prosecution, excluding costs related to

attorney time." That amount is $381.83 in this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding

that Daniel F. Acevedo violated the provisions of Section

489.129(1)(d), (i), and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in

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

imposing fines of $250.00 for Count I, $1,000.00 for Count II,

and $2,000.00 for Count III; requiring that Mr. Acevedo pay the

costs incurred by the Department in investigating and

prosecuting this matter; placing Mr. Acevedo’s licenses on

probation for a period of two years, conditioned upon his

payment of the fines, payment of the costs incurred by the

Department; and any other conditions determined to be necessary

by the Board.

DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2009, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

LARRY J. SARTIN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 11th day of March, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Brian P. Coats, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022

Daniel Acevedo

All Designs Systems, Inc.

2813 Executive Drive

Weston, Florida 32388

Kenneth Stein, Esquire

8436 West Oakland Park Boulevard

Sunrise, Florida 33351

G. W. Harrell, Executive Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Ned Luczynski, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

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.