14-004747 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Architecture And Interior Design vs. Charles Jackson And Charles Jackson Architectural Designs Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, April 8, 2015.

Summary: Individual respondent should be fined for practicing architecture without a license and order to cease and desist doing business as Charles Jackson Architectural Designs should be upheld.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD

OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR

DESIGN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 4747

CHARLES JACKSON AND CHARLES

JACKSON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS,

Respondent.

____ ___________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

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

on February 25, 2015, by video teleconference between Miami and

Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Cla ude B.

Arrington of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David Minacci, Esquire

Smith, Thompson, Shaw,

Minacci and Colon, P.A.

3520 Thomasville Road, Fourth F loor

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

For Respondent: Charles Jackson, pro se

Charles Jackson Architectural Design

101 East Blue Heron Boulevard, Suite 204

Riviera Beach, Florida 33404

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Charles Jackson and/or Charles Jackson Architectural

Designs (Respondents) committed the offenses alleged in the

subject Administrative Complaint , and if so, the penalties that

should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Ch arles Jackson has never been licensed as an architect in

Florida or any other jurisdiction. The Department of Business

and Professional Regulation, Board of A rchitecture and Interior

Design (Petitioner) , filed an Administrative C omplaint against

Responden ts on July 28, 2014, that alleges Respondents offered

and provided architectural services without being duly licensed

to engage in the practice of architecture. Petitioner also

issued a Ð Notice and Order to Cease and DesistÑ against

Respondents dated July 31, 2014.

Respondents timely requested a formal administrative hearing

to challenge the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. On

October 14, 2014, the matter was referred to DOAH, and this

proceeding followed. The matter was set for hearing on

D ecember 17, 2014. On PetitionerÓs written motion, the matter

was rescheduled for hearing on January 22, 2015. On PetitionerÓs

ore tenus motion, the matter was re - scheduled for hearing on

February 25, 2015. The matter was transferred to the undersigned

o n February 18, 2015.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

Charles Jackson, Trent Manausa (an architect), and M.H. Allen (an

investigator for the Petitioner). Petitioner offered pre -

numbered Exhibits 1 through 6 and 8 through 10, each of which was

admitted into evidence. Pre - numbered exhibit 7 was not moved

into evidence.

Respondent s presented no additi onal testimony, but offered

16 E xhibits, lettered A through P, each of which was admitted

into evidence.

A Transcript of the pro ceedings was filed on March 18, 2015.

Petitioner and Respondent s filed proposed recommended orders,

which have been duly - considered by the undersigned in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted , a ll statutory references are to

Florida Statutes (201 2 ) , and all references to rules are to the

version thereof in effect as of the entry of this Recommended

Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional

Regulation , Board of Architecture and Interior Design, is the

agency of the S tate of Florida charged with the duty and

responsibility to regulate the practice of architecture pursuant

to chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes.

2. Respondent, Charles Jackson (Mr. Jackson), has never

been licens ed or certified as an architect in Florida or any

other jurisdiction. Respondent, Charles Jackson Architectural

Designs, has never been licensed as an architectural business in

Florida or any other jurisdiction.

3. At times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Jackson did

business in Palm Beach County, Florida, as Charles Jackson

Architectural Designs. 1/ Mr. Jackson also did business as

ÐCharles Jackson Design ConstructionÑ and ÐCharles Jackson

Design.Ñ

4. At some time prior to October 8, 2012, Mr. Jack son

entered into a contract with the owners of a residence located in

Riviera Beach, Florida, to prepare drawings for an addition to

the residence. The addition was a simple storage area.

5. Mr. Jackson prepared the drawings, which he dated

October 8, 20 12. Mr. Jackson gave the drawings to the owners of

the residence so they could obtain a building permit.

6. The City of Riviera Beach requires a duly - licensed

architect to sign and seal drawings for any addition to a

residence before issuing a building p ermit for the addition. 2/

The building department for the City of Riviera Beach rejected

Mr. JacksonÓs drawings because they were not signed and sealed by

a licensed Florida architect.

7. The owners brought the drawings back to Mr. Jackson, and

told him that the drawings had been rejected because they were

not signed and sealed by an architect. Mr. Jackson did not

advise the owners that they should hire an architect to sign and

seal the drawings. Instead, Mr. Jackson took it upon himself to

get the drawings signed and sealed by a Florida licensed

architect named Michael Hall.

8. Michael Hall died on October 15, 2012.

9. When Mr. Jackson returned the drawings to the owners, a

seal and signature purporting to be the seal and signature of

Michael Hall had been affixed to the drawings. The seal and

signature were dated November 5, 2012. 3/

10. The owners thereafter took the drawings to the building

department for the City of Riviera Beach to obtain a permit for

the addition. The drawings were rejec ted because the building

officials knew that Michael Hall died prior to November 5, 2012,

the date he purportedly signed and sealed the drawings.

11. When the owners confronted Mr. Jackson with the news

that the permit had been rejected, Mr. Jackson refun ded to the

owners the sum of $350.00, the amount they had paid him for the

drawings.

12. On July 31, 2014, Petitioner entered against

Respondents a ÐNotice and Order to Cease and DesistÑ which

included an order that Mr. Jackson cease and desist doing

bu siness as ÐCharles Jackson Architectural Designs.Ñ

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and

the parties to this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2014) .

14. Petitioner has th e burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondent s committed the violations as

alleged and the appropriateness of any fine and penalty

resulting from the alleged violations. See Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Evans Pa cking Co. v.

Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. , 550 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA

1989); and Inquiry Concerning a Judge , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla.

1994).

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

DCA 1983), the court held that:

Clear and convinc ing evidence requires more

proof than a Ðpreponderance of the evidenceÑ

but less than Ðbeyond and to the exclusion of

a reasonable doubt.Ñ In re Graziano , 696 So.

2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). It is an

intermediate standard. Id. For proof to be

considered Ð clear and convincingÑ . . . 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

iss ue. The evidence must be of such weight

that it produces in the mind of the trier of

fact a firm belief or conviction, without

hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established.

16. Section 481.223(1)(a) , Florida Statutes , provide s that

a person may not knowingly practice architecture unless the

person is an architect or a registered architect.

17. Section 481.203(6) defines the term ÐarchitectureÑ as

follows:

(6) ÐArchitectureÑ means the rendering or

offering to render services in connection

with the design and construction of a

structure or group of structures which have

as their principal purpose human habitation

or use, and the utilization of space within

and surrounding such structures. These

services include planning, provi ding

preliminary study designs, drawings and

specifications, job - site inspection, and

administration of construction contracts.

18. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that

Respondents rendered or offered to render architectural services

in violation of section 481.223(1)(a) by preparing drawings that

were required to be signed and sealed by an architect and by

doing business as ÐCharles Jackson Architectural Designs.Ñ

19. Section 455.228(1) , Florida Statutes, authorizes

Petitioner to i mpose against Respondents an administrative fine

not to exceed $5,000.00 for a violation of section 481.223(1)(a).

Petitioner seeks the amount of $5,000.00 in its Proposed

Recommended Order. However, Petitioner does not discuss the

penalty guidelines in Florida Administrative Code r ule 61 - 5.007.

In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances,

$3,000.00 is the penalty guideline set forth in R ule 61 -

5.007(6)(a) for a first violation of practicing a profession

without holding the requisite licens e.

20. Section 455.228(3)(c) authorizes Petitioner to Ðrecover

the costs of investigation, in addition to any penaltyÑ for a

violation of section 481.223(1)(a). Petitioner presented no

evidence at the formal hearing as to its costs of investigation.

On March 17, 2015, PetitionerÓs counsel executed and filed an

affidavit that compiled PetitionerÓs cost as of that date in the

amount of $2,663.82. That affidavit is a statement made outside

the formal hearing to prove the truth of the matter asserted,

name ly, the amount of costs incurred by Petitioner in the

prosecution of this proceeding. The affidavit is hearsay that

cannot be the sole basis of a finding of fact as to PetitionerÓs

costs. See §§ 90.801(1) and 120.57(1)(c) , Fla. Stat.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior

Design, enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and

Conclusio ns of Law set forth herein.

It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order find

Respondent, Charles Jackson , guilty of violating

section 481.223(1)(a) , Florida Statutes, as alleged in the

Administrative Complaint and impose an administrative fine in the

amount of $ 3,000 .00 for that violation.

It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order require

Respondent, Charles Jackson , to cease and desist doing business

as Charles Jackson Architectural Design.

It is FURTH ER RECOMMENDED that the final order r equire

Charles Jackson to pay the costs of its investigation. 4/

DONE AND ENTERED this 8 th day of April , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 8 th day of April , 2015 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / Mr. Jackson stated in separate writings to PetitionerÓs

counsel on three occasions that his company name was Charles

Jackson Architectural Designs. Mr. Jackson paid intangible taxes

in Palm Beach County under the name of ÐJackson Charles

Architectural DesignÑ [sic].

2/ Mr. Jackson knew or should have known that the City of Riviera

Beach required drawings of residential additions to be signed and

sealed by an architect.

3/ While the circumstances of how the drawings came to be signed

and sealed b y someone purporting to be Michael Hall are

suspicious, the Administrative Complaint does not charge

Mr. Jackson, or anyone else employed by Mr. Jackson, with forging

Michael HallÓs signature and affixing his seal to the drawings.

Consequently, it is not necessary to determine how the signature

and seal of a deceased individual came to be on Mr. JacksonÓs

drawings, and it is not necessary to d etermine the credibility of

Mr. JacksonÓs testimony regarding those circumstances.

( Mr. Jackson testified that h e met Michael HallÓs associate at a

restaurant and left the drawings with the associate. Mr. Jackson

expected the associate to take the drawings to Michael Hall for

Mr. Hall to sign and seal the drawings. Mr. Jackson further

testified that when he met th e associate one or two days later to

pick up the drawings form the associate, the drawings contained

Mr. HallÓs purported signature and seal. Mr. Jackson testified

that he paid the associate $50.00 for that service.)

4/ Should Respondents dispute the amount of PetitionerÓs

investigative costs, the matter should be remanded to DOAH for an

evidentiary hearing.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles Jackson

Charles Jackson Architectural Designs

101 East Blue Heron Boulevard , Suite 204

Riviera Beach, Florida 3340 4

David Kenneth Minacci, Esquire

Smith, Thompson, Shaw,

Minacci and Colon, P.A.

3520 Thomasville Road , Fourth Floor

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(eServed)

William N. Spicola, General Counsel

D epartment of B usiness and P rofessional R egulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

J. Yvette Pressley, Hearing Officer

Office of the General Counsel

D epartment of B usiness and P rofessional R egulation

1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

(eServed)

Thomas Campbell, Executive Director

D epartment of B usiness and P rofessional R egulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days f rom 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.