16-003251PL Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board vs. Charles Robert Boyd Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 2, 2016.

Summary: Parties agreed to violations and penalty, which was appropriate. DOAH had jurisdiction because the parties agreed to s. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING

BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case N o. 16 - 3251PL

CHARLES ROBERT BOYD,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

T his case was presented for a determination by J. Lawrence

Johnston, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , on a stipulated evidentiary

record in lieu of a hearing .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Clayton Thomas Osteen, Esquire

Ian Brown, Esquire

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

26 01 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 323 09

For Respondent: D. Ty Jackson, Esquire

GrayRobinson, P.A.

301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600

Post Office Box 11189

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is the appropriate penalty to impose

on the Respondent for: proceeding on a job without obtaining the

applicable local building department permits and inspect ions, in

violation of section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes 1/ ; failing to

notify a customer of the Florida HomeownersÓ Construction

Recovery Fund, in violation of section 489.1425; and failing to

place his license number on a construction contract, in vi olation

of section 489.119(5)(b).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In July 2014, the Petitioner filed a four - count

Administrative Complaint against the Respondent (DBPR case 2013 Ï

38631) . Twice, the parties agreed to settle , but both

settlement s were rejected by the Construction Industry Licensing

Board.

On January 13, 2016 , the Petitioner referred the matter to

D OAH . A final hearing was scheduled but was canceled when the

Petitioner dismissed Count I for lack of evidence, and the

parties entered into a stipulation t o facts and law on the

remainder of the Administrative Complaint and agreed to present

the case for a recommended disposition on a stipulated

evidentiary record consisting of Joint Exhibits 1 through 4. The

parties filed a Joint Proposed Recommended Order , which has been

considered.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The P e t i t i on e r is the s t a te a g e n c y c h a r g e d with t he

l i c e ns i ng a nd r e g ul a tion of t he c ons t r u c t ion indus t r y

pu r su a nt to s ec tion 20.165 a nd ch a pt er s 455 a nd 48 9 , F l o r i da

S t a t ut e s . 2/

2. At a ll tim e s m a t er i a l t o th e se p r o c ee di n g s, the

R e sp o nd e nt w a s l i ce nsed a s a c er ti f i e d g e n e r a l c ont rac tor in

the S t a te of F lo r id a , h a ving b ee n is s u e d li ce nse C GC 12754.

3. At a ll tim e s m a t er i a l h er e to, the R e spond e nt wa s the

p r i m a r y qu a l i f y i n g a g e nt o f C h ar l e s B o y d C ons t r u c t i on , I n c .

(Ð C h a r l e s B o y d C onst r u c tion Ñ) .

4. The R e spond e nt Ó s l i ce ns e is c u rre nt and a c tiv e .

5. The R e spond e nt h a s b ee n su b j ec t t o p r i or dis c ip l in e .

On S e pt e mb e r 21, 1988, t he C ons t r u c tion I ndus t r y L i ce nsing

B o ar d (CILB) i s s u e d a F in a l O r d e r a g a inst the R e s pond e nt i n

case 78033 that i mpos e d a n a dminis t ra tive f i ne in t he a mount

of $2,500 f or viol a ting s e c t i on s 489.129 ( 1 ) (j) and ( m ) ,

4 89.105 ( 4 ) , a nd 489.119, F lo r ida S t a tut e s , in 1983 and 1984 .

6. On or a bout D e ce mb e r 3, 2012, J o a nie M i ll e r D r obnie

e nt ere d i nto a c ont r a c t wi t h R e spond e nt, d/b/a C h ar l e s B o y d

C ons t ru c tion, f or r e nov a t i ons to h e r r e sid e n c e l o ca t e d a t

452 B a n a n a R iv e r B ou l e v a r d, C o c oa B eac h, F lo r id a .

7. The o r i g in a l c ont r a c t p r i c e w a s $173,000. C h ar l e s B o y d

C ons t r u c tion ac c e p t e d $175,000. T he a ddi t ion a l f unds re p r e s e nt e d

a mounts f or e x t r a s on the job.

8. On or a bout J a nu a r y 2, 2 013, the R e spond e nt , d/b/a

C h ar l e s B o y d C ons t ru c tion , obt a in e d B ui l d i ng P e r m it 13 - 0366 fr om

the C it y of C o c o a B eac h B ui l d i ng D e p ar t m e nt f o r the ins t a ll a tion

of n e w w i ndows.

9. C h ar l e s B o y d C ons t r u c t i on pro cee d e d on in t er ior

re nov a tions a nd p e rf o r m e d a ddition a l c ons t r u c t ion c ont rac t ing

s er vi c e s re qui r ing p r op e r li ce nsu r e wit h out obt a ining a ppli ca b l e

lo ca l buildi n g d e p ar t m e nt p e r mits a nd insp ec t ions.

10 . The c ont r a c t a t issue fa il ed to c ont a in a s t a t e m e nt

n oti f y i n g Ms. Drobnie of her ri g hts un d e r the F l o r ida H o m e ow n erÓ s

C ons t r u c tion R ec ov e r y F und.

11. The R e spond e nt Ó s l i ce nse n u mb e r do e s not a pp e a r on the

c ont rac t .

12. The P e tition er a nd R e spond e nt a g re e , b a s e d on th e f ac ts

a nd c i rc ums t a n c e s i n this ca s e , t h a t dis c ip l ine should not exceed

an a dminis t ra tive f in e of $7,000, payment of the PetitionerÓs c osts

of $487.93 , a nd c ompl e t ion of a liv e , a pp r ov e d s e v e n - hour

c o ntinuing e du c a t i on course .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13. Th e Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of this case under section 120.569(1), Florida

Statutes , even though there is no disputed issue of material

fact , because the parties have agreed not to apply section

120.57(2) . 3/

14. As a s t a te a g e n c y seeking to discipline licensee it

regulates, t he P e tit i on e r h a s t he bu r d e n of p r ov i ng t h e

a ll e g a ti ons a g a inst the R e sp o nd e nt b y c l e a r a nd c onvin c ing

e vi d e n c e . § 120.57(1 ) ( j), F la . S t a t . (2016) ; D e p Ó t of

B a nki n g & F i n . v. Osborne S t er n & C o., 670 S o. 2d 9 3 2 (F l a .

1996 ) ; F e rr is v. T u r l in g ton, 510 S o. 2d 292 ( F l a . 1987).

1 5 . As s t a t e d b y t h e F lo r ida S up re m e C ou r t:

C l ea r a nd c onvi n c i ng e v i d e n c e r e qu i re s th a t

the e v id e n c e must be f ound to be cre d i bl e ;

the fac ts to whi c h t h e witn e s s e s t e s tif y must

be dis t in c t l y re m e mb e re d; t he t e s t imo n y must

be p rec i s e a nd l ac ki n g in c o n f us i on a s to the

fac ts in i ssu e . The e v id e n c e must be of such

a w e i g ht th a t it p r odu ce s in the mind of the

t r i e r of fac t a fi r m b e l i e f or c onv i c t i on,

w i thout h e s i t a n c y , a s to the t r uth of the

a ll e g a ti ons sou g ht to be e s t a blish e d.

I n r e H e ns o n, 913 S o. 2d 579, 590 (F l a . 2005) ( q u o t ing S lo m o w i tz

v. W a lk er , 429 S o. 2d 797, 800 ( F l a . 4th D C A 1983 ) ) . Mo re ov e r , a

li ce n s e e c a n on l y b e disciplin e d f or viol a tions ac t u a l l y c h a r g e d.

T r e vi s a ni v. D e p Ó t o f H e a lth, 908 S o. 2d 1108 ( F l a . 1st D C A

2005); Gh a ni v. D e p Ó t of H ea l t h, 714 S o. 2d 1113 ( F l a . 1st D C A

1998); W illn e r v. D e p Ó t of P r o f Ól R e g . , 563 S o. 2 d 805 (F l a . 1st

D C A 19 9 0 ) .

1 6 . In December 2012, s ec ti on 489.129 ( 1 )( o ) made it a

violation to pr o c e e d on a job wi t hout obt a ining a ppli c a ble lo ca l

bu i lding d e p ar t m e n t p er mits a nd insp ec t ions ; s ection 489.129(1)(i)

made it a violation to fail to comply with the pro visions of

chapter 489, part I ; s ec ti on 489. 1 425 (1) made it a violation to

f a i l to notify a cus tomer of the Florida Homeowners Construction

Recovery Fund ; and s ec tion 489.119 (5) ( b ) required licensees to

place their license numbers on construction contracts.

17 . It is clear from the evidence and stipulation s of the

parties th a t the R e spon d e nt vio l a t e d s ec ti on 489.129 ( 1 )( o ) and,

by not complying with sections 4 8 9.1425 a nd 489.119 (5) ( b ) ,

violated section 489.129(1)(i) .

18 . The R e spond e nt is sub j ec t to discip l in a r y ac t i on b y the

CILB p u r su a nt t o s ec ti o n 489.129. D i s c i plin a r y ac t ion und e r this

s t a t ute in c ludes, but is not lim i t e d t o: pl ac ing the l i c e nse e on

p r ob a tion; r e p r i m a nding t he l ic e ns ee ; re v okin g or susp e ndi n g , or

d e n y i n g the is s u a n c e or r e n e w a l of , t h e c e r t i f i ca te or

r e g is t ra t ion of a licensee; re qu i ring f in a n c i a l r e s t itution to the

c onsu m er ; i m posing a n a dmin i s t ra t i ve f in e ; r e qui r ing c ontinui n g

e du c a tion ; a nd a ss e s si ng c os t s a s s o c i a t e d with i n v e s t i g a t i on a nd

p r ose c ut i o n of charges .

19 . S ec tion 455.2273 ( 5 ) s t a t e s th a t Ð [ t ] he a dmin i s t ra t i ve

l a w jud g e , in r ec omm e ndi n g p e n a l ti e s in a n y r e c om m e nd e d o r d e r,

must f ollow the p e n a l t y g uid e lin e s e s t a blish e d b y t h e bo ar d or

d e p ar tm e nt a nd must s t a t e in w r it i ng the mitig a t ing or a gg ra v a t i ng

c i rc umst a n c e s upon w h ic h the rec omm e n d e d p e n al t y is b a s e d.Ñ

2 0 . F lor i da Ad m in i s t ra t i v e C o d e R ule 61G4 - 17.001 (1) 4 / set s

out the g ui d e line s for penalties to be used, a bsent a g g ra v a ting or

m iti g a ti n g c i r c u m s t a n ce s , a nd sub j e c t to oth e r p r ov i sions of

c h a p t er 489 : for a violation of s ec tion 489.129 ( 1 )( o ) , a min i mum

fine of $2,500 to a m a x imum f ine of $10,000 a nd sus p e ns i o n or

re v o ca tion ; for a violation of s ec tion 489.1425, a $1 , 000 f ine ;

for a violation of s ec tion 489.119 ( 5 )( b ) , f o rme r l y se c t i on

489.119 ( 6 )( b ) , a minimum f ine of $500 t o a m a x imum fine of $2,500

a nd p r o b a t ion.

2 1 . R ule 61G4 - 17.002 p r ovid e s :

C i rc ums t a n ce s w h i c h m a y b e c ons i d ere d f or the

p u r poses of miti g a t ion or a gg ra v a tion o f

p e n a l t y s h a l l in c lud e , but ar e not lim i t e d t o,

the f ollowin g :

( 1) Mon e t a r y or oth e r d a m a g e to the

li c e ns e e Ó s c us t o m er , in a n y w a y a s s o c i a t e d

with the viol a tion, whi c h d a m a ge the l i ce ns e e

h a s not r e li e v e d, a s of the t ime t h e p e n a l t y

i s to be a s s e s s e d.

( 2) A c tu a l j ob - s i te v i ol a t i o ns of build i n g

c o d e s, or c onditions e x hibiti n g g r oss

n e g l i g e n ce , in c o m p e t e n c e , or miscondu c t b y

the li ce ns ee , whi c h h a v e not b ee n c o r r ec t e d

a s of the t ime the p e n a l t y is b e ing a s s e s s e d.

( 3) The d a n g e r t o the pub l i c .

( 4) The numb e r of c o m pl a i nts f i l e d a g a inst

the li ce ns e e .

( 5) The l e n g t h of t ime the l i c e nsee h a s

p rac ti c e d.

( 6) The ac tu a l d a ma g e , p h y s i ca l or oth e r wis e ,

to t he l i ce ns e e Ós c us t om er .

( 7 ) The d e t e r re nt e ff e c t of the p e n a l t y

impos e d.

( 8) The ef f ec t of t h e p e n a l t y upon t he

li ce ns e e Ó s l i v e l i hood.

( 9) A n y eff o r ts a t re h a b i lit a tion.

( 10) A n y oth e r m iti g a ti n g or a g g r a v a t i n g

c i r c ums t a n ce s .

There was no evidence of mitigating or aggravati ng circumstances

that would justify a departure from the penalty guidelines in

rule 61G4 - 17.001(1) .

2 2 . R ule 61G4 - 17.00 3(1) states that a re p ea t viol a tion i s

a n y viol a t i on on whi c h discip l in a r y ac t i on is b e i n g t a k e n wh e r e

the same li c e n s e e Ð p r e v i ou s l y h a d discip l in a r y ac t i on t a k e n

a g a inst him . . . r e g ar dl e s s of wh e th e r t h e viol a t i ons in t he

p re s e nt a nd p r ior d i sciplin a r y ac tions ar e of t h e s a me or

di f fe r e nt sub s ec tions of the disciplin a r y s t a t ut e s. Ñ I f Ð the

r e p e a t viol a tion is the v e r y s a m e t y pe o f viol a tion a s the f i r st

viol a tion, the p e n a l t y . . . will g e n era l l y be in cr e a sed ov e r wh a t

i s oth er wise shown for r e p ea t viol a tions . . . . Ñ Fla. Admin.

Code R. 61 G 4 - 17.003(2). The Respondent was disciplined in 1988

for violations occurring in 1983 and 1984 that were not the same

as the violations proven in this case and do not justify an

increased penalty in this case .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Licensing Board

e nter a final order : f inding t h a t the R e spond e nt viol a ted se c t i on

489.129 ( 1 )( o ) and, by failing to comply with sections 489.142 5 a nd

489.119 ( 5 )( b ) , violated 489.129 ( 1 )( o ) ; im pos ing a n a dminis t r a tive

f i ne of $7,000; a ss e ss ing c os t s i n the a mount of $487.93 ; a nd

re qui r ing the R e spond e nt t o c ompl e te a n a p p r ov e d, live sev e n - hour

c ont i nuing e d u ca tion c ou r s e in a ddition to a n y oth e r w i s e - re qui re d

c ont i nuing e d u ca tion, with a n e m ph a s i s on c h a pt e r 489 a nd the

r ul e s implementing it.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of A ugust , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

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 2nd day of August , 2016 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ T he substantive law applicable to the alleged violations in

this case are the 2012 Florida Statutes.

2 / These statutes, which describe the responsibilities of the

Petitioner, are found in the 2016 Florida Statutes.

3 / The se statutes , which state DOAHÓs jurisdiction in this case ,

are in the 2016 Florida Statutes.

4 / The applicable pen alty guidelines are those in version of the

Florida Administrative Code that was in effect at the time of the

alleged violations .

COPIES FURNISHED:

D. Ty Jackson, Esquire

GrayRobinson, P.A.

301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600

Post Office Box 11189

T allahassee, Florida 32302

(eServed)

Clayton Thomas Osteen, Esquire

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 323 09

(eServed)

Ian Brown, Esquire

Department of Business

and P rofessional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 323 09

(eServed)

Jason Maine, General Counsel

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(eServed)

Daniel Biggins, Executive Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board

Department of Business

a nd Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All part ies 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.