In affirming the imposition of fines for unlicensed contracting, the Court held that a formal administrative hearing is necessary only where the material facts are in dispute.
Llaurado v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, arises from a complaint filed with the DBPR alleging unlicensed contracting. The petitioner argued that the DBPR’s imposition of administrative fines and costs for practicing construction without a license was improper without a formal hearing being held (as opposed to an informal hearing).
In this instance, at an informal hearing, it became clear that it was undisputed that (1) the petitioner held no contractor’s licenses at the relevant times; (2) that he submitted a bid for construction work under his signature and on his company’s stationary; (3) this bid resulted in a substantial contract for construction work for which he was paid; and (4) he listed another roofing contractor’s license on the relevant bid.
On appeal, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that where there was no dispute as to any material facts, a formal hearing was not necessary and the informal hearing procedure was sufficient. Under these circumstances, the court affirmed the order imposing the fines and costs.
While the decision is short, there are two key takeaways for those in the construction industry. First, it lays out very clearly some of the conduct that constitutes unlicensed contracting in Florida. Second, anyone facing a complaint from the DBPR should take it seriously and pay attention to the fact that there are multiple ways that a complaint can be resolved, especially if the key facts are not in dispute. Contractors should consult with counsel any time they are faced with a DBPR complaint to ensure they respond properly and are prepared for any proceedings.