A certified general contractor’s license was suspended for 6 months, and he was fined and ordered to pay restitution to a homeowner, after putting together a joint contract with an unlicensed individual to construct a screen enclosure at a homeowner’s residence.
In 2012, the homeowner hired a screen enclosure company to install a new screen enclosure on her property. She paid $3,500.00 under the contract — $500 for permit application fees and $3,000 for materials. These funds were paid to the screen enclosure company.
The screen enclosure was sold by, and the contract signed by, an unlicensed individual. This individual had previously been licensed in the State of Florida, and testified to holding, at one point, multiple construction licenses. Nonetheless, at the time of the contract, the individual did not have a license and at least one of the prior licenses had been revoked in 2003.
The individual worked with a licensed contractor who had put together a contract template for the individual to use in selling project. The contract had both the screen enclosure company name and the licensed contractor’s company name on it. Only the licensed contractor’s number appeared on the contract, next to the name of his company, not the name of the screen enclosure company.
After the project was sold, the licensed contractor submitted a permit for the screen enclosure. Ultimately the screen enclosure permit was denied because the proposed work encroached on a utility easement. After two more attempts to revise plans and obtain permits, the permit was finally denied due to zoning issues.
Once it became clear permits could not be obtained for the project, the homeowner requested her money back. The screen enclosure company refused. The homeowner ultimately filed a complaint with the DBPR. Based on these facts, the DBPR charged the licensed contractor with one count of assisting a person in committing unlicensed contractor and one count of abandoning a construction project.
Assisting unlicensed contracting is prohibited by section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which states license holders are forbidden from
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.
Here the DBPR found that the licensed contractor pulled permit for the screen enclosure to assist the screen enclosure company, which he did not qualify. The DBPR also found that the licensed contractor had reason to know that the screen company and its owner were not licensed because the two individuals had worked together and known each other for nine years and the contract contained information on both companies, but only one license number. These facts indicated the licensed contractor had violated Florida law.
Regarding the second count, the DBPR sought to determine whether the licensed contractor had violated section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, which prohibits contractors from
Abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates the project without just cause or without proper notification to the owner, including the reason for termination, or fails to perform work without just cause for 90 consecutive days.
As an initial matter, the DBPR noted that this statute is not violated just because a project is not completed. Here, the DBPR found that because the permit was denied, construction could not legally begin, and therefore, the contractor could not abandon the project. Further, the contract between the parties was contingent on government approvals.
Accordingly, the licensed contractor was only found in violation of the first section of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, cited above, but not the second. Despite this partly favorable outcome, the licensed contractor had his license suspended for 6 months, was fined $7,000.00, and was ordered to make restitution to the homeowner in the amount of $3,500.00. The penalties imposed were due, in part, to the fact that the contractor had been disciplined by the DBPR within the prior 3 years and the homeowner had incurred financial damages.
One of the critical takeaways from this case is that the licensed contractor ultimately was responsible for making the homeowner whole through restitution, even though the money was paid to the unlicensed contractor he was assisting. Once you aid an unlicensed contractor, you may be responsible for anything that goes wrong on a project, even things out of your control, like permitting approvals.