Who can do repairs on homes for sale

[bigdog]

Hi Jerry

I was just looking through FL489 and Chapter 1 of the FBC and the references to requiring a licensed contractor to make repairs on a home for sale or lease seem to have faded away except for asbestos removal.

Has this wording been moved?...or removed? I have a rental here in Palm Beach county and the city of Greenacres would not allow me to pull a permit as owner/builder last year so I think it must still be somewhere.

David

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

David,

It's still there in Chapter 489, same place it has always been:
- http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 9.103.html
- 489.103 Exemptions.—This part does not apply to:
- - (7)(a) Owners of property when acting as their own contractor and providing direct, onsite supervision themselves of all work not performed by licensed contractors:
- - - 1. When building or improving farm outbuildings or one-family or two-family residences on such property for the occupancy or use of such owners and not offered for sale or lease, or building or improving commercial buildings, at a cost not to exceed $75,000, on such property for the occupancy or use of such owners and not offered for sale or lease. In an action brought under this part, proof of the sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, of any such structure by the owner-builder within 1 year after completion of same creates a presumption that the construction was undertaken for purposes of sale or lease.

All work, including repairs, which require a licensed contractor to do may be done by the owner under the above owner/builder exemption which allows the owner to act as their own contractor ... with, of course, all required permits and inspections - but the catch is that the building is "not offered for sale or lease. In an action brought under this part, proof of the sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, of any such structure by the owner-builder within 1 year after completion"

The owner is no longer allowed to act as their own contractor as soon as the property is "offered for sale or lease. In an action brought under this part, proof of the sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, of any such structure by the owner-builder within 1 year after completion" ... and for a house which is already on the market - that means the owner is no longer permitted to act as their own contractor.

Here is the catch which I always used: "proof of the sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, of any such structure by the owner-builder within 1 year after completion of same creates a presumption that the construction was undertaken for purposes of sale or lease" ... a for sale sign out front, a contract, a listing of any type ... anything ... and the state automatically presumes the owner is guilty of doing unlicensed work - no ifs, no ands, no buts ... if the owner act as their own contractor for work which is required to be done by licensed contractors and the house is for sale or lease - they are presumed guilty (and it would be next to impossible for them to explain that away as not being guilty when there as a listing on the property).

And then they get hit by this:
- http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 9.127.html
- - (2)(a) Any unlicensed person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (1) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
- - - (b) Any unlicensed person who commits a violation of subsection (1) after having been previously found guilty of such violation commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Which means this:
- http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 5.083.html
- - 775.083 Fines.—
- - - (1) A person who has been convicted of an offense other than a capital felony may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to any punishment described in s. 775.082; when specifically authorized by statute, he or she may be sentenced to pay a fine in lieu of any punishment described in s. 775.082. A person who has been convicted of a noncriminal violation may be sentenced to pay a fine. Fines for designated crimes and for noncriminal violations shall not exceed:
- - - - (c) $5,000, when the conviction is of a felony of the third degree.
- - - - (d) $1,000, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
- - - - (f) Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain derived from the offense by the offender or double the pecuniary loss suffered by the victim.
- - - - (g) Any higher amount specifically authorized by statute.

Their fine could be $1,000 for the first offense (d), and if they did the work over two days, that is two offenses, or a different type of work would be a second offense, and a second offense (c) could be a $5,000 fine.

Or, they could be fined fined in accordance with (f) or (g) for an even greater amount.

They and their agents place their risk factor in "could be" as the risk of "getting caught" is low ... unless someone turns them in.

The agent could be charged with aiding and abetting and risk the same fines (as I recall, I did not look that up, but it used to be that way and I see no reason why it would have changed).

[bigdog]

Thanks Jerry

I'm in court tomorrow ( not me in trouble) and I'll let you know how that fly"s in real time.