WALTON COUNTY CONTRACTOR COMPETENCY BOARD FREDDY KAYE, Petitioner, vs. JOHN CARROLL, CHAMBERS STREET BUILDERS, INC.

Defendant. __________________________________/ JOHN CARROLLS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT Comes now, John Carroll pursuant Floridas Rules who files this Motion for a Directed Verdict in this case and states as follows: INTRODUCTION The Petitioner (read complainant) is Freddy Kaye. However, the complaint (Exhibit 1) is not actually a complaint because it was not signed by Freddy Kaye or anyone else. This is a fatal flaw per Florida Statute 455.225(1)(a). This Administrative Complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law. Said complaint was reduced to the formal administrative complaint of the Walton County Contractor Competency Board (WCCCB) with case number 2012-01. The Case No.: 2012-01

Building Department was to present said case to the WCCCB however they allowed the Complainant to present their case. Upon completion of their presentation of the case the department rested (See Walton Countys answer at Paragraph 27). FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The contract which is being argued about is a 2007 contract. The contractor and owner litigated their differences in Circuit Court and Freddy Kaye dismissed all claims against Carroll and Chambers Street Builders, Inc. of his own free will and later sought to enforce this dismissal so that Carroll could not proceed against him (Exhibit 2). The complainant and his wife sold the property in May 18, 2011 (Exhibit 3). The Board drafted their complaint on January 26, 2012. The property was sold again on July 26 (Exhibit 4). In this circumstance Walton County Ordinance 2003-16 6-112 (E) kicks in which reads: (E) If the owner of the property which is subject to an enforcement proceeding before the Board transfers ownership of such property between the time the initial complaint was served and the time of the hearing, such owner shall: (1) disclose in writing the existence and the nature of the proceeding to the prospective transferee; (2) deliver to the prospective transferee a copy of the pleadings, notices and other materials relating to the enforcement proceeding received by the owner; (3) disclose in writing to the prospective transferee that the new owner will be responsible for compliance with the applicable code and with orders issued in the enforcement proceeding; (4) file a notice with the Board of the transfer of the property, with the identity and address of the new owner and copies of the disclosures made to the new owner, within five days after the date of the transfer. In this case; the new owners have not been notified of the existence of the case, they have not had the pleadings delivered, they have not been notified that they will be responsible for compliance with orders of the WCCCB and there is no record of the required copies being served upon the Board. This complaint should be dismissed.

That notwithstanding, during the presentment of the case in chief, the department rested their case without any evidence in record (Exhibit 5). The

Board has now asked Carroll to appear to defend against the complaint on September 25, 2012. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD Burden of Proof In Florida, the Department bears the burden of proof. While Defendant Carroll (read Respondent) doesnt deny that the hearing was full of spirited debate and inappropriate references to matters unsupported by fundamental due process, the simplicity of the matter shows that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record (Exhibit 5). ARGUMENT Before the appeals begin in this case it will be important for the WCCCB to satisfy their responsibilities as the tribunal. The Appellate Court will be reviewing whether or not the WCCCB afforded Carroll procedural due process. The Court will review whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported

by competent substantial evidence. Procedural Due Process Carroll brought his challenges to the WCCCBs idea of procedural due process to the floor during the hearing. He reminded the WCCCB that he was given no notice of Kayes complaint and therefore no opportunity to respond to the pre-hearing probable cause panel. He asked for the names of the probable cause

panel that compared Kayes unsigned complaint to Carrolls response.

The

WCCCB stated that there was no probable cause panel. The appellate court will be asked to review this and all other aspects of procedural due process by comparing the transcript of the hearing to Florida Statutes 455, 489 and Walton Countys WCCCB Ordinance. Essential Requirements of the Law Carroll brought his challenges to the WCCCBs idea of the essential requirements of the Law to the floor during the hearing. During Kayes

presentation of his case in chief, Carroll parsed each word, of each Count of the complaint with the WCCCB. None of the Counts inform Carroll or anyone else what acts Carroll undertook; rather the Complaint simply recites the Ordinance verbatim. None of the members of the WCCCB could tell Carroll a single act of fraud, deceit or incompetence that Carroll engaged in. In fact, none of the Board members knew the definition of fraud, and the attorney for the board refused to inform them of the meaning of fraud. The WCCCB asks Carroll to now defend against a moving target. The transcript of the hearing will have to be compared against Floridas essential requirements of the law by the appellate court. Competent Substantial Evidence The foundation of all hearing tribunal decisions rests upon the competent substantial evidence entered during the hearing. In this case there is absolutely no evidence in the record from which the WCCCB can enter findings of facts or conclusions of law (Exhibit 5). Conclusion

Because the hearing violated Carrolls procedural due process, did not follow the essential requirements of Florida Law and garnered no competent substantial record evidence, judgment should enter on behalf of the Defendant (read Respondent).

________________________ John Carroll Box 613524 WaterSound, FL 32461 ChambersStreetBuilders@gmail.com Certificate of Service This certifies that a copy of this motion was sent by regular US mail to Toni L. Craig, 161 E Sloss Ave., DeFuniak Springs, FL 32433 attorney for the WCCCB, et al and by email of sincrissie@co.walton.fl.us and pricindy@co.walton.fl.us and cratoni@co.walton.fl.us and holjoy@co.walton.fl.us and hand delivered to the Walton County Building Department on September 11, 2012