1

I� THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

I� A�D FOR WALTO� COU�TY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISIO�

JOH� P. CARROLL,

Plaintiff, Case �o.: 12CA0211

v.

WALTO� COU�TY, FLORIDA, a political

subdivision of the State of Florida,

WALTO� COU�TY BOARD OF COU�TY

COMMISSIO�ERS, WALTO� COU�TY

CO�TRACTOR COMPETE�CY BOARD,

JOH� DALTO�, Board Chairman,

SUEDELLE WILKERSO�, Board Vice Chairman

ROBERT AGERTO�, GARY MITCHEM,

ROBERT A�DREWS, GARY BILLI�GSLEY,

MARIA WHITEHURST, JOH��Y SMITH,

RA�DALL YATES, WALTO� COU�TY

BUILDI�G DEPARTME�T, BILLY BEARDE�,

in his capacity as Building Official, LEE DEPAUW

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

VERIFIED PETITIO� FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY,

I�JU�CTIVE A�D OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff John Carroll (Carroll) sues Defendants Walton County, Florida (Walton

County), Walton County Board of County Commissioners (Commissioners), Walton

County Contractor Competency Board (Contractor Board), Board Chairman John Dalton

(Dalton), Board Vice Chairman Suedelle Wilkerson (Wilkerson), Contractor Board

Members Robert Agerton (Agerton), Gary Mitchem (Mitchem), Robert Andrews

(Andrews), Gary Billingsley (Billingsley), Maria Whitehurst (Whitehurst), Johnny Smith

(Smith), Randall Yates (Yates), the Walton County Building Department (Building

2

Department), Billy Bearden (Bearden) and Lee DePauw (DePauw) in their official

capacities with the Building Department and alleges:

Jurisdiction

1. This Declaratory Action and Petition for Injunction are brought pursuant

to Florida Statutes 86.011(2), 86.021, 86.051, 86.061, 86.071, 86.111; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

related to the unconstitutionality of a Walton County Ordinance; Violations of Article I,

Section 2 of the Florida Constitution against Carroll by the Building Department and

Contractor Board; Florida Statute 125.01(1) related to the enactment and enforcement of

a Walton County Ordinance which stands inconsistent with general or special law; and

Florida Statutes 455 and 489 related to the violation of fundamental due process against

Carroll by the Defendants, over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

2. Carroll is a Florida resident with his principal residence in Walton County,

Florida.

3. Walton County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.

4. The Commissioners are elected officials serving the residents of Walton

County, FL.

5. The Contractor Board was appointed by the Commissioners pursuant to

Walton County Ordinance 2003-16 (Exhibit A).

6. Dalton is the unelected Chairman of the Contractor Board, appointed by

the Commissioners, and sits in judgment of Carroll in violation of conflict of interests to

Carroll, the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board or both.

3

7. Wilkerson, Agerton, Mitchem, Andrews, Billingsley, Whitehurst, Johnny

Smith and Yates are unelected members of the Contractor Board, appointed by the

Commissioners.

8. The Building Department was created by Walton County Ordinance and

employs Bearden and DePauw.

9. Venue is proper in Walton County, pursuant to Florida Statute 47.011,

because the causes of action pled herein accrued in Walton County.

Summary of Claims

10. Carroll holds a valid Florida Building Contractor’s certificate of

registration and license number RB0066902.

11. In November 2007, Chambers Street Builders, Inc. entered into a binding

contract with Freddie and Susan Kaye (Exhibit B). Carroll is the President of Chambers

Street Builders, Inc. (Chambers Street).

12. On or about February 2008, the Kayes and Chambers Street’s contractual

relations began to deteriorate. The contractual frictions concerned a lack of finish

selections on the part of the Kayes, untimely payments to Chambers Street on the part of

the Kayes and concern by the Kayes over Chambers Street’s ability to complete the

contract within its contract period.

13. At some point during the contract period, the Kayes began negotiations

with CJB Construction Inc., an unlicensed contractor who was building (2) homes

nearby. Finish selections ceased on the part of the Kayes, Chambers Street brought the

construction as far along as it could without said selections, construction payments to

4

Chambers Street ceased and Chambers Street invoked Article 5, Paragraphs 9 and 10 of

its contract with the Kayes, which read:

9. In the event Owner shall fail to pay any periodic or installment payment

due hereunder, Contractor may cease work without breach pending

payment or resolution of any dispute.

10. All disputes hereunder shall be resolved by Mediation.

14. Unbeknownst to Carroll, aproximately 6 months into the 12 month

contract period, the Kayes retained CJB Construction, Inc.’s attorney Samuel Taylor,

Esq. On July 8, 2008, Sam Taylor sent Chambers Street a letter terminating the Kayes-

Chambers Street contract amid allegations of faulty craftsmanship and over payments to

Chambers Street. The Kayes refused to engage in the contractually required Mediation.

In September 2008 the Kayes filed a civil suit against Carroll and Chambers Street.

15. In late 2010, Susan Kaye made a Motion to remove herself from the

litigation. On September 22, 2011, 4 years after the contract was endorsed by the Kayes

and Chambers Street, the Kayes unilaterally filed a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice

of all claims against Carroll and Chambers Street (Exhibit C).

16. On May 6, 2011, the Kayes sold the home and property (Exhibit D).

17. On November 16, 2011, more than 4 years after the contract was signed,

Freddy filed a complaint with the State Department of Business and Professional

Regulation against Carroll (Exhibit E). Freddy filed Uniform Complaint Form DBPR

0070 and DBPR 4355. Freddy did not swear the complaint or sign the complaint as

required by the form and Florida Statute 455.225 which reads:

Disciplinary proceedings.—Disciplinary proceedings for each board shall

be within the jurisdiction of the department.

5

(1)(a)The department, for the boards under its jurisdiction, shall cause

to be investigated any complaint that is filed before it if the complaint is in

writing, signed by the complainant, and legally sufficient.

18. In December 2011, the State DBPR mailed a copy of the complaint to the

Building Department. The Building Department delivered a copy of the complaint to the

Contractor Board. The State took no further action against Carroll.

19. On February 6, 2012, Joy Holland, office manager of the Building

Department sent Carroll an email informing him that the Contractor Board had filed an

Administrative Complaint against him and that the hearing would be held the following

day, February 7, 2012 (Exhibit F).

20. On February 7, 2012 Carroll sent a reply email demanding a complete

copy of the investigative file (Exhibit G). Carroll arrived at the Building Department and

met Ms. Holland who handed Carroll what she claimed was a complete copy of the

investigative file. The packet included 3 documents:

1) A date stamped copy of Freddy Kaye’s unsigned, unsworn

complaint to DBPR.

2) The Notice of Hearing for later that day.

3) The 5 count Administrative Complaint.

21. Carroll asked for copies of findings of the probable cause panel or any

other documents relied upon by Bearden and the Building Department prior to their

drafting of the Administrative Complaint. Ms. Holland informed Carroll that they relied

exclusively on Freddy’s DBPR Uniform Complaint. She explained that there was also a

disc, but informed Carroll that it only included copies of the Kaye’s civil litigation file.

6

Carroll asked for a copy of the disc. Joy could not copy said disc, but did email Carroll

the contents of the disc by 2:38 PM, leaving Carroll 3 hours, 22 minutes to prepare for

the hearing (Exhibit H).

22. Immediately thereafter, Carroll sent out an email objecting to his

appearance at the hearing on grounds that Freddy’s complaint was not legally sufficient

and not signed (Exhibit I).

23. Carroll appeared for the hearing at 6 PM, but on such short notice, was

unable to obtain a court reporter. The Contractor Board recorded the proceedings on

audio tape. Carroll video recorded the proceedings.

24. The Building Department did not present the case, instead asked Freddy to

present the case. The Building Department made wild, unsupported accusations about

Carroll not calling for required inspections, but conveniently misplaced the entire

building department file on the Chambers Street – Kaye permit. Carroll objected on

procedural grounds based upon Ordinance 2003-16. Carroll produced copies of the

inspection reports along with the “blue stickers” signed by the Building Inspectors which

proved that Carroll called for and passed said inspections. Carroll also reminded the

tribunal that DePauw conducted secret inspections of the project in violation of Carroll’s

rights.

25. Freddy presented the case one Count at a time. At the conclusion of each

Count, Carroll moved for a dismissal for the failure to prove the essential elements of

each claim.

26. Freddy presented the Contractor Board with an unsworn letter from the

plumbing contractor who permitted the plumbing. Said letter stated that although he

7

obtained the Walton County plumbing permit, his company did not perform the work on

the job. Carroll objected as this was classic hearsay and informed the Contractor Board

that he would confront his accuser immediately. The Building Official informed the

attendees that the plumbing contractor had passed away so Carroll would not be able to

confront him about his allegations. Carroll again objected to the entrance of any of those

statements on hearsay grounds.

27. Freddy and the Building Department rested their case.

28. Carroll began his rebuttal but was not entitled to proceed because the

Contractor Board was concerned about the late hour. Carroll reminded the Contractor

Board that the Complainant had rested his case, that the record contained no substantial

credible evidence and that the Complainant had presented witnesses who were not named

in advance.

29. On the record, Carroll asked the full panel of the Contractor Board if they

had read the Kaye - Chambers Street contract. Each member stated that they had not.

Carroll reminded the members that it was their duty to determine if he had a contract with

the complainant, and whether or not he violated the contract to such a degree that it

would be a violation of the law.

30. On the record, Carroll asked the full panel of the Contractor Board if they

had read Florida Statute 489 or Walton County Ordinance 2003-16. Each member stated

that they had not. Carroll reminded the members that it was their duty to determine

whether or not he violated 489 or 2003-16 to such a degree that he should be disciplined.

31. On the record, Carroll asked the full panel of the Contractor Board if they

reviewed the findings of the probable cause panel. Each member stated that they had not.

8

Carroll asked the full panel if there was a probable cause panel. Each member responded

that they either didn’t know, or had never heard of a probable cause panel. The Building

Department and County Attorney stated that there is no probable cause panel.

32. On the record, Carroll asked the full panel of the Contractor Board

whether or not they knew the definition of fraud. Each member stated that they did not.

Carroll asked the Contractor Board’s attorney, Lynn Hoshihara, Esq. to provide the

definition to the Members, but Dalton told her not to. Carroll reminded the members that

it was their duty to determine whether or not Carroll had committed fraud in the practice

of contracting and whether or not said act constituted behavior worthy of discipline.

33. Carroll reminded the Contractor Board that the statute of limitations had

run on these claims, that he was working out of State and that adjournment with

continued prosecution was a great hardship. Over Carroll’s stern objection, the

Contractor Board stated that they wanted Carroll to return at a later date and answer

questions regarding the aiding and abetting of an unlicensed contractor. The foundation

for said complaint is premised upon the mid hearing disclosure of a deceased licensed

plumbing contractor stating in an unsworn letter to the unlicensed CJB Construction, Inc.

that although he lawfully obtained the plumbing permit, he claimed that he did not

perform the alleged faulty plumbing work. The Kayes have already permanently released

Carroll and Chambers Street from any and all liability related to this allegation (Exhibit

J).

34. The Contractor Board adjourned without closing the case. Carroll put the

Contractor Board on notice of the dates of his unavailability. The Board notified Carroll

that he was to return to answer additional claims despite Chambers Street’s

9

groundbreaking on their construction project for the University of Virginia. The County,

Building Department and Contractor Board could clearly see the physical strain this

caused Carroll. 6 days later Carroll had a heart attack, lost consciousness, went into

cardiac arrest and had to be saved through electric shock defibrillation.

Count I – Declaratory Action

35. Carroll realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 as if fully set

forth herein.

36. This is an action for declaratory relief over which this Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Statute 86.011.

37. There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a declaration of

the parties’ statutory and constitutional rights under Walton County Ordinance 2003-16

(the Ordinance).

38. Carroll asserts that the Ordinance is constitutionally defective and the

building department and Contractor Board’s actions are illegal because it and they:

a. unlawfully delegates legislative authority to the Building

Department (unelected County Government employees) by conferring

upon them total discretion to charge contractors with violations of the

Ordinance and coerce them to defend against same without

constitutionally-sufficient, specific, mandatory, objective standards or

criteria for doing so in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida

Constitution.

10

b. violates Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution by

depriving Carroll of his basic inalienable rights (among which are the right

to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness and to be

rewarded for industry) while utilizing the hypocrisy and inequality of

permitting an unlicensed contractor, CJB Construction, Inc. to take

Carroll’s work and avoid charges under the same Ordinance.

c. violates Florida Statute 125.01(1) related to the enactment and

enforcement of a Walton County Ordinance which stands inconsistent

with Florida Statute 455.

d. violates 455.225 which holds that disciplinary proceedings for

each board shall be within the jurisdiction of the department.

e. violates 455.225 (1)(a) which holds that the department, for the

boards under its jurisdiction, shall cause to be investigated any complaint

that is filed before it if the complaint is in writing, signed by the

complainant, and legally sufficient. Freddy’s complaint was not signed or

legally sufficient.

f. violates 455.225 (1)(b) which holds that when an investigation of

any subject is undertaken, the department shall promptly furnish to the

subject or the subject’s attorney a copy of the complaint or document that

resulted in the initiation of the investigation. The subject may submit a

written response to the information contained in such complaint or

document within 20 days after service to the subject of the complaint or

document. The subject’s written response shall be considered by the

11

probable cause panel. Carroll was not notified of Freddy’s complaint, and

there was no investigation or opportunity for Carroll to submit a written

response. The Building Department covertly prepared the Administrative

Complaint and set it for final hearing prior to notifying Carroll.

g. violates 455.225 (2) and which holds that the department shall

allocate sufficient and adequately trained staff to expeditiously and

thoroughly determine legal sufficiency and investigate all legally

sufficient complaints. When its investigation is complete and legally

sufficient, the department shall prepare and submit to the probable cause

panel of the appropriate regulatory board the investigative report of the

department. The report shall contain the investigative findings and the

recommendations of the department concerning the existence of probable

cause. At any time after legal sufficiency is found, the department may

dismiss any case, or any part thereof, if the department determines that

there is insufficient evidence to support the prosecution of allegations

contained therein. The department shall provide a detailed report to the

appropriate probable cause panel prior to dismissal of any case or part

thereof, and to the subject of the complaint after dismissal of any case or

part thereof, under this section. For cases dismissed prior to a finding of

probable cause, such report is confidential and exempt from 119.07(1).

In Carroll’s case, no party conducted an investigation, because the

Ordinance does not provide for qualified staff, or any investigative staff

for that matter. As such, no investigative report was report was prepared

12

for the probable cause panel. Carroll’s due process violations were

compounded by the fact that the Building Department and Contractor

Board have no probable cause panel. Thus, Carroll’s protections of

confidentiality have been absolutely circumvented.

h. violates Florida Statute 489.124(1) which states that all contractors

who are registered or certified pursuant to this chapter shall maintain

complete financial and business records for the immediately preceding 3

years. The business and financial records to be maintained shall include

minutes of corporate meetings, business contacts, telephone records,

insurance policies, letters of complaint, notices received from government

entities, bank statements, canceled checks, records of accounts receivable

and payable, financial statements, loan documents, tax returns, and all

other business and financial records the contractor maintains in the regular

course of business.

In Carroll’s case, the Contractor Board is attempting to force

Carroll to leave his work for the University of Virginia and appear before

them with proprietary business records beyond the statutory 3 year period.

The Contractor Board is on a fishing expedition, working backwards

looking for new violations of the Ordinance and Florida Statute 489.

i. violating Carroll’s fundamental due process protections to know

what claims he faces as provided at 6-112 of the Ordinance. After the

close of the claimant’s case (and after the Contractor Board’s collective

realization that the Building Department did not prove a single claim

13

against Carroll) the Contractor Board decided to substitute Count III,

which was 6-114(c)(12) (Fraud), and replace it with 6-114(c)(2) (Aiding

and Abetting). Count III of the complaint is clear on it’s face and further

crystallized by the additional Statutory enumeration 489.129(1)(l), not

489.129(1)(d). Trial by ambush is still illegal in Florida, even in the

backwoods of Walton County.

j. violating 6-112(A) of the Ordinance which reads “if a violation of

this ordinance or the building code of the State of Florida is found, the

building inspector shall notify the contractor and give him or her a

reasonable time to correct the violation. Should the violation continue

beyond the time specified for correction, the building inspector shall

notify the Board and request a hearing. The Board through its clerical

staff, shall schedule a hearing on the violation and notice shall be

furnished as specified in this ordinance.”

In Carroll’s case, the Contractor Board and Building Department

bypassed this essential step in violation of Carroll’s fundamental rights as

a U.S. citizen and Florida resident.

k. violating 6-112(E) of the Ordinance which states that 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;

14

(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.

Neither Kaye, the Building Department nor the Contractor Board

followed letter or spirit of the law.

39. It is the position of the County, the Commissioners, the Building

Department and the Contractor Board that, pursuant to the Ordinance, they may continue

to improperly circumvent Carroll’s rights to due process and equal protection.

40. Carroll asserts that he is a U.S. citizen just like Craig Baranowski, who

controls the unlicensed CJB Construction, Inc., and that the inequality which Baranowski

enjoys at Carroll’s expense is unconstitutional and should be abhorred by any red

blooded American.

41. It is the position of the County, the Commissioners, the Building

Department and the Contractor Board that the County Government’s agents are

authorized to meet in the back rooms of County offices, with the County Attorney, Lynn

Hoshihara, Esq. and fabricate documents under the color of law in order to black ball

Carroll indifferent to specific, constitutional federal or State statutory basis for doing so.

15

WHEREFORE, Carroll respectfully requests that this Court enter a declaratory

judgment:

a. that the Ordinance is constitutionally defective because it permits the

Building Department and Contractor Board to charge contractors and set Administrative

Hearings prior to notification of a consumer complaint to the contractor in violation of

the Florida and United States Constitutions and other Statutory authorities named herein;

b. that the Ordinance is constitutionally defective because it permits the

Building Department and Contractor Board to charge contractors with complaints beyond

the statute of limitations periods;

c. that the Ordinance is constitutionally defective because it permits the

Building Department and Contractor Board to issue Administrative Complaints, which

become public record, while bypassing a contractor’s right to the protection of cases

dismissed prior to a finding of probable cause, which are confidential and exempt from

119.07(1).

d. enjoining Walton County, the Commissioners, the Building Department,

the Contractor Board, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them,

including their agents, attorneys, servants, directors, employees, jointly and severally,

from enforcing or threatening to enforce the Ordinance; and

e. awarding any and all further relief this Court may deem appropriate.

Count II – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

42. Carroll realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 as if fully set

forth herein.

43. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 states, in pertinent part:

16

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory, or

the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizens of the United States or other person

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in

an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

for redress.

44. Walton County, the Commissioners, the Contractor Board, Dalton,

Bearden, DePauw and the Building Department all fall within the definition of a “person”

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and may be sued for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to

§ 1983.

45. Walton County acted “under color” of State law when it enacted the

Ordinance and through the Defendants continuing enforcement of the Ordinance.

46. The Ordinance is constitutionally defective because it condones, provides

the vehicle for the Defendants, or otherwise:

a. unlawfully delegates legislative authority to the Building

Department (unelected County Government employees) by conferring

upon them total discretion to charge contractors with violations of the

Ordinance and coerce them to defend against same without

constitutionally-sufficient, specific, mandatory, objective standards or

criteria for doing so in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida

Constitution.

17

b. violates Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution by

depriving Carroll of his basic inalienable rights (among which are the right

to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness and to be

rewarded for industry) while utilizing the hypocrisy and inequality of

permitting an unlicensed contractor, CJB Construction, Inc. to take

Carroll’s work and avoid charges under the same Ordinance.

c. violates Florida Statute 125.01(1) related to the enactment and

enforcement of a Walton County Ordinance which stands inconsistent

with Florida Statute 455.

d. violates 455.225 which holds that disciplinary proceedings for

each board shall be within the jurisdiction of the department.

e. violates 455.225 (1)(a) which holds that the department, for the

boards under its jurisdiction, shall cause to be investigated any complaint

that is filed before it if the complaint is in writing, signed by the

complainant, and legally sufficient. Freddy’s complaint was not signed or

legally sufficient.

f. violates 455.225 (1)(b) which holds that when an investigation of

any subject is undertaken, the department shall promptly furnish to the

subject or the subject’s attorney a copy of the complaint or document that

resulted in the initiation of the investigation. The subject may submit a

written response to the information contained in such complaint or

document within 20 days after service to the subject of the complaint or

document. The subject’s written response shall be considered by the

18

probable cause panel. Carroll was not notified of Freddy’s complaint, and

there was no investigation or opportunity for Carroll to submit a written

response. The Building Department covertly prepared the Administrative

Complaint and set it for final hearing prior to notifying Carroll.

g. violates 455.225 (2) and which holds that the department shall

allocate sufficient and adequately trained staff to expeditiously and

thoroughly determine legal sufficiency and investigate all legally

sufficient complaints. When its investigation is complete and legally

sufficient, the department shall prepare and submit to the probable cause

panel of the appropriate regulatory board the investigative report of the

department. The report shall contain the investigative findings and the

recommendations of the department concerning the existence of probable

cause. At any time after legal sufficiency is found, the department may

dismiss any case, or any part thereof, if the department determines that

there is insufficient evidence to support the prosecution of allegations

contained therein. The department shall provide a detailed report to the

appropriate probable cause panel prior to dismissal of any case or part

thereof, and to the subject of the complaint after dismissal of any case or

part thereof, under this section. For cases dismissed prior to a finding of

probable cause, such report is confidential and exempt from 119.07(1).

In Carroll’s case, no party conducted an investigation, because the

Ordinance does not provide for qualified staff, or any investigative staff

for that matter. As such, no investigative report was report was prepared

19

for the probable cause panel. Carroll’s due process violations were

compounded by the fact that the Building Department and Contractor

Board have no probable cause panel. Thus, Carroll’s protections of

confidentiality have been absolutely circumvented.

h. violates Florida Statute 489.124(1) which states that all contractors

who are registered or certified pursuant to this chapter shall maintain

complete financial and business records for the immediately preceding 3

years. The business and financial records to be maintained shall include

minutes of corporate meetings, business contacts, telephone records,

insurance policies, letters of complaint, notices received from government

entities, bank statements, canceled checks, records of accounts receivable

and payable, financial statements, loan documents, tax returns, and all

other business and financial records the contractor maintains in the regular

course of business.

In Carroll’s case, the Contractor Board is attempting to force

Carroll to leave his work for the University of Virginia and appear before

them with proprietary business records beyond the statutory 3 year period.

The Contractor Board is on a fishing expedition, working backwards

looking for new violations of the Ordinance and Florida Statute 489.

i. violating Carroll’s fundamental due process protections to know

what claims he faces as provided at 6-112 of the Ordinance. After the

close of the claimant’s case (and after the Contractor Board’s collective

realization that the Building Department did not prove a single claim

20

against Carroll) the Contractor Board decided to substitute Count III,

which was 6-114(c)(12) (Fraud), and replace it with 6-114(c)(2) (Aiding

and Abetting). Count III of the complaint is clear on it’s face and further

crystallized by the additional Statutory enumeration 489.129(1)(l), not

489.129(1)(d). Trial by ambush is still illegal in Florida, even in the

backwoods of Walton County.

j. violating 6-112(A) of the Ordinance which reads “if a violation of

this ordinance or the building code of the State of Florida is found, the

building inspector shall notify the contractor and give him or her a

reasonable time to correct the violation. Should the violation continue

beyond the time specified for correction, the building inspector shall

notify the Board and request a hearing. The Board through its clerical

staff, shall schedule a hearing on the violation and notice shall be

furnished as specified in this ordinance.”

In Carroll’s case, the Contractor Board and Building Department

bypassed this essential step in violation of Carroll’s fundamental rights as

a U.S. citizen and Florida resident.

k. violating 6-112(E) of the Ordinance which states that 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;

21

(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.

Neither Kaye, the Building Department nor the Contractor Board

followed letter or spirit of the law.

47. Walton County, the Commissioners, the Contractor Board, Dalton,

Bearden, DePauw and the Building Department acted “under color” of the Ordinance

when it deprived Carroll of its Fifth Amendment rights, as applied to the States through

the Fourteenth Amendment, by delegating absolute complaint power to the Building

Department, an unelected party, without providing in the Ordinance constitutionally-

sufficient, specific, mandatory, objective standards or criteria for the enforcement or

release of claims to Carroll thereunder .

48. Walton County, the Commissioners, the Contractor Board, Dalton,

Bearden, DePauw and the Building Department acted “under color” of the Ordinance

when it deprived Carroll his fundamental right to notice of a customer’s complaint and

his right to respond prior to facing discipline.

22

49. Walton County, the Commissioners, the Contractor Board, Dalton,

Bearden, DePauw and the Building Department acted “under color” of the Ordinance

when it deprived Carroll his Fifth Amendment rights, as applied to the States through the

Fourteenth Amendment, by threatening to fine Carroll and depriving him the right to

enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness and to be rewarded for industry.

50. Carroll has no adequate remedy at law, and these continuing and ongoing

constitutional violations “under color” of law have caused and will continue to cause

irreparable harm to Carroll’s constitutionally protected rights.

51. Carroll is entitled to seek and recover his costs from Walton County and

the other Defendants from the inception of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

52. This case concerns the determination of an issue of facts under Chapter

86. Carroll demands the fact issues be tried by jury in accordance with § 86.071.

53. WHEREFORE, Carroll respectfully requests that this Court enter

judgment his favor and against the Defendants for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations

of Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution against Carroll by the Building

Department and Contractor Board, violations of Florida Statute 125.01(1) related to the

enactment and enforcement of a Walton County Ordinance which stands inconsistent

with general or special law, and Florida Statutes 455 and 489 related to the violation of

fundamental due process against Carroll by the Defendants, entering injunctive relief,

awarding Carroll his costs from the Defendants, and other such relief as this Court deems

appropriate. Specifically, Carroll seeks a permanent, prohibitory injunction which

enjoins the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them, including their

23

agents, attorneys, servants, directors, employees, jointly and severally, from enforcing or

threatening to enforce Ordinance 2003-16.

Verification John Carroll, certifies on oath that he has read and understood the

foregoing Verified Petition and that the same is true in substance and in fact to the best of

his knowledge, information and belief.

_________________________________

John Carroll

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of February, 2012.

_____________________________________ Notary Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

furnished to Lynn Hoshihara, 161 E Sloss Ave, DeFuniak Springs, Fl 32433, Office of

the State Attorney, 1st Judicial Circuit, 524 East Highway 90, DeFuniak Springs, FL

32435 by mail this 29th day of February, 2012.

_____________________________

John P. Carroll