Findings Of Fact The Respondent Wilbur A. Sellars is licensed as a residential pool contractor by the Construction Industry Licensing Board through license number RP 0045541. Mr. Sellars was first licensed in 1975. At all times material to this case Respondent has owned and operated in Tallahassee, Florida, a pool contracting company called Pro Pools Service and Supply or Pro Pools, Inc. Cabana Construction In November 1977 Respondent entered into a contract with Dr. Frank S. Bilek to construct for him a 20' by 40' vinyl lined pool and a 20' by 40' cabana building. The contract price for the pool was $11,166.10. The price for the cabana was $14,517.30. The pool and building were constructed as provided in the contract. The cabana sits on an 800 square foot slab with footings and consists of three separate rooms. One room is a small bathroom containing a lavatory, water closet, and shower. Another room is fully enclosed by finished walls and sliding glass doors. The third room is open on two sides, one of which faces the swimming pool. The walls are typical stud construction with plywood siding on the exterior and half-inch drywall on the interior. The roof is supported by 2/12 2x4 prefabricated trusses with shingles on top. The ceiling inside the cabana is the same as would be found in a residential home and the floor is a cement slab covered by carpet. There is one overhead ceiling fan in the open room and another in the fully enclosed room. For all practical purposes the construction techniques and materials used in the cabana are the same as would be used in a residential dwelling, although they may not meet the code standards which would be applicable to a dwelling in the Killearn residential area where Dr. Bilek's home is located in Tallahassee, Florida. The cabana is equipped with plumbing for the bathroom and also for a wet bar in the kitchen area of the cabana. No pool accessories were located in the cabana at the time Petitioner's witness inspected the facility, however as with any other structure of its size, pool equipment such as vacuuming hoses, wands, etc., could be placed inside it. The original design for the cabana included large solar panels located on the roof. The purpose of these panels was to provide heating for the swimming pool water. After the panels were installed they malfunctioned and have since been removed from the cabana roof. Typically in home swimming pool installations such panels are placed on house roofs or are independently supported by a special structure located near the swimming pool. The swimming pool water recirculation pump and filter for Dr. Bilek's pool were not located inside the cabana in issue, but were located nearby out in the open. The cabana was not designed for the purpose of housing this equipment. It appears from the furnishings found in the cabana, its orientation with respect to the pool, and from its equipment that the cabana along with the pool coordinate to create a unified entertainment complex. Neither is essential to the other, however. The cabana could host a cocktail party without there being a drop of water in the pool and the pool can function perfectly without the cabana. Criminal Convictions On May 18, 1979 Respondent sent a work crew to Cairo, Georgia, for the construction of a residential swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Vanlandingham. The crew was using a dump truck to haul excavated dirt from the pool site to a dumping site several miles from the Vanlandinghams' residence. An inexperienced driver was operating the truck. Upon arrival at the dumping site he engaged the bed lift to dump the dirt but forgot to release the safety chains. As a result the chassis of the truck broke. Members of the crew called Mr. Sellars to give him the bad news. He instructed them to burn the truck, which they did. Respondent then submitted an insurance claim for the loss of his truck due to an accidental fire. As a result of this false claim he was convicted of insurance fraud as defined in Section 817.234(1)(a), Florida Statutes. He entered a guilty plea and judgment was entered on June 7, 1982. On the same date Respondent also pled guilty and was convicted on another count of insurance fraud arising from his filing a false claim for the alleged theft of three mobile radios from trucks operated and owned by Pro Pools Service and Supply. The radios had in fact not been stolen. Since his conviction Mr. Sellars has obtained insurance coverage for the business of Pro Pools including automobile liability, physical damage, general property and general liability insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Wilbur A. Sellars guilty of Counts One, Two, Three and Four in the Amended Administrative Complaint and impose discipline in the form of an administrative fine of $200 and suspending Respondent's license as a residential pool contractor for a period of three months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a registered pool contractor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP 0029202. (Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, Item 2: Pet. Exh. C) On or about December 5, 1984, Respondent, d/b/a Miller Pools, contracted with Terry Kilpatrick to construct a pool at the Kilpatrick residence. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 9-10) The contract provided for a contract price of $10,963 for the construction of the pool and $1600 for the installation of fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10) Under the provisions of the contract and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent was responsible for all aspects of the pool construction and Kilpatrick was responsible for the installation of the fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10-11) As part of the contract, Respondent gave Kilpatrick a one-year warranty on the construction of the pool. (T. 19-20) The Kilpatrick residence was located in Putnam County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 37) In December 1984, the 1982 Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect in Putnam County, having been adopted by county ordinance. (Pet. Exh. E, F; T. 40- 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 required that a building permit be obtained before the commencement of construction of a swimming pool at a residence in the county. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 42) Respondent obtained the necessary building permit for the Kilpatrick pool job. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 also required that certain inspections be done during the course of the construction of a swimming pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 43) Among the required inspections was an electrical inspection and a final inspection. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44-45) It was the responsibility of Respondent as contractor to request the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department to conduct the necessary inspections of the pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44) The purpose of requiring the various pool inspections, including the electrical and the final, was to make certain that the pool had been constructed and was operating correctly and safely. (T. 45) Respondent was aware that certain inspections were required by local law. On three occasions, December 19, 1984, January 7, 1985 and January 10, 1985, inspections were performed on the Kilpatrick pool at Respondent's request. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43) Respondent did not make arrangements for the electrical or final inspections to be performed on the Kilpatrick pool. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43-44) During the construction of the Kilpatrick pool, Respondent was at the job site infrequently. (T. 12-16, 18, 19, 22) Almost immediately after the pool construction was completed, Kilpatrick began to experience problems with the pool, problems which included pitting of the marcite finish, leaks in the tiled area of the pool, and chipping of the brick and coping. (T. 24-35) The problems experienced by Kilpatrick were problems related to the construction of the pool and were covered by the one-year warranty on the pool given to Kilpatrick by Respondent. (T. 19-20) Respondent failed to take any action to correct the problems until after Kilpatrick had contacted the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department and the Department of Professional Regulation to complain about the problems with the pool. (T. 25-28, 35-36, 46-50) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Kilpatrick continued to experience problems with the pool leaking around the tile. (T. 31-31, 34) By Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed an administrative fine of $1000 and suspended Respondent's registered pool contractor's license for five years as a result of Respondent's default in a disciplinary case in which Respondent had been charged with failure to supervise a swimming pool construction project and/or performing said construction in a grossly negligent and/or incompetent manner. (Pet. Exh. C)
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1000, and that his license be suspended for an additional year after the suspension imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Terry, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jimmy G. Miller 706 Southeast 35 Avenue Ocala, Florida 32671 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all material times hereto, Respondent was the holder of a registered swimming pool contractors license number RP 0035739. Respondent's license was issued in the name of Malicki Pools, Terry W. Malicki. In January, 1981, Gary Wieland entered into a contract with Patrick Barr d/b/a Pool and Spa World. Barr was to construct a pool for Weiland in Port Charlotte for $7,856.00. Barr had become known to Wieland as a builder of swimming pools through a neighbor. Barr stated to Wieland that he was a pool contractor. Wieland made all payments due under the contract to Barr. Petitioner's evidence established that the Wieland swimming pool required a building permit. On March 3, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 66970 to construct a pool at Wieland's residence in Port Charlotte. Wieland's testimony established that Malicki constructed the pool at his residence. However, all of his dealings were with Barr. Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted in the Charlotte County court of acting as a contractor without being licensed. Mr. Robert Guariglia entered into a contract with Barr to construct a swimming pool for $9,500.00. The pool was to be constructed at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Petitioner's evidence established that the Guariglia pool required a building permit. On June 10, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 68962 to construct a pool at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Guariglia paid the first installment of his contract by check to Barr in the amount of $3,325.00. However, because the pool was not level, Guariglia told Barr or Malicki who was supervising the work that he wanted the pool redone or removed. The pool was later removed and Guariglia had to pay $1,400 to have his property restored. As noted above, Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted of acting as a contractor without being licensed. However, the swimming pool constructed at the identified Guariglia residence required a building permit. On September 3, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board suspended the certificate of competency of the Respondent until such time as he corrected all matters which were then pending before that Board. On November 5, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board reinstated Malicki's license.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the swimming pool contractor's license issued to Respondent for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry W. Malicki c/o Malicki Pools 1788 S.W. Sicily Avenue Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Stephen Schwartz, Esquire 680 Aaron Street, N.W. Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, and 120 F.S., and the rules promulgated thereunder. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint herein, Respondent was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CP 0009588. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Pools by L. S. Rule. On August 12, 1987, Ms. Mary Tillotson forwarded a $1,200 check to Pools by L. S. Rule for pool repair work including replacing the existing pool skimmer and furnishing and installing one row of new tile and remarcite. Respondent estimated the job would require two weeks to complete. On August 24, 1987, Ms. Tillotson formally entered into a written contract with Pools by L. S. Rule to perform the aforementioned pool repairs at her residence of 2110 North 41st Avenue, Hollywood, Florida for a price of $2,330.00. The contract actually signed by the parties, which is the contract which governs this case did not specify a completion date or state that "time is of the essence" for the job; however, the Respondent was clearly aware as of August 11, 1987 that Ms. Tillotson wanted the pool repaired by approximately August 24 or 25. On August 24, 1987, an employee of Pools by L. S. Rule removed the old skimmer from Ms. Tillotson's pool and replaced it with a new skimmer the next day. There was no further work done on Ms. Tillotson's pool by Pools by L. S. Rule after August 25, 1987. Ms. Tillotson contacted the Respondent repeatedly and the Respondent informed her that he was having an employment problem, but would have someone come out the next day. Neither the Respondent nor any of his employees ever visited the Tillotson residence again, with the exception of a brief visit by one employee wherein no work was performed. Ms. Tillotson discharged the Respondent on September 10, 1987, fifteen days or roughly two weeks after the contract was entered into and approximately the date the pool was supposed to have been completed. Upon cancellation, Ms. Tillotson demanded a refund of her entire $1200 deposit. Ms. Tillotson contracted with Adonis Pools, on September 11, 1987 to perform the same repairs as she had requested of Respondent. The repairs were completed by Adonis within three days. During the time of the Tillotson contract, Respondent proceeded with the construction of approximately five pools and maintained a staff of five employees. The reason offered at hearing for failure to proceed with Ms. Tillotson's pool was that he had lost a key employee and there had been rain delays. On September 21, 1987, Ms. Tillotson wrote the Respondent and requested a refund of $920, a compromise amount less than the full $1200 deposit, reflecting what she believed accounted for the services and material already expended by Respondent and Pools by L. S. Rule. Respondent refused to refund any of the deposit unless the amount were compromised upon his terms and Ms. Tillotson refused to accept what she regarded as partial payment. Ms. Tillotson filed suit against Respondent in November, 1987. She was awarded a judgment for $875 plus $54 in court costs, in the County Court in and for Broward County, Florida on April 20, 1988. The Respondent did not pay Ms. Tillotson the award monies on the date of judgment. He had already spent some of her deposit elsewhere. The Respondent has since failed to refund any portion of the deposit. The efforts Respondent has expended to negotiate or pay the judgment do not reflect good faith attempts at full payment under the judgment. Frank Abbott is a certified general contractor and a registered Florida Architect. Mr. Abbott was retained and tendered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) as its expert witness on the duties and responsibilities of contractors in the construction of pools; he was accepted as such over objection. It was Mr. Abbott's opinion that the Tillotson pool job should have taken one or two weeks, and upon the material in the DPR's investigative file, he concluded that abandonment by Respondent had occurred; that because the contractor accepted a deposit, failed to perform, and did not return any funds, there had been financial misconduct; and that therefore Respondent was guilty of gross negligence or incompetence. However, Mr. Abbott never spoke to Tillotson or Rule, never saw the area, the job, or assessed the weather conditions. He saw only a poor xerox copy of the photograph of the skimmer installation which was ultimately admitted as P-5. He offered no narrative of what constituted gross negligence as far as the skimmer job was concerned and merely offered his own legal conclusion that abandonment and financial mismanagement constitute incompetence or gross negligence. Some of his opinion was based on the way he operates his own contracting business, rather than upon general education, training, and experience in the contracting profession. He had personally supervised the building of only a few pools and only had connection with building eleven pools. He had never personally built a pool or done any pool work or received any specific pool training. In drawing his conclusions and in forming his opinion, Mr. Abbott also made assumptions with regard to characterizations in the DPR investigative file which were either not necessarily supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole as presented at formal hearing or which were extraneous to the issues in the specific case at bar. Petitioner presented no evidence of any kind bearing on the charge that Respondent failed to timely secure a building permit.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent under Sections 489.129(1)(j) and (m) F.S, finding him guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (k) F.S., and imposing a $1,750 fine. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3312 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner's PFOF 1-11 Accepted, and with minor modifications of style, are adopted. 12-13 Accepted in substance but modified to conform to the greater weight of the credible evidence. 14-16 The expert opinions of Mr. Abbott are recited within the Recommended Order (RO), but were of little assistance to the trier of fact since they were mostly rendered in terms of raw conclusions of law rather than contracting expertise. To the extent they are credible and supported by the greater weight of the factual evidence of record, they have been accepted in the RO. For the most part they have been rejected for the aforesaid reason and for the reasons set out in FOF 14 and the Conclusions of Law (COL). Respondent's PFOF 1-9, and 22 Accepted. 10-11 Out of chronological context and thereby misleading as to the record evidence; for this reason and for the reason they are subordinate to the facts as found, they are rejected. 12 Sentence 1 is accepted. Sentence 2 is also out of chronological context and thereby misleading as to the record evidence and for this reason and for the reason it is immaterial, it is rejected. 13-14 Rejected as stated as not supported by the record evidence as a whole and as set out in FOF 13. 15-17 and 20 Rejected as not PFOF but proposed COL. 18-19 and 21 (on page 3 and on page 4) are partially accepted in substance in FOF 14 but otherwise are rejected as mere argument of counsel or as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donald N. Bensen, Esquire 301 Southeast 10th Court Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1975, Collier County adopted Ordinance No. 75-57 which required, among other things, swimming pool contractors to be licensed by the county or state after establishing their competency. Prior to this time swimming pool contractors did not need certificates of competency to construct swimming pools. Anthony Schmidt had been engaged in the manufacture and installation of swimming pools for several years before opening a swimming pool business in Collier County. On April 22, 1976 Schmidt entered into a contract (Exhibit 1) to construct a swimming pool for John Dottore in Naples, Florida. Shortly thereafter Schmidt was issued a violation by an investigator of the FCILB for starting a different pool without a license. Schmidt contacted friends to ascertain who he could get to "pull" the permit needed to construct Dottore's pool, and was subsequently introduced to George C. Moyant, Respondent, a resident of Hollywood, Florida. He was introduced to Moyant at Moyant's house at a meeting arranged by mutual friends. The alleged purpose of this meeting was special tutoring of Schmidt by Moyant to prepare Schmidt for the pool contractor's exam and no other subject was discussed at this meeting. No final arrangements for such tutoring were made. Respondent holds Pool Contractor's License # CP C009205 and General Contractor's License #CG C001828 issued by the FCILB. He is president of Allstate Construction College, Inc. and prepares applicants for the various examinations required for registration with the FCILB. Subsequent to the meeting at Moyant's house Schmidt contacted Moyant regarding Moyant pulling a permit for Schmidt to construct Dottore's pool, and on a subsequent visit by Moyant to Naples Moyant, in company with Schmidt, submitted an Application for Building Permit (Exhibit 4) prepared and signed by Schmidt, showing the contractor to be George C. Moyant, License #CP C009205. At the same time Collier County Permit (Exhibit 5) was issued to Moyant as contractor for the construction of a swimming pool for Dottore. Immediately thereafter, at the Collier County Courthouse parking lot Schmidt gave Moyant a check dated May 4, 1976 in the amount of $500. Moyant's testimony that the payment was an advance for tuition is not credible. Moyant admits that Schmidt called him around the first of May for help in getting a permit for the swimming pool for Dottore and that he, Moyant, was "very reluctant" but assented to come to Naples to help Schmidt out and in fact, pulled the permit. Moyant recognized that his actions were in violation of the laws unless "one does things correctly." He advised Schmidt that his brother or the mutual friend, both of whom have general contractor's licenses would act as his, Moyant's, agent "if any problems come up". Before Schmidt completed the pool an investigator for the FCILB became aware of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the permit and the investigation and administrative complaint followed.
The Issue The legal issues raised and the status of the parties in this cause are seemingly complex due to the manner in which the case was presented on the initial pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At bearing, it was determined that Fairways was seeking approval of a permit for use of its swimming pool. This application had been denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the grounds that the pool failed to meet the requirements of Rule 100-5.50, Florida Administrative Code. In order to place the parties in their proper positions, the Respondent, Fairways, was determined to be the movant party and its cross-petition considered to be the petition. The ultimate issue presented is whether the subject pool meets the requirements of Rule 100-5.50 and its use should be approved. PRELIMINARY RULINGS Fairways collaterally attacks the manner of application of the rule by the Department to its pool, asserting that the manner of application of the rule constitutes an unpromulgated rule. Fairways also alleges in its proposed findings that Rule 100-5.50 is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority, and that the Department is estopped to assert the pool fails to comply with Rule 100-5.50 because of a failure to communicate properly the conditional approval of construction of the pool. The allegations that the Department's application of Rule 100-5.50 constitutes an unpromulgated rule and that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid are raised for the first time in Fairways' proposed findings. The original petition (cross-petition) makes no allegation that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid, and makes no allegation that the manner of measurement is an invalidly promulgated rule. These allegations would not be properly raised within the context of a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding. Although invalidity of the rules on constitutional grounds is preserved in the record for appellate review, the nature of the allegations in this instance are not grounded in a constitutional challenge. Having failed to raise these issues in their pleadings under the appropriate provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, these attacks will not be considered in determining the issue presented in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a six-building complex containing 13 condominium units, each building being situated on a separate lot circumscribed by property lines outlining the property within the exclusive possession and control of the occupants of the condominiums. The pool in question is located upon jointly held property and is not intended to be and has not been open for use by the public or persons other than the occupants of the condominiums and their guests. On April 2, 1979, Fairways submitted a site plan (Joint Exhibit number 4) to Petitioner at the Manatee County Health Department. The site plan showed the proposed location of the pool in relation to the condominium buildings. Approval of these plans by the Department was necessary in order for a construction permit to be issued for the pool. By a letter dated May 30, 1979 (Joint Exhibit number 2), Mr. O. P. Randle, Jr., Engineer for the Department, granted approval for the pool plans with the condition that "Wet facilities shall be provided within two hundred (200) feet of the pool." Between April 4 and May 30, 1979, Ms. Rosemary Wiley, Engineering Technician with the Department, orally informed Fairways' "project engineer" that several units were more than 200 feet from the proposed pool and that wet facilities would be required. During this period, Wiley also informed Fairways' pool contractor of the same condition and requirements. A construction permit for the pool was secured by Fairways' pool contractor on June 4, 1979. Construction of the pool began during the first week of June, 1979, and was substantially finished by July 5, 1979. Shortly after June 17, 1979, Fairways contacted the Department's local pollution control director, who visited Fairways and measured the distance between the water's edge of the pool and the farthest building. The method of measurement employed by the Health Department was to measure the shortest distance between the edge of the pool and the structure of the building. The method of measurement used by the Department has been in use 16 years and evolved because measurement from the pool to the actual sanitary facility located within a building is impractical. The only building which was not within 200 feet of the water's edge of the pool was Building 6, containing two dwelling units, which was 241 feet from the edge of the pool. Part of Building 5 is more than 200 feet from the edge of the pool; however, its closest edge is within 200 feet of the pool, meeting the requirement for wet facilities. The only toilets and lavatories constructed at this site are those contained in the individual condominium units. These facilities are not open to use by the public or other condominium owners. By letter dated June 23, 1979, the local pollution director, at the request of the Health Officer, requested from the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services an interpretation of the method of measuring the 200 feet provided in Rule 100-5.50. The request of the Health Officer was precipitated by a request for section interpretation by Fairways' agent. The request dealt specifically with what was required to be within the 200-foot radius of the pool. The interpretation of the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services was contained in his letter dated July 5, 1979, addressed to the District VI pollution control director. This interpretation advised that the building's edge must touch or fall within a 200-foot radius of the pool. This letter also advised that the Department had no power to consider or grant variances or exceptions to the rules. The information contained in this interpretation was communicated to Fairways' agent. Other proposed findings of fact presented by the Petitioner and Respondent are specifically rejected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department deny the application of the applicant for a permit of use. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 Janice Sorter, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 David Paul Montgomery, Esquire 2103 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
The Issue The administrative complaint filed on September 17, 1987 alleges that in a residential pool contracting job Respondent Martin ". . . exhibited financial mismanagement, misconduct, or diversion, in violation of 489.129(1)(h), (m) . . . [and] failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner, and/or abandoned said job, in violation of 489.129(1)(m), (k)." The issue is whether Martin committed those violations, and if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Kenneth Martin was licensed in the State of Florida as a registered commercial pool contractor, holding license number RP 0021608. His license is currently in inactive status. Martin was President of Adair Pools, Inc., the corporation under which he conducted his pool construction business. In early July 1986, Adair Pools contracted to build a residential pool for Paul and Cynthia Pajak at 8304 Helena Drive in Orange County, Florida. The pool was to be kidney-shaped, approximately 14 feet by 30 feet, with a waterfall and a detached spa. The contract amount of $11,571.00 expressly excluded the deck, electrical work and screening, although the written contract included a sheet describing the specifications for the excluded work, recommended contractors, and estimated costs. This sheet and the pool contract itself clearly indicated that these items were not the responsibility of the pool company and were not included in the contract price. Work commenced in July, shortly after the contract was signed. Although the contract did not specify a completion date, Martin concedes that the pool should have taken no more than four to eight weeks to complete. The Pajaks had planned a Labor Day party and were told by Adair's employees there would be no problem getting their pool finished for the party. The pool was not finished by Labor Day. After the pool was dug, shot with concrete and tiled, someone determined that the spa was supposed to have been raised. In attempting to raise the spa and to change the water jets, the workers cracked the shell of the spa and had to replace it. Until the problems with the spa, the Pajaks felt that the construction progress was reasonable and smooth. At this point, sometime around Labor Day, the problems began. Adair delayed in paying Shotcrete Pools, the subcontractor for the concrete shell, because Adair felt it was Shotcrete's fault that the spa was cracked. Shotcrete notified the Pajaks that a lien would be placed on the property if they were not paid. The notice to owner is dated November 3, 1986. Eventually Adair paid Shotcrete and its other subcontractors for the Pajak work and no lien was filed. The evidence does not reflect a clear sequence of events, but between Labor Day and February or March 1987, little progress was made to finish the pool. Martin's supervisor left and Martin's brother took over. The Pajaks kept calling Martin and were always assured that the job would be completed. Martin admits that the company at this time was in serious financial trouble because it was not being paid for a large commercial job that it had undertaken. On December 10, 1986, Mrs. Pajak's brother-in-law, an attorney, sent Martin a demand letter, giving a 10-day deadline for completion of the work. Martin and his brother met with the attorney and assured him the job would be finished. In spite of the problems, the Pajaks continued working with Martin and paid the full contract price, less the $100.00 that was to be paid when the pool was filled. On March 5, 1987, Martin informed the Pajaks that they should have the deck poured so that Adair could finish the pool. The Pajaks were not satisfied that the pool was ready for the deck as there were leaks in the waterfall, debris was all over the yard and the spa tile work looked messy. In Martin's opinion those items were his company's responsibility, but were part of the finishing to be done after the deck was poured and the pool was lined with marblelite. On March 21, 1987, the Pajaks contracted with another pool company for $4450.00 to finish their pool. Martin denies that Adair abandoned the job, but admits that it took an inordinate amount of time. The Pajaks did not allow him to finish the cleanup, the interior coating and the pool start up because they contracted with someone else. Martin did not contest that the waterfall leaked or that extensive cleanup needed to be done, but disputed that this work should be done before the deck was poured. He contended that the leaks in the waterfall would have been fixed when the finish was done. Martin estimates that between 1974 and 1986, his company completed over fourteen hundred residential pools and approximately five hundred large commercial pools. Martin has been active on various local pool construction industry boards and has no record of prior disciplinary action against his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Kenneth Martin be found guilty of misconduct, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, not guilty of the other violations with which he is charged, and that he be required to pay an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Kenneth R. Martin 3225 North Glenn Drive Orlando, Florida 32806 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In 1975 and 1976 John Morris, d/b/a Morris Pool Service, maintained the swimming pool at the Sunland Center in Miami, Florida under a contract with HRS. The contract for the year commencing July 1, 1976 and expiring June 30, 1977 (Exhibit 1) provided generally for Morris to maintain the Sunland Center pool for which he would be paid $520 per month. This contract further provided that a representative of Morris Pool Service check each day except Saturday and Sunday with Ms. O'Donohue, the Director of Training, or her successor. Recreation personnel at Sunland Center hoped to open the pool on Memorial Day; however, an impeller for the pump needed replacement and the pool was inoperative for some six weeks in May and June awaiting this part. During this time petitioner did little or no maintenance and the pool's condition was bad enough for the Superintendent to become involved and request a report from the Programs and Services Director (Exhibit 4). When the impeller did arrive in mid-June, 1977, the pool was in such bad shape it was necessary to drain the pool, scrub, and acid-wash the walls and floor of the pool to remove the accumulated algae and scum. Even a colony of frogs had taken up residence in the pool during this period. As a result of additional delays the next hoped-for opening date of July 4 was also missed. The pool was finally ready for operation and was opened the week following July 4, 1977. Although opened the water in the pool was not properly maintained by cleaning and chlorinating. In the latter part of July the gas chlorinator became inoperative and the pool's condition deteriorated as no chlorine was being added to the water. Under the contract Petitioner was to provide materials necessary to keep the pool water in a balanced condition. This contract expired on June 30, 1977. Nevertheless, Petitioner purported to continue working under the expired contract, pending the issuance of a new contract for 1977-1978. While the gas chlorinator was inoperative Petitioner did not hand-feed chlorine to the pool to maintain the proper chlorine level and to keep algae from growing. By early August, 1977, the pool had become so bad the supervisory personnel at Sunland Center called the Dade County Health Department to inspect the pool. A report of that inspection showing the pool unfit for use was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. Following the Superintendent's inquiry to Ms. Titus about the condition of the pool in June, 1977, she contacted Petitioner, who told her the pool would he hack in operation as soon as the impeller was received. Ms. Titus was the successor to Ms. O'Donohue and she told Petitioner to keep her advised regarding the status of the pool. Although the contract (Exhibit 1) required Petitioner to report to Ms. Titus daily (except Saturday and Sunday) she did not see him again, nor did she receive any report that he came to her office. Petitioner contends that he attempted to report to Ms. Titus but was unable to find her in her office and after a few attempts stopped trying. Ms. Titus and her assistant were both equipped with beepers and could be contacted any time of day by their office if they were out of the office. Following the Health Department's inspection on August 9, 1977, the pool was closed for several days, then reopened around mid-August after the chlorinator was repaired. When the pool was reopened in August its condition was barely satisfactory. Shortly after Labor Day the pool was again closed and remained closed throughout the balance of 1977. By October, the Sunland Center officials decided they should notify Petitioner that his contract would not be renewed for the 1977-1978 year and a letter dated October 27, 1977 (Exhibit 2) was forwarded to him by registered mail. This letter was mailed to an old address for Petitioner, was returned to the sender and remailed to the proper address. As a result, the letter was not received by Petitioner until December 14 or 15, 1977. Petitioner submitted bills to Respondent for services for the period July 1, 1977 through December 15, 1977, the approximate date he received Exhibit 2. Following August 10, 1977 some of Respondent's employees in the maintenance department saw Petitioner in the cafeteria at Sunland Center and on the premises, but none of them reported seeing Petitioner do any work on the pool. Petitioner contends he worked on the pool on a daily basis, however, the condition of the pool casts serious doubts on this testimony.
