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.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued License No. CP C029646. At all tines material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Pools by Andrews, Inc., and the owner of that company. On August 21, 1986, George Silvers, a building inspector for the Village of Tequesta, saw people working at a pool site with no identification on the truck parked nearby. When he stopped, he discovered a crew installing- plumbing pipes for a swimming pool. When he asked for identification, Roland R. Androy identified himself as an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc. Although "piping a pool" does not itself require specialized licensure, Silvers asked Androy if he were a licensed contractor, and Androy said that he was not. By way of further identification, Androy produced a personal card which read "Andy's Elite Pools." Silvers "red flagged" the job stopping construction and filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation. Androy was an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc., for approximately one year in 1974. He returned to Florida and again became an employee of Pools by Andrews, Inc. in February, 1985. During the remainder of that calendar year Androy drew a regular weekly salary from that company, received holiday pay, and drove a company vehicle. Taxes were deducted from his salary check, and the company provided him with health insurance. Androy was a fast worker and frequently finished piping pools early in the day at which time he was given odd jobs to perform for the company such as building shelves in the warehouse. Androy decided that he could make the same amount of money and substantially shorten his work day if he were paid on a piecework basis rather than for an eight hour work day. That way he would also be able to 'moonlight' by using his free time performing maintenance and repair work for swimming pool owners. Respondent agreed to pay Androy on the basis of piecework rather than a 40-hour work week. Since January 1, 1986, Androy appears at Pools by Andrews, Inc., at 6:00 a.m. six days a week at which time he is given a list of pools to plumb that day. All materials and equipment necessary to perform the work are supplied by the Respondent. When Androy finishes, he goes home. Every Friday he gives Respondent a list of pools that he piped that week, and Respondent pays Androy by check. Because Androy wanted to be free to leave when he finishes that day's work, he no longer drives a company truck but rather drives his own truck so he does not have to return the truck before he can go home. Under the new salary arrangement, he is paid by the job and no longer receives a regular weekly salary or holiday pay or health insurance. Further, Respondent has ceased deducting withholding tax and social security taxes from Androy's paycheck. The card which Androy gave to Inspector Silver is a card that he used prior to moving to Florida. He had new cards printed with his Florida address and telephone number. He uses them when persons ask how they can get in touch with him. Respondent had no knowledge of Androy having or using such a card. As a certified pool contractor, Respondent is aware of the requirements for licensure, that is, installation of a swimming pool must be done by a licensed contractor. However, there is no requirement for licensure for that portion of the installation known as piping a pool. Rather, that work can be performed by anyone under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Further, no separate permit is required for that "plumbing" portion of pool installation. All permits for the job in question were obtained by Pools by Andrews, Inc., pursuant to Respondent's state licensure. No other permits were necessary for the job, including the work done for Respondent by Androy. Respondent (like Androy) believes that Androy is an employee of his and not an independent contractor or a subcontractor. There is no intent on Respondent's part to evade he state licensure requirements. Respondent has had no other disciplinary actions filed against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4395 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 4-6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of tact numbered 2 has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 7, and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Edward W. Andrews 8300 Resource Drive Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Henry C. Hollenbeck was licensed as a swimming pool contractor. In February of 1980, respondent, doing business as Acme Pools, entered into a contract with Loren Bjornson to construct a swimming pool at Bjornson's residence for a total purchase price of $8,300. Construction of this pool was completed on or about June 30, 1980. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for the Bjornson pool until January 5, 1981. Prior to the construction of a swimming pool in Ft. Walton Beach, a building permit is required. No inspections were performed by the City during construction of the Bjornson pool. Many items, such as the plumbing, walls, drain system, etc., cannot be adequately inspected after construction is completed and the pool is filled with water. Almost immediately upon construction of the Bjornson pool, a crack in the wall at the center of the pool appeared. This was repaired by respondent. Then, in July of 1980, the pool started losing one inch of water per day. In August, 1980, the pool started losing two inches of water per day. Mr. Bjornson repeatedly contacted respondent about this problem, but respondent did not respond to the calls because he felt that Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson retained another pool company to make repairs on his pool to prevent it from leaking. The three repair bills amounted to slightly over $200 and none of the repair jobs could be guaranteed. In order to make a guarantee, the service and sales manager of Aqua Pools estimated that repairs amounting to $11,365 would be necessary. It was his opinion that the repair work would involve a major rebuilding of the pool, including the removal of the pool deck and tiles and the reinforcement of walls. At the time of the hearing, the Bjornson pool was not presently leaking. By contract dated August 10,1979, respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Walter Parker. Construction was competed in October of 1979 and leaking problems began almost immediately. Respondent came back on at least four occasions to do the repair work. The corners were patched and other repair work necessitating the complete draining of the pool was performed. Each time, the Parkers were charged for labor and parts. At the time of the hearing, the Parker pool still leaked approximately one inch per day. It was estimated that it would cost about $1,000 to repair the Parker pool adequately so that a one-year warranty against leaking could be given. Respondent testified that he did not respond to Mr. Bjornson's calls for repair work because Mr. Bjornson still owed him money. He believed the Parkers also owed him money. He felt that he could repair both pools adequately for a nominal sum of money.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner find respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and suspend his pool contractor's license for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 16th day of December 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry C. Hollenbeck Rt. 1, Box 196 F-G, Circle Drive Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Mr. Samuel Shorestein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is subject to discipline for permitting his general contractor's license to be used by another person to construct a swimming pool, thereby conspiring with an unlicensed person to avoid statutory licensure requirements, and by failing to oversee the quality of the work performed by that person under Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible to prosecute administrative complaints under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules implementing those statutes. At all times material to the complaint, Raymond Hurley was licensed as a certified general contractor, holding Florida license CGC 000773 and served as the qualifying agent for Capital Resources and Development, Inc. Kenneth R. and Lucille M. Clopper, of Fort Pierce, Florida, entered into a contract with Fred Humberstone, doing business as Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, Inc., on September 21, 1987, for the construction of a pool and screened enclosure at the Clopper's home. The contract price was $15,500. Mr. Humberstone has never been a qualified contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida. Mr. Hurley became authorized to do business as a contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida, on September 29, 1987, when he provided a copy of his state certified general contractor's license, a certificate of insurance for worker's compensation and general liability property damage insurance to St. Lucie County. St. Lucie County Permit No. 44574 was issued to Capital Resources and Development, Inc., on October 9, 1987. The permit application had been dated September 24, 1987. The application bore Mr. Hurley's contractor license number. In the space for the name of the company, the application had originally been written in the name of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, of Stuart, Florida. The name of the applicant had been scratched through, and the name of Capital Resources and Development, Inc., was written over it. The application bears a handwritten signature which reads Raymond S. Hurley, but it is not his signature. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application, or authorize anyone to sign it for him. Mr. Hurley knew Mr. Humberstone, the owner of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. Humberstone had difficulty with his corporation because his qualifying contractor had left, and Humberstone owned approximately $150,000 worth of equipment which he could not use without a qualifying contractor. Humberstone made a proposal to Hurley to become the qualifying contractor for Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. It was about this time that Mr. Hurley first qualified to engage in the business of contracting in St. Lucie County. Mr. Humberstone must have pulled the permit for the Clopper jor, using Mr. Hurley's licensure in St. Lucie County. This is likely because at first, the line for the permit applicant had been filled in with the name of Humberstone's business, Southern Fiberglass Pools by the Treasure Coast. Mr. Hurley had become licensed in St. Lucie County because he was contemplating going into business with Mr. Humberstone. What cannot be determined from the evidence in the record is whether Mr. Hurley had agreed with Mr. Humberstone to make his licensure available to Mr. Humberstone so Humberstone could continue in the pool contracting business in St. Lucie County. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application for the permit at the Clopper's home. He never went to the Clopper's home to see the work or to meet the Cloppers. Had he gone into partnership with Humberstone he would likely have participated, to some extent, in the work. On this matter, the Department's proof is insufficient. After the construction at the Clopper home began, there were a number of delays in completion of the pool, and the contractor failed to install stress relief for the pool deck which resulted in cracking of the pool deck. The pool itself had three leaks. The problems with the pool remained unresolved and the Clopper's finally settled with Mr. Humberstone for payment for $1,020 in exchange for providing Mr. Humberstone with the release of liability. Ultimately, the Cloppers spend $1,659 to repair the problems created by Mr. Humberstone's inadequate work. Mr. Hurley was never at the job site, and the Cloppers never knew anything about him until after their pool had been completed; all of their dealings had been with Humberstone.
Recommendation It is recommended that the administrative complaint filed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Raymond Hurley be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of January 1991. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 31st day of January 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4233 Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner: 1-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as there is insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Hurley, although he knew Mr. Humberstone, had entered into any agreement Humberstone to become a qualifying contractor for Humberstone's corporation. While that is one inference which could be drawn from the evidence, the evidence is not strong enough to permit such finding, at the level of certainty required for clear and convincing evidence, to be made. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: 1-6. Adopted 7. Rejected. There is insufficient evidence in the record to make specific finding with respect to handwriting exemplars, but the testimony of Mr. Hurley that he did not sign the St. Lucie County permit application has been accepted. Copies furnished: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Glenn N. Blake, Esquire BLAKE & TORRES Strange Building 500 South US 1 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Robert E. Stone, Esquire SULLIVAN, STONE, SULLIVAN LaJOIE and THACKER 100 Avenue "A", Suite 1F Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2003.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This proceeding arises out of Respondent's alleged failure to remedy defects in a swimming pool that she built in 1981 which resulted in disciplinary action by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board; for failing to remedy defects in another pool that she built in 1981 whereby she allegedly made fraudulent representations and failed to honor a warranty; and for constructing a pool in 1982 after her Certificate of Competency had been revoked by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board. Respondent appeared at the hearing without counsel, and was thereupon advised of her rights and the procedures applicable to an administrative proceeding. She indicated that she understood such rights and elected to represent herself. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses and submitted 22 exhibits in evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf, but did not submit any documentary evidence. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact, and are specifically rejected.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Laura H. Eubanks is a state registered commercial pool contractor who operates Eubanks Company Big Bend Pool Builders, Tallahassee, Florida. She was originally licensed in 1975 and remained licensed at all pertinent times relative to this proceeding, but her license was in a delinquent status as of July 1, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On May 2, 1981, Respondent entered into an agreement with Thomas V. and Barbara J. Mulqueen, Jr., 6719 Johnston Loop, Tallahassee, Florida, for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at their residence for the amount of $6,725.63. On September 22, 1981, Mr. Mulqueen filed a complaint against Respondent with the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board. Mr. Olin Williams, Supervisor of Inspections for the Board, investigated the complaint and found that staples were protruding underneath the pool liner, that a water pipe leaked at the pump, apron or deck concrete cracks were caused by curing tension at inside corners, about 35 percent of the concrete deck was darker in color than the remainder of the deck, an improperly placed outlet for the pool drain permitted seepage under the pool liner, and that repairs to a neighbor's fence and the owner's driveway had not been completed. He classified those discrepancies as pertaining to workmanship. In addition, he determined that there had been a violation of the health code in that a septic tank had been broken by workmen and waste sewage had flowed into the pool excavation for a period of several days. The owner was seeking to have Respondent correct the problems and complete the job. Inspector Williams contacted the Respondent on October 12, 1981, and, although she told him that she would come to his office that day and bring the individual responsible for the job, she failed to do so. No final inspection of the work had been requested by Respondent. (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By letter dated November 12, 1981, Respondent was advised by the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board that a formal hearing had been scheduled on the complaint for December 3, 1981. A copy of the complaint and the Building Inspector's Report was enclosed, and she was advised of her right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. In fact, the hearing by the Board was held on December 4, 1981, at which the Mulqueens were present and presented their complaint, and Inspector Williams informed the Board of his investigation and subsequent actions. Respondent was not present at the hearing, although the certified mail receipt reflected the signature of "L. H. Eubanks." At the December 4th meeting, the Board voted to suspend Respondent's license with the provision that the Board would not consider reinstatement unless repairs to the Mulqueen pool were made within thirty days after December 9, 1981, and if not, then the Board would consider permanent revocation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6) By letter of January 12, 1982, the Board advised Respondent of the suspension of her license as a result of a hearing held on December 3, 1981. (No explanation was provided by Petitioner as to the discrepancy in the minutes of the Board meeting which reflected a date of December 4, 1931, and the letters sent to Respondent which stated that the hearing had been held on December 3, 1981.) Respondent was advised in the letter that the Board would not consider any application for reinstatement of Respondent's license unless repairs were effected to the Mulqueen pool within thirty days from receipt of the letter. She was further advised that if they had not been so completed, the Board would consider permanent revocation of her license, but if they had been completed within the required time, the Board would consider a written application for reinstatement at its meeting scheduled for January 28, 1982. This letter was hand delivered to Respondent's place of business on January 18, 1982. On January 20, 1982, Respondent telephoned Inspector Williams and stated that she would seek legal counsel and be at the Board meeting on January 28. She indicated to him that she had had some personal problems due to the illness of her sisters, and also had been the subject of theft (although a memo of Williams reflecting the telephone call was dated January 20, 1981, it was apparent from his testimony that the call was made on January 20, 1982.) (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 18) The Licensing Board met on January 28, 1982, and determined that Respondent's license would be revoked on February 26, 1982, if the previously noted defects had not been corrected. By letter dated February 3, 1982, she was advised by the Board of this fact and that the Board would meet again on February 25 concerning the matter. On February 25, the Board revoked Respondent's license. She was not present at the meeting. She was advised of this action by Letter of the Board, dated March 4, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 8-10) By contract dated July 15, 1981, Respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Rex Tyler at their residence in Tallahassee, Florida, for the sum of $23,784.91. The project included installation of aluminum fencing and a brick wall, together with various items of pool equipment. The agreement provided that the contractor would remedy any defects in workmanship without cost, provided written notice was provided within one year after connection of the filter. After the pool was built and paid for by the Tylers, it was found that several problems existed. A pool light continuously went on and off improperly, the motor of the pool sweep leaked, the bottom drain was not adequately secured and would be knocked off by operation of the pool sweep, step tiles were not complete, one tile popped loose, and water faucets leaked. The primary problem, however, was that the main drain would not circulate water on the bottom of the pool. The Respondent was notified of these problems by the owners and repaired some of them over the course of time, but was unable to fix the pool light or the main drain. In this regard, Respondent called upon Walter Swans, another licensed pool contractor, who determined that both the light and the drain were stopped up with "marble" finish. The Tylers were obliged to spend $312.74 to pay Swann's bill and for a plumber to repair the leaking faucets. (Testimony of McCausland, A. Tyler, Clemens, Swann, Petitioner's Exhibits 21-23) By agreement dated May 28, 1982, Respondent contracted with Charles and Brenda Short for the installation of a swimming pool at 3249 Baldwin Drive West, Tallahassee, Florida, for a price of $6,809.20. During the course of construction, Mr. Short inquired of Respondent as to the need for a building permit. She initially told him that she would get one, but later when Short asked her again about the matter, she told him that if he didn't want one it would be all right with her because otherwise it would hold up completion of the pool. Short told her that that was all right with him. He was not familiar with permit requirements. After the walls of the pool had been finished, heavy rains caused the sides of the pool to partially collapse. Inspector Williams was notified of the problem and he found that the work was being done without the required permit. He therefore posted a stop work order at the construction site. On September 1, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the Leon County Court, Case No. 82MM2702. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months. The Shorts had paid Respondent a total of $4,000 on the contract price at the time work was stopped on the pool project. They eventually settled the matter with Respondent by agreement. (Testimony of Brenda Short, Charles Short, Courtney, Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 19-20) In a civil proceeding filed by the Mulqueens against Respondent in the Leon County Circuit Court, Case No. 82-68 the parties entered into a joint stipulation of settlement under which Respondent agreed by promissory note to pay the Mulqueens the sum of $2400 with interest by 24 monthly payments of $100.00 commencing January 1, 1983. On January 27, 1983, the Leon County Contractors Licensing Examination Board reinstated Respondent's license, subject to a 12 month probationary period. By letter October 24, 1983, Mr. Mulqueen advised the County Building Inspector that Respondent had only made two payments on the settlement agreement as of March 1983. (Testimony of Courtney, Petitioner's Exhibits 13-16) Section 2C, Leon County Ordinance No. 74-22, provides that its Contractors Licensing and Examination Board has the duty to suspend or revoke "authorized contractor" certificates for violation of the ordinance, violation of the County Building and Zoning Codes, or violation of any other state, municipal, or county law upon due cause shown to the Board after a hearing. Section 1E provides that the Board must provide the certificate holder with written notice of its intent to consider the revocation or suspension of the certificate, and afford him a hearing before the Board, and that all decisions concerning suspension of revocation of certificates shall be in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had had continuing financial problems commencing a number of years ago when some of her employees were building pools "on the side" with her materials. During the time that problems arose in connection with the Mulqueen and Tyler pools, she was preoccupied with serious personal problems involving her sisters, one of whom died of cancer and the other having been in a mental hospital. She acknowledged that she should have corrected the customer complaints and regrets that she did not do so. Respondent further stated that although she attempted to pay her note to the Mulqueens, her financial situation was such that she was unable to continue meeting the payments. Although she received notice of the various hearings before the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board, she testified that she had not been thinking of the consequences and didn't even read the letters of notification which were sent to her. She also acknowledged entering into the contract with the Shorts because she was "desperate" for money to pay her various creditors. (Testimony of Eubanks)
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the registration of Respondent Laura H. Eubanks as a pool contractor for a period of three months. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 29th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura H. Eubanks 1421 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 21738, 20754, 25386 LAURA H. EUBANKS DOAH CASE NO. 83-2362 737 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Respondent. /
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not Respondent failed to properly supervise a pool construction project, willfully violated local laws, is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting and failed to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent in violation of sections 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j), and sections 489.119 and 489.105 (4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered pool contractor in Florida, holding license no. RP0015329 and served as the qualifying agent for Paradise Pools, Inc. (Request for Admission, responses 1- 4). Petitioner is the regulatory agency in Florida charged with the authority to regulate contractors and to determine compliance with applicable state and local building code requirements. On May 31, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Alex and Theresa Nitu for the construction of a swimming pool at the Nitu's residence at 9550 Lisa Road in Dade County, Florida. The following day, the Nitus were approached by John Davis, a partner of Paradise Pools, Inc. Davis identified himself as the owner of Paradise Pools and told the Nitus that Respondent was the company salesman. Davis is not a licensed contractor. During construction, Davis supervised the work for the Nitus' pool. Mrs. Nitu was ill and remained at home on the day the workers laid reinforcing steel for the pool shell. Mr. Nitu, an electrical contractor, took off work and was at home during the two days when the gunite work was done for their pool. Respondent was not present on the job site on those days. The day after the concrete deck was poured, the Nitus noticed that it contained several low spots which collected water and that rocks were protruding through the deck's surface. Additionally, a portion of the deck sloped toward the pool rather than away from it. The following day, the Nitus returned home from work to discover that the "whitecoat" for the deck surface was completed and their water hose, weighted down by a rock and a rag, was filling the pool. The pool was filled with water before the Nitus had completed a fence to secure the pool. At Mr. Nitu's request, James Tucker, a Dade County Building Inspector, inspected the pool on August 6, 1986. Tucker issued a notice of violation to Respondent for allowing water to be put in the pool without proper safety barriers in contravention of section 33-12, Dade County Code; for allowing the deck to slope toward the pool in contravention of section 5003.1 of the South Florida Building Code and for using concrete of less than 2500 psi strength in contravention of section 5003.1(a), South Florida Building Code. In an attempt to correct the low spots and improper slope of the patio, Davis poured an additional layer of cement over the pool deck and scored the surface to create the appearance of keystone. Thereafter, the Nitus discovered hollow areas under certain parts of the keystone. Eventually, the keystone began to separate from the original deck exposing large areas of the deck. Ben Sirkus was tendered and accepted as an expert in pool construction. Sirkus inspected the Nitu's pool on September 24, 1987, at Petitioner's request. Sirkus observed low spots in the pool deck which held water and contributed to the growth of algae. He also observed that large areas of the imitation keystone had separated from the original deck; that portions of the deck still drained towards rather than away from, the pool; that coping mortar had been left on the sides of the coping and the pool shell; that areas of the whitecoat were unusually rough and that the pool pump was off level, which in time could cause scoring of the bearings in the pump. Sirkus opined that the deficiencies observed could not have gone unnoticed by a pool contractor of average skill and ability; that deficiencies indicate poor supervision or gross negligence or that Respondent exhibited incompetence in contracting for the Nitu's pool. John Davis, Respondent's partner and the person who was usually on the site during all facets of the construction, credibly testified that when the angles were laid out for the sloping of the decks surrounding the Nitu's pool, Alex Nitu requested that his employees angle the deck toward the pool such that it would mesh with his patio. This required that Respondent's employees reslope the angles in accord with Mr. Nitu's wishes and contrary to the manner in which they originally sloped the deck. Mr. Davis also attempted to correct the problems that had surfaced surrounding the deck in accordance with the concerns expressed by the Nitus. However, the Nitus vehemently refused access to Respondent's employees and the matter therefore, remained unresolved. Respondent Reise was at the construction site on numerous occasions during the major facets of the construction. In addition to being the principal salesman for Paradise Pools, Respondent Reise has extensive experience in the construction of pools and frequently consulted with his partner, John Davis, about the ongoing construction of the Nitu's pool. Respondent Reise also attempted to gain access to the pool to attempt to correct the problems and other concerns expressed by the Nitus, to no avail. In this regard, a meeting was held at the Nitu's residence on January 30, 1987, by Jim Tucker and Robert Denery, employees of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, a Mr. Wolf, Petitioner's investigator, Respondent and his partner, John Davis. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that all problems were to be resolved which included (1), repair and patch the keystone on the east end of the pool and (2), rework the slope on the northside of the pool to pitch away from the pool and (3), submit test results from an engineering test lab as to the structural strength of the patio slab and final approval by the electrical and plumbing departments of Dade County. Respondent agreed to correct the above-referenced items and agreed to do so as quickly as feasible. The Nitus refused to allow Respondent's employees back on the site to correct the problems. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). John Davis and Respondent's other employees denied that they started filling the Nitu's pool prior to the time that the Nitus had completed a fence to secure it. Their denial in this regard is incredible and is not worthy of belief. The Nitus, in this regard, credibly testified that they were at all times concerned about the safety of the pool and would never have started filling it prior to the time that it was secured. Respondent's employees, on the other hand, were in fact interested in completing the job and it is therefore believed that they started the water running into the pool and weighted the hose down with a rock and a rag as the Nitus found it when they returned home from work on the day that the "whitecoat" was completed. In all other respects, based on the Nitus' failure to permit Respondent's employees to return to the site to complete the deficiencies and other concerns noted, the undersigned finds that Respondent should have been afforded an opportunity to correct such deficiencies and cannot be held liable 1/ for the allegations that he improperly sloped the pool deck, used improper concrete or was otherwise negligent, incompetent, engaged in misconduct and other allegations of improper supervision, as alleged. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Respondent be issued a written reprimand for allowing his employees to fill an unsecured pool in violation of the local building code. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 19th day of September, 1988.
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.
