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 This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent is charged with having been found guilty of a crime which relates directly to the practice of contracting in violation of 489.129(1)(b)(1979); willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building code in violation of Florida Statute 489.129(1)(d)(1979); aiding and abetting an unlicensed person in his evasion of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of 489.129 (1)(e)(1979); knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed person by allowing Respondent's license to be used by said unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of Florida Statute 489.129 (1)(f)(1979); and, violating Florida Statute 489.129(1)(j)(1979) by failing to renew his license every two years and by failing to supervise a construction project. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses the Respondent, Frederick G. Gervia, Leroy S. Duncan, John Knezevich, and Evodio Llevado. Respondent testified on his own behalf and also called as a witness Mr. L. Perry Curtis. Petitioner offered and had admitted without objection eight exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding License No. CG C003114. Respondent is also a registered general contractor having been issued License No. RG 0009802. Respondent's license CGC003114 was delinquent as of December 7, 1981, and had not been renewed for the 1981-83 licensing period. On October 11, 1981, Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. entered into a contract with Mr. Leroy Duncan to construct a fiberglass pool at Mr. Duncan's residence located at 1385 N.W. 192nd Terrace, Miami, Florida. On November 10, 1981, Respondent applied for a building permit (see Petitioner's Exhibit 2) for the pool construction at Mr. Duncan's home. The Respondent signed the application in the block designated "Signature of Qualifier or Owner-Builder". The application named Gervia Construction Company, address 2810 S.W. 78th Court as the building contractor. Gervia Construction Company was neither the general contractor nor a subcontractor in connection with the construction of the Duncan pool. At the time that he applied for the building permit, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gervia Construction Company, 2810 S.W. 78th Court, Miami, Florida 33155. The Respondent has made no request to qualify under either of his licenses as the qualifying agent for Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Neither Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. or its principals were licensed. Prior to and during construction, Mr. Leroy Duncan had no dealings at all with the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Duncan's dealings were primarily with Douglas Lake of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Mr. Duncan observed a substantial portion of the construction, but was not present during the form work for the deck. At no time did Mr. Duncan observe the Respondent working on the construction of the pool at his home. The only work performed by Mr. Gervia on the Duncan pool contract was to check the plumbing prior to the county inspection. The pool was actually installed by two principals of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. and two helpers. These persons were neither supervised nor controlled by the Respondent during construction. During the time period October 11, 1980, through initial construction of the Duncan pool, the Respondent was employed by Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. at a salary of $350 per week. One of his duties was to pull permits. Although the Respondent was also hired to supervise all field construction, at the time the Duncan pool was contracted for and constructed, his supervisory status had been eliminated. The Respondent performed no supervisory duties in connection with the Duncan pool construction. All payments from Mr. Duncan, including two checks totaling $950 and a cash payment of $6,230 were made to Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. No payments were made to the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Gervia did not hire or fire any of the persons who worked on the Duncan pool and kept no records relating to payments received or monies spent on the job at the Duncan residence. Subsequent to the pool being completed, substantial problems and flaws in the Duncan pool developed. The following problems were present in the pool: (See Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) Seven patches on South wall, below water line, are rough, discolored and flaking. The largest two are approximately 12" in diameter and 12" x 4". There is a very small depression in the shallow end seat. The pool flange at the ladder is full of depres- sions, making the edge very rough. Flange cracks at three corners are excessive and need repair. The Southwest corner has a vertical crack down the wall about 1'. See exhibits II, III, IV, and V. The pool wall thickness at corners was 3/8" but north, south and west wall were 7/32" to 1/4" thick. Several dark circles about 2" in diameter are located around perimeter flange and show where holes were drilled and patched poorly. . . Four hydrostatic valves seem high to effectively counteract buoyancy, but approved plan approves 1' above floor at deep end plus one valve in main drain [could not check with pool full]. See notes 9, 10 & 11 - William Meyers plan. 13' x 30' x 72" pool actually measures 12'-11" x 29'-8" x 71 1/8" deep. Vertical floor variations in shallow end are about 1 3/4". Seems depressions occur between ribs. A small bow occurs at Northwest corner near surface of water. Area covers about 18" square. Some concrete voids occur beneath pool lip. Pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Duncan, the Respondent and Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. have repaired those items listed in paragraph 9 in an excellent manner and to the full satisfaction of the owner, Leroy Duncan. On November 17, 1982, the Respondent was convicted in the County Court of Dade County, Florida, of unlawfully aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor in violation of Section 10-22(h) of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was required to pay a $500 fine. The Respondent has been a licensed certified general contractor in the State of Florida since November, 1971, and has had no other charges or actions against his license. There have also been no other complaints filed with the Petitioner regarding the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of those specific violations as set forth in the Conclusions of Law above and that his license as a certified general contractor be suspended for a period of six months and that the Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 20th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Frederick G. Gervia 2810 Southwest 78th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent is James J. Hastings, the holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of general contractor license number CG C009847. He is also the qualifying agent for Hastings Construction Co., Inc. James and Susan Cesiro, owners of a residence in Palm Bay, Florida, entered into a contract on June 13, 1985, with Mike Boyer, proprietor of a business known as American Fiberglass Pools, to furnish and install a swimming pool. The total contract price was $8500. The owners gave Boyer a $1,500 check at the time the contract was executed. On July 9, 1985, Boyer's employee obtained a second check from the owners for an additional $1,500 allegedly to complete the $3,000 required down payment. Unfortunately, the employee persuaded the owners to make this check payable to the employee personally. The employee subsequently disappeared after cashing the check. This complication resulted in some delay in the initiation of construction activities. On August 12, 1985, the owners were informed by Boyer that a contractor had been retained to install the fiberglass pool. On August 28, 1985, Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Palm Bay authorizing the pool construction. The permit identified Respondent's company, Hastings Construction Co., Inc., as the contractor. The owners issued a check in the amount of $2,500 on September 6, 1985. Delivery of the check was made to Boyer, but was made payable to Respondent. In view of their past experience with furnishing a check payable to a party other than Boyer or his company, the owners obtained a receipt for the check from Boyer. The owners gave another check in the amount of $500 to Boyer on September 9, 1985. This check was also made payable to Respondent. Again, a receipt was obtained from Boyer by the owners. On September 23, 1985, Respondent personally received another check from the owners in the amount of $2,500. In September, 1985, after receipt of funds from the owners, Respondent and Boyer proceeded with the pool installation. While Boyer was present at the site more than Respondent, the Respondent was present every day at periodic intervals. The owners had the impression that Respondent was new at the installation of this type of pool. Boyer seemed to be more in charge of the construction and Respondent appeared to defer to him on questions asked by the owners during the installation process. This impression was confirmed at hearing by Respondent's admission that this was his first experience with this kind of pool. He had never "lifted pools over houses" and viewed the entire job as a "learning experience." Because of the tutorial nature of the situation, Respondent said he didn't enter into a formal contract with the owners. In May 1986, cracks appeared in the bottom of a portion of the pool. Respondent took the position that the pool should be repaired by Boyer under terms of the owners agreement with that individual. Respondent never prepared or accepted an assignment of the contract made by Boyer with the owners. Respondent is not an officer or employee of Boyer's business. Respondent is not a qualifying agent for Boyer or American Fiberglass Pools and those names do not appear on his license. The owners were never apprised that Respondent was "their" contractor. Respondent's testimony that a letter was sent from him to the owners on August 30, 1985, informing them of this fact is not credited in view of the Respondent's candor and demeanor while testifying on this point, the fact that he had obtained the building permit on August 28, 1985, and the owners denial that such letter was ever received. Respondent's credibility on this point was further undermined at one point in the hearing when he stated he was given this job by Boyer. Mike Boyer is not, and has never been, licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board in accordance with Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent was aware that Boyer was not a licensed contractor. Respondent was previously disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board in Petitioner's case numbers 430077 and 50057, on or about October 29, 1984 and February 4, 1985, respectively. Discipline in the form of a $250 fine was imposed in the former case for Respondent's failure to qualify a company through which he was doing business and for deceptive representations in the practice of contracting. The latter disciplinary action resulted in the imposition of a $250 fine upon Respondent or suspension of his license for 60 days due to aiding and abetting an unlicensed individual and failing to qualify a business with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending Respondent's licensure to practice contracting for one year and assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $2000. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 18th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5328 The following constitutes my specific rulings on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. Included in finding number 2. Included in findings numbered 3 and 15. The last sentence is rejected as noncorroborative hearsay. Included in part in finding number 4. Included in part in finding number 5. Included in finding number 6. Included in findings numbered 7, 8, and 9. Included in finding number 10. Included in finding number 12. Included in finding number 13. Included in finding number 16. The Respondent submitted a document entitled Proposed Findings of Fact. The document consists of five unnumbered paragraphs in the nature of a closing argument as opposed to proposed findings of specific facts. This document of the Respondent has been reviewed by the Hearing Officer and numbers 1-5 applied to the paragraphs therein. Rulings on those paragraphs are as follows: Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary with the exception of the proffered August 30, 1985 letter. In this regard see finding number 14. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as a conclusion of law not supported by the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. James J. Hastings 836 19th Place Vero Beach, Florida 32962 William O'Neil Department of Professional Regulation General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seeley, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wesley Ash, currently holds license number CP C015871 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to authorize Ash to engage in the pool contracting business. Dodd Complaint (Count I). Respondent, Wesley Ash, doing business as Wada Pools, Inc., contracted with Jerry Dodd on or about June 17, 1981, to build a pneumatic concrete pool with skimmer and recirculation system. The contract did not include installation of the concrete deck around the pool. Dodd decided to contract with another independent contractor to install the deck at a lower price than Ash wanted for the job. Ash completed his work by approximately August 1981. He installed the concrete pool shell, finished the inside surface and installed tile along the water line. He then attached the skimmer assembly, plumbing it so that it was level and attaching it to the concrete pool shell by means of the skimmer's PVC plumbing piping. After Ash finished his work, Dodd's other contractor came behind Ash. He used some of the dirt Ash had excavated from the pool site to raise the ground surrounding the pool by approximately six inches above grade. He then poured the concrete deck but failed to encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete in the process of pouring the concrete deck. It was not Ash's practice to make any special arrangements to stabilize the skimmer assembly when he installed both pool and concrete deck. He relies on the skimmer assembly plumbing to stabilize the skimmer assembly until the concrete deck is poured. In pouring the concrete deck, Ash encases the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete to stabilize the skimmer assembly and prevent leakage. In the case of the Poland pool (paragraphs 17 and 22, below), Ash used this method to install both the pool and the concrete deck, and Poland has had no complaint of leakage at the skimmer (nor was there any evidence of leakage at the skimmer). In the case of the Priests' pool (paragraphs 11 through 13, below), Ash followed the same procedures as he did with the Dodd pool, and another contractor poured the concrete deck. As with the Poland pool, there have been no complaints (nor was there any evidence) of leakage at the skimmer. Within approximately one and one-half years after installation of the Dodd pool, Dodd began to notice what he thinks is a leak in his pool. The water level in the Dodd pool drops approximately one-quarter inch per day. But the Department's own expert witness conceded that water loss of between one-eight and one-quarter inch can be explained by evaporation. It was not proved that the Dodd pool is leaking at all. If there is a leak causing a small increment of water loss above loss through normal evaporation, the leak would have to be very small and would be very difficult to detect. Ash and others have tried but have been unable to find a leak at the skimmer of Dodd pool. In approximately summer 1985, Dodd himself dug a hole under the concrete deck to expose the bottom of the skimmer assembly. The excavation revealed an unusual amount of moisture that might be the result of a leak at the skimmer. It also revealed that the contractor who poured the Dodd concrete deck did not encase the skimmer assembly as Ash had thought he would. The Department's expert - a professional engineer with a B.S. degree in civil engineering, an M.S. degree in structural engineering and a Ph.D. degree in environmental engineering - gave his opinion that a residential pool skimmer assembly should be either (1) encased with the concrete of the pool shell or (2) encased with deck concrete which is structurally tied to the concrete pool shell. He opined that the latter method would require either a very rough surface on the pool shell concrete or steel extending from the pool shell in order for the structural tie to be accomplished. But he also conceded that it is possible for deck concrete encasing a skimmer assembly to be sufficient to stabilize the skimmer assembly even without taking any extra measures to accomplish a structural tie. There was no evidence that any building code would require a pool contractor to take these measures to accomplish a structural tie between the pool shell and skimmer assembly. Nor was there any evidence that a reasonably prudent pool contractor (as opposed to a professional engineer) would be expected to take these measures. Based on this evidence, together with all the other evidence taken as a whole, the Department did not prove that Ash was either incompetent or grossly negligent in not taking any extra measurers to accomplish a structural tie between the concrete pool shell and the skimmer assembly. Based on the evidence in this case, the contractor Dodd hired to pour the concrete deck was either incompetent or grossly negligent (assuming he was even a licensed pool contractor a fact not shown by the evidence.) He did not encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete, allowing it to "float" unprotected in the fill under the concrete deck. Settling of the fill could have caused the deck to settle and crack, moving the skimmer assembly and causing a small leak. Ash may have been able to prevent this by warning the contractor to be sure to encase the skimmer assembly with deck concrete when he poured the concrete deck. But there was no evidence that Ash had a duty to advise the other independent contractor Dodd hired or was responsible for the other contractor's incompetence or gross negligence. Ash's failure to advise the other contractor was not incompetence or gross negligence on Ash's part. Dodd has no other complaints about the pool Ash built for him. Priests' Complaint (Count II). On or about October 11, 1984, Ash contracted with Joseph and Rita Priest to build them a pneumatic concrete pool. The Contract included a warranty that the labor, materials and workmanship would be free of defects for one year and that the shell would be structural sound and capable of holding the water for ten years. Like Dodd, the Priests contracted with another independent contractor to install the concrete deck around the pool. Ash was responsible only for placement of decorative "river rock" on top of the deck. Ash finished his work in February 1985. Like Dodd, the Priests complained of water loss from the pool although the Priests noticed the water loss sooner than Dodd (approximately March, 1985). The water level was dropping approximately one-quarter inch per day more than it was dropping in a bucket used as a control. In response to the complaint, Ash sent his employees to the Priests' pool on several occasions. They found no leak at the skimmer. To determine whether the pool's "caretaker system" 1/ was leaking, Ash's employees plugged all but one pair of the caretaker heads. After waiting a period of days, they would try to see whether the rate of water loss changed. They tested all four pairs of caretaker heads on the bottom of the pool and the pair in the spa attached to the pool. No leaks could be found. They did not replace the last two (in the spa), and Mr. Priest had to replace them. As with the Dodd pool, the Department did not prove that the Priests' pool is leaking at all. The Priests continue to complain of water loss of approximately one-quarter inch per day, within the range of water loss from normal evaporation. As with the Dodd pool, a leak responsible for a small increment of water loss above water loss from normal evaporation would be very small and difficult to find, especially if the leak were in the caretaker heads or pipes under the pool leading to the heads. Now the Priests suspect a water leak at the filter. But the Department's expert witness could not find a leak there large enough to account for much water loss. The minor leak at the filter is a normal maintenance item for a pool as old as the Priests' pool. There was no evidence how long it has existed, and there was no evidence that the Priests ever told Ash there was a leak at the filter. The Priests now also complain that one of the caretaker heads does not re-seat properly. But this has nothing to do with the leakage complaint to which Ash is charged with not reasonably responding. Taken as a whole, the evidence did not prove that Ash committed misconduct or deceit by failing to make reasonable response to warranty service requests within a reasonable time, as charged. Nor does the evidence prove misleading or untrue representations, gross negligence, incompetence or fraud in connection with the Priests' pool, as charged. Poland Complaint (Count III). On or about December 9, 1981, Ash entered into a contract with James Poland to build Poland a pneumatic concrete pool and concrete deck. Poland contracted with another independent contractor to build a screen enclosure around the pool. Before construction began, one of Ash's employees asked Poland to sign an addendum to the contract for an additional $235 to pay for foundation footers required to comply with Lee County building code provisions for the screen enclosures. Before Ash signed the initial Poland contract on December 9, 1981, he was unaware of the Lee County Aluminum Code, adopted March 18, 1981. The code requires eight inch foundation footers for "aluminum additions." Another part of the code addresses "screen enclosures with screen roofs known to the industry as birdcage swimming pool enclosures." The language of the code is not explicit that screen swimming pool enclosures are required to meet the foundation requirements for "aluminum additions," and at first Lee County did not interpret the code that way. With a change of personnel in code enforcement, Lee County began to interpret the code that way, and screen swimming pool enclosures Ash had under construction began to fail building inspection for inadequate foundation footers. Ash inquired why and was told about the aluminum code and how it was being interpreted. Ash argued that the interpretation was erroneous but, failing to dissuade enforcement personnel, began to comply. As part of his compliance efforts, Ash had his employees try to secure the contract addendum from Poland. Poland refused to sign the contract addendum, insisting on an opportunity to verify that the additional foundation footers were indeed new building code requirements. There still is a dispute between the parties whether Poland ever agreed to pay the additional $235 after he verified that the footers were being required. (He never signed the contract addendum.) But, in any event, the evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct in connection with the additional $235 charge. 2/ There was some evidence that Ash did not in fact comply with the Lee County Aluminum Code, as he was told it was being interpreted, in his construction of the Poland pool deck. In two places the foundation footers were 6 and 7 inches - deeper than the four-inch normal thickness of a concrete pool deck but short of the eight-inch requirement. But Ash was not charged with failure to comply with the foundation footer requirement. He had no legally sufficient notice that he should be prepared to defend against that charge and was not prepared to defend against that charge. Therefore, no finding is made whether Ash complied with the Lee County Aluminum Code. Ash performed the Poland contract between approximately January 27 and February 26, 1982. In September, 1985, Poland began to notice that some of the tile Ash installed at the waterline around the perimeter of the pool was coming loose. As explained by the Department's expert witness, the concrete deck settled in places, cracking slightly and rotating over the fulcrum created by the wall of the concrete shell of the pool. The rotating action pulled up on the tile attached to the inside of the pool wall in places, loosening the tile. In all, less than 10 percent of the 77 foot perimeter of the Poland pool experienced problems with loose tile. The loose tile easily can be removed and replaced. The minor deck cracking and loose tile problems at the Poland pool are within the normal range for a competently constructed pool under normal conditions of ground settlement. The evidence did not prove that Ash improperly installed the pool deck or that he was incompetent or grossly negligent in the construction of the Poland pool and deck. Besides the loose tile and minor cracks in the concrete deck, the Poland pool had no apparent defects. There also was evidence that the Poland pool was finished with a coating of marcite on the inside surface of the pool shell which was mottled gray in color instead of white. Poland complained persistently about the marcite3 and insisted that Ash make it white. But the discolored marcite was a factory defect of which Ash had been unable to know before he used it. There is no way to make mottled gray marcite white. Ash tried to explain this to Poland but the customer would not be satisfied. Taken as a whole, the marcite evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct. Nor does the evidence prove any of those violations for failure to cure the marcite problem under warranty. First, as already stated, there was no cure. Second, Ash and Poland also had a running dispute whether Poland had paid the full contract price, including the additional $235 for foundation footers, so as to entitle him to any warranty repairs. In light of this genuine dispute, failure to do warranty work, if otherwise a reasonable request, still could not be found to be misconduct, fraud or deceit.
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 dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint that has been filed against Respondent, Wesley Ash, in these cases. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of December, 1986.
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.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's certified pool contractor's license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined based upon the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent held a license from the Petitioner as a certified pool contractor. The license was number CP C019024. In March 1986, Frank Puleo spoke with Paul C. Nutting about the purchase and installation of a pool at Mr. Puleo's residence in Ormond Beach, Florida. Mr. Nutting worked for Tillman Pool Company, a manufacturer of fiberglass pools. Tillman Pool Company agreed to sell a pool to Mr. Puleo and recommended that the Respondent install the pool for Mr. Puleo. Mr. Puleo and the Respondent spoke about the installation of the pool and on March 22, 1986, Mr. Puleo signed a "Proposal" from the Respondent dated March 19, 1986. The Proposal specified that the Respondent would perform the following services: Installation of 15' x 32', Tillman fiberglass pool, & 8' X 10' spa--including the following: pulling all permits excavation & rough grading electrical to existing [sic] service plumbing, inc. pipe, fittings, valves crane chg. to put pool over house installing a 4" reinforced concrete deck w/kool deck topping see plan - Page 2, which is part of this proposal This proposal is for labor only, except for materials required with plumbing & electrical & concrete deck. In consideration for the services to be performed by the Respondent, Mr. Puleo agreed to pay the Respondent $3,700.00, payable as follows: At start of job--$2,000.00, when waters [sic] in pool--equipment is installed & deck is formed up (not poured) $1,400.00, on completion-- $300.00. In the Proposal it was indicated that the Proposal was: From: Keith Lanphear, DBA/ K.L. Construction 1480 Lakeview Drive Deland, Fl. 32720 Work began on the installation of the pool for Mr. Puleo on April 8, 1986. On that date Mr. Puleo paid the Respondent $2,000.00 by check. The check was made payable to "Keith Lanphear K & L Construction." Mr. Puleo made additional payments to the Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 by check dated April 14, 1986, and in the amount of $400.00 by check dated April 24, 1986. The April 14, 1986, check was payable to "Keith Lanphear K & L Const." and the April 24, 1986, check was payable to "Keith Lanphear K & L Construction." The Respondent agreed to move the location of the spa for an additional $100.00. The Standard Building Code of 1982 has been adopted by the City of Ormond Beach as Section 8-2 of the Ormond Beach Code. Pursuant to the Standard Building Code of 1982, a building permit for the installation of a fiberglass pool must be obtained and certain inspections must be passed. The contractor is responsible for insuring that inspections are made and that the installation of the pool satisfies the inspections. The Respondent obtained a building permit on April 8, 1986, for the construction of Mr. Puleo's pool. One of the inspections which must be passed for the construction of a swimming pool is a deck inspection. This inspection must be performed before concrete decking is poured. If the construction fails the deck inspection, the inspector leaves a notice of the violation indicating the deficiencies. The deficiencies must be corrected and the inspection must be passed before the deck is poured. Although the electrical contractor arranges for the deck inspection; the general contractor is ultimately responsible for insuring that the deck inspection is passed. At least one deck inspection was performed on Mr. Puleo's pool. It was performed on April 23, 1986. Upon completion of the inspection, the inspector indicated "deck grounding ok - 4/23/86" on an inspection card which was left at Mr. Puleo's. The initials "K.S." followed the note with an arrow pointing to the following: (Ground wire not long) (enough to go to plumb) No splice allowed. The concrete decking was poured by the Respondent on April 24, 1986. No reinspection was asked for before the concrete was poured. A Notice of Additions or Corrections was issued on May 12, 1986. This Notice was issued by a different inspector than the inspector who performed the deck inspection on April 23; 1986. The Notice, at the time it was issued, indicated the following: Inspection on deck rejected in April did no [sic] call for reinspection on compaction around pool ground wire not long enough heater not supported motor not The above quoted words were written in ink. At a later date, the initials "EM," three notations of "OK" and the date "5/19/86" were added to the Notice in pencil. Final approval was also noted on the inspection card at Mr. Puleo's residence with the initials "EM," the date "5/19/86" and "(Ed McCoy)" also noted. These notations were included under "Electrical Inspection." In order to get equipment to Mr. Puleo's backyard, where the pool was to be installed, a portion of a wooden fence on the side of Mr. Puleo's house had to be removed. In excavating the hole where the pool was to be installed, part of a sprinkler system had to be removed. Mr. Puleo was informed prior to the removal of this portion of the sprinkler system that the Respondent was not responsible for reconnection of the sprinkler system. Mr. Puleo agreed. After excavating the hole, the fiberglass pool which Mr. Puleo had purchased from Tillman Pool Company was delivered and lifted by crane over Mr. Puleo's house and placed into the ground. After the pool was placed into the ground, water was jetted under the pool in an effort to fill any open areas, or voids, between the ground and the pool with dirt. To properly install a pool, the following process should be followed: On an in-ground fiberglass pool basically when you start construction you do your layup to find--figure out where the pool is going in. You start your dig. You do a one-foot overdig. Otherwise, the size of the pool is exceeded by one foot. You go ahead and dig to your elevations of the depth of the pool. Then you set your pool. You see if you have any voids. If you have any major voids, you lift the pool back out of the ground again, shape your hole to match the pool, because every time a pool's made there will be a little bit of difference in the thickness of the pool. And at any given time it can vary a little bit. Then you go ahead and set the pool; you get inside the pool; make sure you do not have any major voids, like I said. Then you put a little bit of the water in the pool and you start water-packing the water underneath the pool and around the pool. As you are doing that water-pack and bringing the water up, you make sure you get a good solid floor all the way around the pool. The same goes for the walls. It is critical on fiberglass a pool that basically you keep the water just a few inches to possibly six inches above your dirt fill and as you're filling in your dirt you keep it water-packed. That is the most critical part of a fiberglass pools is, you fill the pool up with water and at the same time you are using water to brush the dirt underneath the pool and around the pool to make it a solid base. And at any time if you let the water on the outside of the pool exceed it, you can have the pool float up. And if you don't water-pack it right and you have too much water, you bow the walls, or vice versa. It's very critical. That's the most critical part of the whole installation. See Transcript, page 107-108. If a pool is properly installed, there will be no more than 1/2 to 1 inch of flexibility in the pool before it strikes dirt. The pool installed by the Respondent at Mr. Puleo's had 4 to 5 inches of flexibility in the shallow end of the pool. Even with that much flexibility, the pool did not touch dirt. This much flexibility can cause the pool to crack. The area where the pool becomes deeper is called the "break area." At the break area in the pool installed at Mr. Puleo's, there was excessive flexibility. There was also excessive flexibility at several points on the bottom of the pool. The break area had a large bow in it--it was buckling downward. The area near the steps in the shallow end of the pool was stretched and had a small crack in it. There was also a crack on the side of the pool. The condition of the pool described in findings of fact 22 through 27 was caused by the failure to place the pool in the ground properly and/or the failure to properly water-pack dirt under and around the pool after it was set into the ground. Mr. Puleo tried to contact the Respondent by telephone and letter to inform him of the condition of the pool. Mr. Puleo was unsuccessful and the Respondent did not check to insure that there were no problems with the pool after he left. Mr. Nutting made an effort to correct the problems with the manner in which the pool was installed. Two pick-up truck loads of dirt were brought to the site and packed under and around the pool. Some of the problems still persist. The pool installed by the Respondent at Mr. Puleo's residence was not installed in a competent manner. Dirt from the hole in which the pool was installed was taken to a site not too far from Mr. Puleo's residence. After the pool was installed, the Respondent had to bring dirt back in order to fill in around the pool. In order to bring dirt onto the site, the Respondent was given permission to take down a portion of the wood fence on the other side of Mr. Puleo's house. This portion of the fence was not put back up by the Respondent after completion of the installation of the pool. Although there was testimony indicating that dirt was taken from Mr. Puleo's yard to fill in around the pool and that the sprinkler system was damaged, the evidence failed to support such a finding of fact. The evidence proved that a portion of the sprinkler system where the pool was installed had to be removed, but the Respondent was not responsible for reinstalling this portion. The evidence concerning alleged damage to other portions of the sprinkler system is rejected. The Proposal indicated that the concrete deck to be installed by the Respondent was to be 4 inches thick and was to be reinforced. The deck poured by the Respondent was not 4 inches thick. There were a number of locations where the deck was only 2 and 1/2 to 3 inches thick. This was the thickness of the deck at the edge and between the edge of the deck and the pool. The reinforcing of the deck consisted of steel mesh. It should have been installed within the concrete. In fact, the mesh was barely in the concrete in places and not in the concrete at all in others. The mesh would not, therefore, serve its function of strengthening the concrete and keeping it from cracking. The deck also has an inadequate number of control joints. Soil was not properly filled in around the deck after it was installed. As a result of the manner in which the deck was installed, there are an excessive number of cracks in the deck. The thickness of the deck is inconsistent with industry standards and the City of Ormond Beach Code. The deck should be a minimum of 3 and 1/2 inches thick. The last amount paid by Mr. Puleo was $251.38. This amount was paid on September 12, 1986, to Rich Electric for electrical work performed. The Respondent failed to reconnect the portion of the fence which was removed when work was first begun at Mr. Puleo's residence. This was contrary to the permit pulled by the Respondent which indicated "Existing chain link fence to be replaced." The Respondent has not obtained a license in the name of K.L. Construction or K & L Construction, although he has operated under those names.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), for failing to qualify K. L. Construction pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes (1985), and for incompetence and/or misconduct. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j); Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to discharge his supervisory duty as qualifying agent in violation of Sections 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes (1985), and Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a certified pool contractor be suspended for a period of one year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year after reinstatement of his license. The terms and conditions of probation should be determined by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of November 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 10th day of November 1987. APPENDIX Case Number 87-2008 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number* of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-1 Not a proposed finding of fact. 2-1 to 3-2 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4-1 See 17 and 32-33. 4-2 Hereby accepted to the extent that there was no evidence concerning water filtering for the spa. The fence was not properly reinstalled, however. 4-3 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5-1 Not a proposed finding of fact. 6-1 to 6-3 See 11-15. 7-1 to 7-7 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8-1 Not a proposed finding of fact. 8-2 to 8-7 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9-1 to 9-3 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 10-1 to 10-7 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11-1 36. Hereby accepted. to 11-6 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12-1 to 12-5 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. * The Respondent did not number his proposed findings of fact. The "Proposed Finding of Fact Numbers" indicate the number of the paragraph first and then the number of the sentence within that paragraph. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Keith Lanphear 1480 Lakeview Drive Deland, Florida 32720 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is Phillip Whitaker, Jr., holder of certified pool contractor license number CP-C008325 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. He is the qualifying agent for the business known as Sunshine State Pools pursuant to requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He is responsible for actions of that business relating to construction of the swimming pool which is the subject of this proceeding. His address of record is Miami, Florida. The customer, Ken Gibson, signed a contract with Sunshine State Pools on September 15, 1986. The contract called for construction of a residential swimming pool at 15840 S.W. 155th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The total contract price was $12,700. Testimony adduced at hearing establishes that Sunshine State Pools completed the layout of the customer's swimming pool and the excavation of soil from the proposed pool site by October 1, 1986. These tasks were accomplished under the Respondent's supervision. Metropolitan Dade County issued a building permit for construction of the swimming pool in response to a permit application bearing the signature of Phillip E. Whitaker. The permit and application are both dated October 10, 1986. At hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that initiation of construction prior to pulling the permit and termed this action an "oversight." Based on the candor, demeanor and experience of the Respondent, his explanation of the failure to timely obtain the construction permit is not credited. Initiation of construction for a swimming pool prior to obtaining permits constitutes a violation of part 301.1(n), of the South Florida Building Code and, by stipulation of the parties at hearing, the building code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Respondent was responsible for supervision of the actual pool shell construction. After completion and removal of the wood forms used in the process, steel rods or "rebar pins" required as support during the construction process were not removed. These rods extended some distance above the ground and posed a substantial hazard to Respondent's children while playing. Finally, the steel rods were removed by the customer a week after he requested the Respondent to remove them. Respondent admitted some of these reinforcements could have been left by his subordinates. Respondent admits responsibility for the "back fill" process completed on October 25, 1986. This was originally a responsibility of the customer under the contract as the party responsible for deck construction. The "back fill" process consists of compacting loose soil between the outside of the pool walls and surrounding earth by use of special tamping or pounding equipment. Under terms of the contract, the customer was responsible for construction of a sizeable two part deck surrounding at least sixty percent of the pool's circumference. There now exists a substantial height difference between the coping surrounding the perimeter of the pool and the deck or patio surface. The coping is elevated above the top of the patio approximately two to four inches. As adduced from testimony of Ben Sirkus (stipulated by both parties as an expert in swimming pools and swimming pool construction), coping along the top of the pool walls consists of flagstone rock in conformity with the contract terms. Some of the rocks are cracked. The rocky edge of the coping extends over the pool wall and has a dangerously sharp edge. The sharp edge of the coping overhang could have been avoided by cutting the flagstone coping smooth prior to installation, the acceptable practice among pool contractors. The bottom step to one set of the pool steps has a hazardous 19 inch riser as opposed to the 12 inch distance required by the building code. No hand rail is present. Hollow space under some of the coping stones are the result of either improper installation, dirty cement or sinking of the deck as a result of improper "back filling" upon completion of the pool shell. On one occasion, Respondent admitted responsibility for deficiencies in the pool coping to an employee named Rick Miro. The Respondent further stated to this employee that he intended to do nothing about the problem. Respondent was present during some, but not all, of the coping installation. The "skimmer," the apparatus by which debris is cleared from the pool water, is inoperable as a result of faulty construction of the pool. The failure of the Respondent, who admits to successful completion of approximately 2500 pools with only three complaints, to properly supervise job site activities was the major cause of the pool deficiencies identified at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and assessed an administrative penalty in the amount of $1500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5053 The following constitutes my specific ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Included in finding 2. Included in finding 3. Included in finding 4. Included in findings 5, 6 and 7. Included in findings 5 and 6. Included in finding 8. Included in finding 10 with exception of hearsay statement. Included in finding 11.1 Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding 11. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark D. Press, Esquire 2250 Southwest Third Avenue 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33129 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Legal Affairs ("Petitioner"), is the enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Beginning in 1974, and until its involuntary dissolution in approximately May, 1980, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., was engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and installing fiberglass swimming pools to the consuming public. To induce the public to enter into written contracts for the purchase of these pools, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., disseminated promotional brochures and "fact sheets" which contained representations as to the quality, nature, durability, and characteristics of its pools. Specifically, the following representations in promoting the swimming pools were made: That the pools were constructed with fiberglass and inert materials that never deteriorate; That the pools are resistant to cracking, leaking, and erosion, as well as fading mildew, rotting, rust, shattering, breaking or tearing apart; That the color in the pools is permanently molded and resists fading and never requires painting; That each pool was factory made to perfection from a perfect mold; That the pools are stain-resistant and virtually maintenance free; That the pools' high quality, one piece construction contained no seams, guaranteeing that the pools would never leak; That no need would ever exist to replaster or repair cracks or holes in the pools; That the non-porous surface of the swimming pools would stay bright and beautiful; and No professional maintenance service would ever be needed on the pool During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed concerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed con- cerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: The contractor warrants that all material used in completing the installation con- tracted herein will be new and that all work will be done in a workmanlike manner; that if any substantial defect occurs in workmanship, it will be remedied without cost to the owner if written notice is given the contractor within one year after pool completion, provided pool and equip- ment have been maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the contractor; and further provided that such defect is not the result of an act of God or the sub-soil or strata of the ground or the water table or circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. . . . In addition, Gold Key Pools, Inc., also made the following warranty on its pools: Gold Key Pools, Inc. warrants that all Gold Key Pools, Inc. fiberglass pool shells shall perform in a satisfactory manner with normal usage and proper care and will not rip, rust, or tear apart under normal conditions for a period of 25 years from the date of installation. This warranty shall apply only when the pool is installed by an authorized Gold Key Dealer, in accordance with our installation instructions, or by the homeowner with our supervision as per installation procedures. Within 1 year of original purchase, the factory or an authorized factory service center will repair or replace for the original purchaser any part of the fiberglass pool shell which is defective, at no costs to the original purchaser. After one year, but within 25 years of date of purchase the factory or an authorized service center will repair for the original purchaser any part of the pool shell which is defective, but the cost of Labor will be borne by the original purchaser. . . . On or about October 12, 1977, Gold Key Pools, Inc., entered into a contract for the installation of a pool and pool decking with Donald F. Planasch. Within three months after the pool was installed, the purchaser began to experience problems including cracking of the decking and hairline cracks in the pool, with consequent water loss. Gold Key attempted repairs on eight to ten occasions, but was unsuccessful. Gold Key stopped responding to complaints from the purchase in early May of 1979. On or about July 29, 1978, Gold Key entered into a contract with Edward Simmon for the installation of a pool and deck. Almost immediately after installation of the pool, the purchaser began to experience problems which included cracking of the pool shell. Gold Key attempted repairs on two or three occasions, each of which was unsuccessful. The purchaser subsequently effected repairs to the pool with another contractor. In August of 1977, Gold Key entered into a contract to install a pool and concreted decking with Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Rickert. Soon after the pool and decking were installed, the Rickerts began to experience the cracking in the concrete decking area immediately surrounding the pool. Gold Key was notified of the problem, but never effectively repaired the deck. On or about April 20, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with James March to install a pool on his property. Within six to eight months from the installation of the pool, cracks and holes developed in the surface of the pool. Gold Key was notified of these defects, but no repairs were ever attempted by Gold Key. On August 23, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with Terry Rose for the installation of a pool and decking. Shortly after installation, the purchaser experienced problems with the development of holes in the surface of the pool, some of which were almost one-inch deep, and cracks in the decking. Although Gold Key was advised of these problems, no repairs were made to them. On or about July 9, 1975, Gold Key entered into a contract for the installation of a pool on the property of Charles Young. Within one year of the installation of the pool, the purchaser experienced cracks in the surface of the pool, with consequent leakage of water from the pool. Despite having received notification, Gold Key never sent anyone to examine the problems with the pool. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Arnold F. Morris, was a shareholder, president and director of Gold Key Pools, Inc. Respondent, John Perez, was the secretary of the corporation from 1975 until his resignation in 1980. Respondent Perez was never a shareholder of Gold Key, and had no responsibility over sales, marketing, or the preparation of contracts related to sales of pools. No evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that any pool purchaser ever spoke to either Respondents Morris or Perez prior to the purchase of their pools. Sometime in 1979, Gold Key Pools, Inc., experienced a serious fire, which destroyed its manufacturing capacity. From the standpoint of manufacturing, Gold Key Pools, Inc., essentially went out of business shortly thereafter. However, Gold Key Pools did maintain a service force of employees to service pools which it had already sold for sometime after the fire. In approximately May, 1980, Gold Key Pools, Inc., ceased doing business at all. At the time it ceased doing business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., for all intents and purposes had no assets.
