Findings Of Fact Respondent was registered with Petitioner as a pool contractor, Registration No. RP0017996, from January to June 30, 1974 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.) On February 22, 1974, Respondent entered into a contract with John G. Hartong, 813 Kings Bay Drive Southwest, Crystal River, Florida, to construct a screened swimming pool for the total price of $7,331.25. Construction of the pool began in July of 1974. Prior to that time, Respondent sent his foreman to the building department of Citrus County to obtain a building permit for the job because the county had issued such permits for work in Crystal River in the past. In actuality, the City of Crystal River began issuing such permits for construction work in that community commencing June 15, 1974. Neither Citrus County nor the City of Crystal River issued a permit for the work at the Hartong residence. Respondent assumed that his foreman had obtained the necessary permit and did not inquire into the matter further. City officials of Crystal River discovered the job in progress in late July. At that time, the gunite for the pool was about two-thirds completed and it would have been impossible to inspect unless everything was "pulled out". Respondent had been ill during this period and receiving daily medical checkups. As a result, he had entrusted his foreman with a great deal more responsibility than usual. Respondent normally had five to ten pool jobs in progress at the same time. In August, 1974, Respondent suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Work apparently ceased on the Hartong pool at this point or somewhat earlier and, after numerous attempts to contact Respondent as to completion of the work, Mr. Hartong secured another contractor to do so. However, this firm required that Hartong obtain a release from Respondent prior to taking over the work. Hartong therefore visited Respondent in the hospital and the parties settled the matter by executing a release. Prior to entering the hospital, Respondent had been on the Hartong job on only two different occasions and his first contact from city officials came just before he was hospitalized. After the parties had entered into their settlement, Respondent did no further work on the pool. In October, 1974, the building official of Crystal River advised Respondent by correspondence that he should obtain a permit for the work and furnished him an application for a local Certificate of Competency as a contractor. Although Respondent submitted an application for such a certificate, the city tabled the application pending his compliance with city ordinances concerning permit requirements for the Hartong pool. In view of his release from Hartong, Respondent did not pursue the matter any further. Hartong had been particularly disturbed by the fact that electrical wires from a switch on the wall of his house ran to the pool deck and when the switch was on, the wires were live. He was fearful that his children might put them in the water and create a shock hazard (Testimony of Pulver, Hartong, duPlanti, Respondent; Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3, Petitioner's Exhibits 4 & 6.) About the middle of 1974, Respondent entered into a contract with Craig Marlett to build a pool. It was not established at the hearing as to whether this work was to be performed in Citrus County or within the city limits of Crystal River. Respondent testified that there was no building permit obtained for this work, but that he had subcontracted the job to his foreman and provided him with funds to obtain a proper permit. However, he did not check to see if one had been obtained (Testimony of Respondent, Pulver, Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Approximately February 28, 1975, pursuant to a pool contract with Jack Freeman, Ocala, Florida, Respondent commenced work by excavating the hole on the site. He testified that he was not aware that he did not have a building permit when he began this work, but obtained it the following Monday. In fact, the application for a building permit to Alachua County was submitted on March 4, 1975, a Tuesday, and the permit was issued on March 10, 1975. Article XIV, Section V, Zoning Regulations for Alachua County, Florida requires that no building shall be constructed, reconstructed, altered or extended unless a building permit has been issued, indicating that such use complies with county requirements (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 5 & 8.) Respondent has been building swimming pools for approximately 10 years. His experience includes construction of approximately 700 pools (Testimony of Respondent.)
Recommendation That the allegations against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida James A. Shook, Esquire 415 North West First Avenue Post Office Box 924 Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by allegedly committing incompetence or misconduct by "poor soil compaction" and by failing to honor the terms of a written warranty.
Findings Of Fact The four-count Administrative Complaint contains factual allegations in 15 numbered paragraphs. Respondent does not dispute paragraphs 1 through 9, 14, and 15. Petitioner is the state agency statutorily charged with regulating pool contracting in the state. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a pool contractor pursuant to license number CP C052509. Respondent's business address is Bazar Pools, Inc., 6214 All America Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32810. On March 6, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Mr. Rex Davidson (the contract). Respondent agreed to construct a residential cantilever deck swimming pool at Davidson's residence located at 2800 Granada Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida (the pool). Mr. Davidson agreed to pay $19,300 for the pool. Respondent completed the pool sometime in April 1998. Mr. Davidson paid the full amount due under the contract. The contract warranted the "pool structure" for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. Sometime in July of 2000, a crack emerged around the top edge of the pool above the tiles that lined the upper edge of the pool. As the crack worsened, the tiles began to fall off the pool. Respondent did not repair the crack and tiles. Mr. Davidson paid approximately $7,025 to a company identified in the record as Blue Diamond to repair the crack and tile. The contract did not include Respondent's license number. Respondent did not obtain a certificate of authority to do business as Bazar Pools, Inc., at the time he entered into the contract. The contract did not contain a written explanation of consumer rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. Respondent does not dispute Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint charging that the acts described in this paragraph violated Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1997). Respondent disputes the charge in Count I of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct. Paragraphs 10 through 12 of the Administrative Complaint contain the only factual allegations relevant to the charge of incompetence or misconduct. The disputed factual allegations state: Around July of 2000, the pool developed a crack which extended around the entire perimeter and caused the tiles to fall off because of poor soil compaction. The pool's structure is warranted to remain structurally sound for the period of time that it is owned by the original owner. Mr. Davidson contacted Respondent to get the pool repaired, but Respondent failed to take corrective action. The literal terms of allegations in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint led the trier of fact to expect Petitioner to show that Respondent improperly compacted soil under the deck and thereby allowed the deck to settle. However, Petitioner submitted little, if any, evidence pertaining to how Respondent compacted the soil under the deck before Respondent poured the concrete deck. Respondent obtained the three required county inspection approvals before each step in the construction of the pool. The inspections included an inspection to ensure proper soil grade prior to pouring the pool deck. The inspections ensured that Respondent constructed the pool in accordance with stamped engineering drawings that the county required Respondent to file as a prerequisite for a building permit from the county. The vast majority of the evidence that Petitioner submitted during the hearing was relevant to allegations that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in two ways. First, Respondent arguably constructed the pool shell and deck as a unitized structure so that the crack and tile problems evolved as the deck settled when underlying soil compacted. Second, Respondent arguably failed to honor the warranty in the contract. As a threshold matter, paragraph 10 in the Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct by poor pool construction. Rather, paragraph 10 alleges only that a crack developed in the pool and tiles fell off because of "poor soil compaction." Nevertheless, the parties spent substantial hearing time submitting evidence relevant to allegations of incompetence and misconduct not specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint. In order to prove that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by poor pool construction, Petitioner relies on expert opinion to show that Respondent constructed the pool and deck as a unitized structure. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent must have connected the concrete pool shell to the concrete deck either by steel rods, identified in the record as rebar, or by a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. The expert reasoned that settling of the deck could not have caused the crack in the pool unless the deck and pool shell were connected as a unitized body. Several flaws in the expert opinion offered by Petitioner prevent that testimony from reaching the level of clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner's expert did not relate his opinion to facts in evidence. First, Petitioner's expert never inspected the original construction of the pool. The expert visually inspected only the repaired pool and based his opinion on an hour and a-half inspection of the repaired pool. Counsel for Petitioner illustrated the inherent problem in such testimony when he objected to the testimony of one of Respondent's experts on the grounds that the opinion was based on a post-repair inspection. Counsel for Petitioner explained the problem as follows: Objection. Your Honor, [Respondent's expert] is testifying based on his observations of the pool as repaired by Blue Diamond. He never did - he never has made a personal observation of the pool prior to that repair when it was in the condition attributable to [Respondent's] construction method. So, he's testifying without any particular personal knowledge relative to [Respondent's] conduct. Transcript (TR) at 220-221. When Petitioner's expert inspected the post-repair pool, he did not remove the deck to determine whether the top of the pool shell was, in fact, either connected by steel to the deck or otherwise mechanically bonded to the deck. The only competent and substantial evidence in the record of whether the pool shell and the deck were constructed as a unitized structure came from Respondent. Respondent did not use rebar to connect the pool shell to the pool deck. Respondent stopped the rebar approximately two inches below the top of the pool shell. Respondent used mortar, identified in the record as "mud," to smooth variations or undulations, in the top edge of the pool shell and thereby bring the entire top edge of the pool shell up to "dead level." The maximum variation in the top edge of the pool shell prior to leveling did not exceed 1.25 inches. After the mud dried, Respondent intentionally did not clean the top edge of the pool shell. The dirt and debris remaining on the top edge of the pool shell would normally prevent a mechanical bond between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the concrete deck. The construction technique used by Respondent to construct the pool complies with generally accepted standards for the industry. Respondent has constructed over a thousand pools since 1987 using the same or similar construction techniques. He generally constructs large residential pools in "high-end" neighborhoods that cost customers $40,000 or more, but has constructed some commercial pools. Respondent has never had this problem with his other pools and has never had any previous discipline against his license. The expert opinion offered by Petitioner has another flaw that keeps the testimony from being clear and convincing to the trier of fact. The expert concludes that the deck settled, in relevant part, because "the pool cracked and the tile fell off." In an interrelated ratiocination, the expert concludes that the pool cracked and the tile fell off because the deck settled. Petitioner's expert also concluded that the deck settled because he observed cracks in the deck when he visually inspected the post-repair pool in 2004. He concluded from the cracks he observed in 2004 that settling of the deck in 2000 caused the crack in the pool and the tile problems. Petitioner's expert did not measure the cracks or inspect them to determine if any differential existed in the cracks that would suggest soil compaction under the deck. Petitioner's expert is an expert in pool construction, but is not an expert in pool engineering and design. One of Respondent's expert witnesses is an expert in pool engineering and design. He concluded that the deck did not settle in 2000. The characteristics of the cracks in the post-repair deck in 2004 were consistent with cracks caused by heat expansion and contraction from cooling when joints in the concrete were improperly spaced. The cracks did not exhibit differential settling of the deck. The theory that the crack in the pool and tile problems could not have occurred "but for" the settling of the deck is less than clear and convincing. Faulty installation of the tile by subcontractors is a more likely cause of the problems with the pool and the tile. However, Petitioner neither alleged that Respondent engaged in such acts or that Respondent's license is subject to discipline for the acts of his subcontractors. Finally, the testimony of Petitioner's expert is based on subjective standards while the testimony of Respondent's experts is based on intelligible standards published for the entire industry. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct in constructing the pool based on the expert's personal experience and on the way the expert has constructed pools for many years. Respondent's two experts opined that Respondent complied with written standards of workmanship published by the National Spa and Pool Institute in June 1996 (Workmanship Standards). Aside from whether the pool and deck were joined as a unitized structure, Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent "shot" the pool shell about two inches short of where it should have been, used mud to build up the pool shell, and applied tile over the resulting "cold joint" between the top of the pool shell and the bottom of the deck. Petitioner's expert opined that laying tile over a cold joint is incompetence and misconduct in his experience. Respondent's experts disagree. They opined that laying tile over a cold joint is the normal practice in the industry. Petitioner's expert agreed that it is commonplace for contractors to lay tile over a cold joint and that problems arise in only one in fifty jobs. The trier of fact has discussed the competing testimony of the parties' experts to illustrate that the burden of proof is the fulcrum of decision in this case. The applicable burden of proof does not require a preponderance of evidence to show that Respondent constructed the pool in a competent manner. Rather, the trier of fact need only find that the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent committed incompetence or misconduct in constructing the pool. The remaining allegation is that Respondent committed incompetence and misconduct by failing to honor the warranty and repair the pool. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent failed to honor the warranty. Sometime in June 2001, Mr. Davidson verbally complained to Respondent that a crack around the pool above the tile line had developed and that tiles around the top edge of the pool were detaching from the pool. Respondent sent a company representative to the site to evaluate the problem. Respondent also sent a service representative to the site to retrieve some of the tiles. Sometime in July 2001, Mr. Davidson again verbally complained to Respondent about the crack and tiles. By letter dated August 8, 2001, Mr. Davidson notified Respondent that a crack had developed behind the tiles sometime in the summer of 2000. The letter stated that the tiles were falling off of the side of the pool. Respondent offered to provide Mr. Davidson with an estimate of the cost of repair. Mr. Davidson elected to have Blue Diamond make the repairs. The pool structure was warranted for the time that Mr. Davidson owned the pool. It is undisputed that the pool shell was well made and water tight. The parties dispute whether the pool structure included the one or two-inch area between the top of the pool shell and the deck, as well as the deck. The contract defined the pool structure by excluding the deck, equipment, tile, and any item other than the pool shell. The definition in the contract is consistent with that in the Workmanship Standards. Petitioner's attempt to rely on a general definition of the term "structure" in a dictionary is not persuasive when considered in the light of the definitions in the contract and the Workmanship Standards. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the pool structure included the deck and intervening area because all of the parts were constructed as a unitized structure. Based on previous findings, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that the pool shell and deck were constructed as a unitized structure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts II through IV of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of Count I. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 John A. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Law Offices of John A. Shughart, Jr. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 305A Maitland, Florida 32751 Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Respondent is a certified pool contractor, holding license number CP CO27486. Respondent obtained his certificate in October, 1983. His only prior discipline consists of a letter of guidance in late 1989 or early 1990. At all material times, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gold Medallion Pcol, Inc. On March 27, 1986, Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Don Burson entered into a contract for the construction cf a swimming pool at the Bursons' residence. The Bursons had purchased the residence while it was still under construction in May or June, 1985. The lot was low and had required fill. Clearly visible behind the lot is a large marshy wetland. The contract called for the Bursons to pay $16,315 for the construction of a 20' by 40' concrete lap pool with depths of 3' at either end and 6' in the center. Paragraph 4 of the contract provides: The Owner is responsible for increased costs incurred by the Contractor due to underground conditions which may be encountered during construction, such as but not limited to, muck, inadequate soil-bearing capacity, and excessive ground water. The Contractor, upon encountering such conditions, shall notify the Owner of their existence and give him an approximate cost estimate to rectify the problem. The Owner shall have five (5) days from the receipt of the approximate cost estimate to instruct the Contractor not to proceed with the pool. . . . If the Contractor determines that additional testing is required prior to furnishing approximate costs estimates to determine the exact nature or extent of the underground condition encountered, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of all testing and/or engineering required by the Contractor. Paragraph 8.D states that the Owner warrants that there [is] no . . . mock . . . in that portion of the owner's property which the contractor will construct the pool [and] decking . . .. The owner is responsible for the removal, repair or replacement of any underground conditions . . . encountered during construction unless he elects to terminate the contract and pay damages to the contractor as set forth in the clause on underground conditions. Paragraph 11.A provides: Contractor warrants to the original owner for the lifetime of the original purchaser, the swimming pool structure, the shell, will not leak due to cracking. . . . This Limited Structural Warranty does not cover damage to the pool shell caused by fluctuations of the water table, construction in the vicinity of the pool site, or natural phenomenon. . . . The contractor's responsibility under this Limited Structural Warranty shall be to repair the shell so that it holds water without cost to the original owner. . . . The method of repair shall be at the discretion of the contractor. THE CONTRACTOR MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN REGARDS TO THE POOL STRUCTURE, THE SHELL. Paragraph 11.B.2, which further describes the limited warranty, states: It is anticipated the concrete deck and deck coatings may crack due to settling of deck or weather. Cracks one-quarter inch or less with no substantial deviation in elevation are not covered. . . . The plot plan, which is part of the contract, shows the pool located on the east side of the house. The pool is oriented in a north-south direction. The southern end of the pool runs toward the back of the lot, which is on a steep slope. The southern end of the pool adjoins the widest section of decking, which Respondent constructed at the time of the construction of the pool. The plot plan also shows that excavated dirt was to be placed just south of the decking on the south end of the pool. Shortly after pulling a building permit from the Seminole County Building Department on March 27, 1986, Respondent began construction of the pool. The actual construction was performed by Mid-Florida Pool Company, which is a major pool construction company in Central Florida. Construction was completed on April 23, 1986, and the Bursons paid the amount required under the contract. Prior to commencement of construction of the pool, this area of the Bursons' lot had been filled with about 2 1/2 to 3 feet of dirt. In order to construct the pool, Respondent or his subcontractors added another 2 1/2 to 3 feet of fill, at least to the southern end of site of the pool and decking. It is at this point that the land begins to slope most steeply toward the marsh in the back. Neither Respondent nor any of his subcontractors conducted any soil tests prior to commencing construction or compressed or compacted the soil beneath the pool prior to installing the shell. This omission constitutes a departure from sound contracting practices under the facts cf this case. Respondent constructed several pilasters under the southern end of the deck, but these structural supports were designed to support the deck, not the pool. In general, the depth of the excavation had to exceed the depth of the pool by one foot in order to accommodate the shell. Thus, the extreme southern end of the shell required a hole only about four feet deep. An excavation of this depth did not exceed the combined depth of the old and new fill. There is no indication that Respondent or his subcontractors encountered muck during the excavation or construction of the pool. Likewise, there is no indication that Respondent or any of subcontractors was aware that mucky, unstable soils underlaid the location of the pool, especially the southern end. The pool was completed to the initial satisfaction of the Bursons. However, within 90 days of completion, the southern half of the shell developed five or six major cracks as a result of the settlement of the southern end of the pool. This portion of the pool settled because the underlying muck had been compressed by the weight of the shell and water. Gradually, the water loss from the settlement cracks, which were mostly below the waterline, became significant. At Respondent's suggestion, the Bursons agreed to wait through the winter before commencing repairs in order to allow the cracking to stabilize. In the spring of 1987, the Bursons drained the pool at Respondent's direction. Respondent then scored the cracks with a screwdriver and applied a filling compound in order to seal any leaks. As directed by Respondent, the Bursons then refilled the pool, but before more than two feet of water had been added, the filling compound fell out of the cracks. When the Bursons informed Respondent of the failure of the repair, he responded that he had performed under the contract and had no further obligation. The Bursons exercised their right to arbitrate, as provided in the contract. The arbitrators conducted a limited investigation. Expressly noting that they were not soil engineers and thus could not determine why the soil under the pool failed to support the shell, the arbitrators determined that the contractor was not responsible for any damage to the pool, "which was built to industry standards." The Bursons next contacted various pool contractors about repair options. Most of the contractors suggested a V-cut about 2 1/2 inches deep followed by the injection of hydraulic cement. When the Bursbns informed Respondent that this type of repair appeared necessary, he refused to undertake such work. By this time, one of the contractors documented that five of the cracks, which ranged from 1/16" to 1/4" wide, were pulling water out of the pool at a rate of 1-3" daily. This contractor charged the Bursons $125 for his services. After contacting the Seminole County Building Department, the Bursons learned that the pool had never passed a final inspection. When they had an inspector visit the site on September 13, 1991, he failed the job due to, among ether things, "massive deck cracks." At the insistence of Seminole County officials, the Bursons obtained expert opinions as to the cause of the cracks in preparation for the local hearing on the Bursons' charges against Respondent. In July, 1990, the American Testing Laboratories, Inc. conducted tests and opined that the south end of the pool had settled due to muck at a level of five feet below the bottom of the shell. Additional testing found muck at depths of 3-7 feet at two points just east of the south end of the pool. These tests cost the Bursons $498. When the Seminole County officials insisted upon further testing, the Bursons hired Jammal & Associates, Inc., which performed soil borings on August 23, 1990. The boring sites were just east of a point about midway along the southern half of the pool and a point just south of the southern end of the pool. The latter boring site revealed muck after penetrating about six feet of fill. At the request of Respondent, a Jammal employee returned to the site on November 13, 1990, to determine the potential cause of the cracking of the pool shell and deck. Jammal concluded that the cracking is the result of consolidation of the highly compressible peat layer found in the [southern] boring. Based upon the [cracking] observed, we suspect the southern 1/3 or so of the pool and deck area are underlain by the buried peat layer. The remainder of the pool and deck are most likely underlain by sandy soils. Because of the nature of the buried organic soils, the pool and deck will probably continue to settle at a diminishing rate for several years. Addition of new loads such as placement of additional fill around the pool and deck area, or a significant drop in the groundwater table could cause additional and accelerated settlement of the pool and deck. Jammal offered three repair options. The first was to patch the cracks. Jammal assumed that, although continued cracking could be expected, it would occur at a lesser rate because most of the settlement of the buried muck had already taken place. The second option was to remove the pool and then remove the underlying muck. The third option was to install inside the shell a fiberglass liner. The last option had been first suggested by Respondent. If not rigidly attached to the shell, the liner probably would not reflect further cracking of the shell. The Bursons paid Jammal the sum of $300 for its services. Ultimately, the Bursons decided to install a fiberglass liner and entered into a contract on November 19, 1990, with Fibre Tech for the work. The total cost of the project was $5415. This cost excludes the cost of replacing a pool vacuum for which Respondent does not appear responsible. The liner was later installed, and the Bursons paid the contract price. In the meantime, at a meeting on October 16, 1990, the Seminole County Swimming Pool Contractor's Board revoked Respondent's County certificate of competency until he repaired the pool or made restitution to the owners. This action was based upon a violation of Seminole County Code Section 40.151 and 40.34(2) and (9). Section 40.151 provides that "[a]11 completed pools shall be absolutely watertight." Section 40.34(a) allows the Board to revoke a certificate of competency if the contractor: (2) Continue[s] performance of building work in a negligent, incompetent or unworkmanlike manner. (9) Violate[s] any provision of this Chapter. The determination of the Seminole County Swimming Pool Board became final when Respondent failed to take a timely appeal of the order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $2500 and suspending Respondent's license until he makes restitution to the Bursons in the amount of $6338. ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Craig M. Dickinson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Merwin C. Carter, pro se 611 Ensenada Avenue Orlando, FL 32825
Findings Of Fact At all material times hereto, Respondent was the holder of a registered swimming pool contractors license number RP 0035739. Respondent's license was issued in the name of Malicki Pools, Terry W. Malicki. In January, 1981, Gary Wieland entered into a contract with Patrick Barr d/b/a Pool and Spa World. Barr was to construct a pool for Weiland in Port Charlotte for $7,856.00. Barr had become known to Wieland as a builder of swimming pools through a neighbor. Barr stated to Wieland that he was a pool contractor. Wieland made all payments due under the contract to Barr. Petitioner's evidence established that the Wieland swimming pool required a building permit. On March 3, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 66970 to construct a pool at Wieland's residence in Port Charlotte. Wieland's testimony established that Malicki constructed the pool at his residence. However, all of his dealings were with Barr. Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted in the Charlotte County court of acting as a contractor without being licensed. Mr. Robert Guariglia entered into a contract with Barr to construct a swimming pool for $9,500.00. The pool was to be constructed at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Petitioner's evidence established that the Guariglia pool required a building permit. On June 10, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 68962 to construct a pool at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Guariglia paid the first installment of his contract by check to Barr in the amount of $3,325.00. However, because the pool was not level, Guariglia told Barr or Malicki who was supervising the work that he wanted the pool redone or removed. The pool was later removed and Guariglia had to pay $1,400 to have his property restored. As noted above, Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted of acting as a contractor without being licensed. However, the swimming pool constructed at the identified Guariglia residence required a building permit. On September 3, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board suspended the certificate of competency of the Respondent until such time as he corrected all matters which were then pending before that Board. On November 5, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board reinstated Malicki's license.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the swimming pool contractor's license issued to Respondent for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry W. Malicki c/o Malicki Pools 1788 S.W. Sicily Avenue Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Stephen Schwartz, Esquire 680 Aaron Street, N.W. Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. During times material, Respondent, Donald F. Colombo, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CP 15343. During times material, Respondent's license was registered with Petitioner as the qualifying agent for National and Spa Builders, Inc. (National). On or about May 27, 1988, National, the entity which Respondent was the qualifying agent, contracted with Diane and Leonard Cline to construct a pool at the Cline's residence in Tarpon Springs, Florida, for the contract price of $9825.00. The Clines financed the construction of the pool by placing a security interest against their property for the full purchase price of the pool. The full contract price of $9825.00 was paid to National and after National completed approximately 40% of the pool construction, National abandoned the project without notice or just cause. National never completed construction of the pool and the Clines obtained a homeowner's building permit and completed the pool project at an additional cost of approximately $5,000.00. Additionally, liens were filed against the property of the Clines by Florida Mining and Materials Concrete Corporation in the amount of $682.00 and Jim's Custom Pool Work in the amount of $135.00. The above-referred liens were for work performed and/or materials supplied in the construction of the Cline pool project by National. On or about May 20, 1988, National entered into a contract with Ben and Linda Thomas to construct a pool at their residence in Lutz, Florida, for the contract price of $9000.00. Following commencement of construction, National received approximately 60% of the contract price ($5,400.00) and later abandoned the project without notification or just cause to the Thomas's. The Thomas's subsequently completed their pool at an additional cost of approximately $1,000.00 over and above National's original contract price. On or about January 11, 1989, Respondent was disciplined by the Hillsborough County Building Department, Building Board of Adjustments, Appeals and Examiners for alleged violation of local laws including abandoning a construction project; alleged willful and deliberate disregard of applicable building codes; allegedly allowing liens to be filed against a project for which he was the contractor and for allegedly diverting funds from a construction project. Respondent was assessed an administrative penalty of a 30-day suspension of his permitting privileges by the Hillsborough County Building Department. Respondent was the qualifying agent for National during the 90-day period commencing April 1 through June 30,1988. Respondent formally terminated his status as qualifying agent for National and also tendered his resignation from that entity based on difficulties that he ecountered respecting his attempts to serve as qualifier to include his inability to control the finances, to be kept apprised of accounts receivable, accounts payable, an inability to select contractors and material suppliers and to assure that the payments for such services were timely remitted. Prior to Respondent's engagement with National as a pool salesman and later as qualifier, National was a well reputed pool company, having been in existence in excess of twelve years. National annually constructed approximately 750 pools with accounts receivable in the $10 to $12 million dollar range. Prior to April 1988, National was a secure and stable company that regularly paid its bills and grew at a rapid pace. While engaged with National, Respondent was unaware that there was internal collusion among its owners respecting diversion of funds. Respondent repeatedly attempted to gather a handle on the internal financial operations of the company and on each occasion he was rebuffed. within the first month that Respondent qualified National, he began to seek advice as to the proper means of salvaging his license by contacting a local attorney, the local office of Petitioner, and Petitioner's headquarters in Tallahassee seeking the proper procedures for ending his relationship with National. This came about once it became apparent that he was unable to effectively manage or otherwise perform the functions of a qualifying agent. Respondent formally severed his relationship as qualifying agent for National on June 30, 1988. Subsequent to ending his status as qualifying agent for National, Respondent assisted the Clines in the completion of their pool. Mr. Cline specifically recalled that Respondent assisted him in locating other subcontractors and with the purchase of plumbing supplies for his pool without remuneration from the Clines. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1F; Tr. 30-32.) Likewise, Respondent also assisted the Thomas's in completing their pool. (Tr. 45, lines 23-24.) Respondent demonstrated compassion and a proper concern which was evident based on the testimony of the complaining witnesses who appeared at the formal hearing. Significantly, Petitioner's investigator, H. Dennis Force, related that Respondent assisted him in his investigation of the subject charges. To this end, Respondent supplied him with the names of all customers with which National had contracts with during the period that he was National's qualifying agent. It is unfortunate that Respondent was not able to control the fiscal policies of National during the period that he was the qualifying agent, although from a review of the evidence herein, it is apparent that this was not based on his failure to attempt to gain control over the situation as a qualifying agent, but was rather based on the collusion of National's higher-ups who was determined to keep Respondent in the dark. Noteworthy was the fact that within a three-month period, National changed banks at least eight times. It would have been, at best, difficult if not impossible for Respondent to have gained a handle on National's financial condition and to do the things with which a qualifying agent is charged with during the short period during which Respondent was National's qualifying agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing his certified pool contractor's license on probation for a period of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 7th day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Atlas Pools, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Thompson in May, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Thompson property for a completed price of $5,940. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, by which time the Thompsons had paid Atlas Pools $5,643. The Thompsons hired another pool contractor to complete the project at additional cost in excess of $2,000. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perry in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Perry property for a completed cost of $5,770. Work ceased in late July, 1978, after the Perrys had paid Atlas Pools $5,474.50. The Perrys completed the project through self-help and use of another pool contractor at a further cost of $1,566. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wolters in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Wolters' property for a completed cost of $6,980. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, after the Wolters had paid Atlas Pools $6,631. The Wolters completed the pool through self help at an additional cost in excess of $1,300. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sentman in June, 1978, to construct a spa on the Sentman property for a completed cost of $5,500. The Sentmans paid Atlas Pools a $550 deposit after which the spa was delivered but not installed. The Sentmans completed the project by other means at an additional cost of $6,137. Respondent abandoned each of the above projects without notice to the customer, who ultimately learned of the company's bankruptcy from a third party source. Each of the four projects described above was completed at a final cost to the purchaser in excess of $900 over the contract price. The company filed a Voluntary Petition of Bankruptcy with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on August 1, 1978. Thereafter, on March 7, 1979, the Brevard County Contractors Licensing Board revoked the certificate held by Atlas Pools for a minimum period of one year, with the requirement that financial rehabilitation be demonstrated as a condition of reinstatement. At the time of bankruptcy, Respondent was president of Atlas Pools, Inc., and owned one-third of the stock. He was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, the company's only licensed pool contractor. He is currently employed in pool construction work by a licensed contractor. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Pool Contractor's License No. RP 0018040 issued to Crawford L. Grove, be suspended until Respondent demonstrates compliance with the financial responsibility standards established by Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1980.
