Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential and Class A pool contractor having been issued licenses numbered RR 0035167 and RP 0024335. Respondent's address if Route A, Box 19A, Punta Gorda, Florida 33950. In 1980, Respondent contracted to and built a pool for Mr. and Mrs. George Ring of Punta Gorda, Florida. Mr. Robert Berg, the chief building official for the City of Punta Gorda, informed Respondent by letter dated November 13, 1981, that there were code compliance deficiencies in the stem wall constructed by Respondent on the Ring job. On April 16, 1982, the City of Punta Gorda Code Enforcement Board issued an official order, signed by its chairman, directing Respondent to begin remedial work on the stem wall within 15 days. The order further provided that a fine of $25 per day would be imposed for each day past the fifteenth day that work was not started. Respondent assumed that the 15 days began running when he received the order on April 20, 1982, rather than the April 16 order date. He attempted to begin work on May 2, but was unable to do so as the homeowners were then on vacation. Respondent thereafter completed the repairs and, on July 14, 1982, produced an engineer's letter stating that he had inspected the remedial work on the stem wall and found it complied with the building code. The chief building official accepted the engineer's determination and recommended that Respondent's fine be terminated as of July 14, 1982, with an accrued penalty of $1,875.00. These recommendations were later accepted by the Punta Gorda Code Enforcement Board. Respondent contends the fine was miscalculated and that he could not have started work within 15 days of receiving the April 16 order since the homeowners were not present. However, the start work directive and the fine provisions of the April 16 order followed two previous orders citing Respondent for noncompliance in this project. See Petitioner's Exhibit 11 (Board order dated February 12, 1982) and Petitioner's Exhibit 13 (Board order dated march 10, 1982). Thus, the fine ordered on April 16 was resorted to by the local board only after other efforts to obtain Respondent's compliance had failed.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor's licenses until he furnishes evidence that he has obtained release or has paid the local board fine. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Polk, Esquire First National Bank Building Suite 306 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's registration as a general contractor should be suspended or revoked, or the respondent otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 468.112 (2)(a), (2)(g), and (2)(h), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Phillip H. Bare, Ocala, Florida, is registered with Respondent as a general contractor under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and was so registered throughout the year of 1977. He operates under the name of American General Corporation of Florida, but that firm has not been qualified to engage in the contracting business in Florida, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, Stipulation, Testimony of Cherry) On August 15, 1977, Respondent, as president of American General Corporation of Florida, entered into a Home Improvement Installment Contract and Note with Joe Wheeler and wife, who reside at Route 2, Box 63, Live Oak, Florida. The contract provided that for a price of $4,250 Respondent would make the following property improvements on the Wheeler residence: Build 12 X 20 Room Addition and finish with paneling, ceiling tile, & all trim. Build 6 X 14 porch with top. Replace all Rotten sills. Replace all Rotten siding. Paint house with latex paint. Repair floor joist. The Wheelers made a down payment of $350 leaving an unpaid balance of $3,900. The promissory note provided for a total financed cost of $6,629.28 payable in monthly payments over a period of seven years. On August 29, 1977, the parties entered into another such contract for additional work to the residence for the price of $1,600 as follows: Install ceiling tile in (2) bed rooms and bathroom complete with trim. Install paneling in (2) bed rooms complete. Install paneling and tile board in bath. Remove old shingles and install new 235lb asphalt shingles. Install 54" kitchen sink complete and hook to water. The Wheelers paid $100 as a down payment on the work and financed the remainder with a total deferred price of $2,100 payable in 48 consecutive monthly installments. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, Testimony of E. Wheeler, J. Wheeler) Respondent subcontracted the work on the Wheeler residence to one John Compton. Respondent did not secure a Suwannee County Building Permit for the work, nor was he licensed in that county to act in the capacity of a contractor. (Testimony of Respondent, Wilson) On September 12, 1977, Mr. Wheeler signed a Customer's Completion Certificate" wherein he acknowledged that the contract work had been satisfactorily completed. Although Respondent testified that he explained the contents of the document to Wheeler at the time it was executed, Wheeler denied the same and testified that he had not read its contents prior to signing it. (Testimony of Respondent, J. Wheeler, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Prior to completion of the work, the Wheelers noted that certain deficiencies in the work existed, including a floor that "shaked" in the new addition, looseness of wall paneling, failure to replace rotten siding and lower sills, and failure to install ceiling tile in one bedroom. They spoke to workmen on the job who said that they would return and finish the work. However, nothing further was done in spite of the fact that Respondent told Mrs. Wheeler in a telephone conversation that he would be back to complete the job. As a result, Mrs. Wheeler made a complaint to Derl W. Wilson, the building official for Suwannee County. (Testimony of E. Wheeler, J. Wheeler, Wilson) Pursuant to Mrs. Wheeler's complaint, Wilson inspected the premises at some time during the month of September, 1977, and observed that the accomplished work was of a substandard nature involving various violations of the Southern Standard Building Code which had been adopted by Suwannee County in 1975. These violations, which Respondent acknowledged at the hearing to have been committed, included the following: concrete foundation blocks improperly aligned and unsupported by required concrete pad; improper spacing of floor joists at 24 inch rather required 16 inch intervals; use of one-ply instead of two-ply flooring material; failure to extend vent stack for plumbing system in kitchen to a height of 6 inches above the roof line; failure to provide a shutoff valve for cold water line under kitchen sink; failure to cover and protect splices in wiring of ceiling light fixture; failure to install ridge board for support of roof rafters; improperly installing two inch by four inch wood braces in attic; failure to connect sewer line to septic tank. Additionally, Wilson observed various instances of poor workmanship in installation of an electric wall receptacle and connection of the roof of the new addition to the existing building. Further, he noted that due to the improper spacing of floor joists, the substandard plywood flooring was not firm and constituted a safety hazard. (Testimony of Wilson, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) After his inspection, Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent, dated October 18, 1977, pointing out the deficiencies in construction and advising that a complaint would be filed against him unless a building permit was obtained within ten days and the necessary corrections of deficiencies were made. Although Wilson testified that he did not hear from Respondent as a result of the letter, Respondent made several telephone calls to Wilson's office and was informed that he was on vacation. (Testimony of Wilson, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 7) On June 14, 1978, Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Suwannee County, Florida to a charge of improper construction arising out of the Wheeler contract, and the Court withheld adjudication of guilt in the matter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Respondent was previously convicted in the County Court of Putnam County, Florida, on August 13, 1974 of engaging in the business or acting in capacity of a contractor without being duly registered in the county pursuant to Section 468.105(2), Florida Statutes. On June 16, 1975, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida to a charge arising out of his activities as a home improvement contractor. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months and required that he "make necessary repairs to home of victim to satisfaction of Consumer Protection Section of State Attorney's Office, Eighth Judicial Circuit." (Petitioner's Exhibits 7-9) Petitioner has been a building contractor for twelve years. He testified that his subcontractor for the Wheeler job had been competent in the past and he relied on this fact in not closely inspecting the work under the Wheeler contracts. For this reason, he was unaware that the building code violations had occurred until after he had sold the Wheeler contracts and mortgages to a third party who was contacted by the Wheelers regarding the deficiencies. Respondent denied that he abandoned the work because he thought it had been completed until subsequent notification of the Wheeler complaint. He has since made attempts through Counsel to resolve the complaint by having the work performed by a contractor licensed in Suwannee County or by means of a monetary settlement. He further testified that he had inquired of Petitioner's office as to the necessity for obtaining a Suwannee County license prior to commencing the Wheeler contracts and was informed that his registration was valid for work in that county. He acknowledged that he made a "mistake" in not obtaining a building permit and in failing to supervise his subcontractor properly, but stated that the licensing rules in the various counties were "confusing." As to his prior difficulties in Putnam and Alachua Counties, Respondent testified that the Alachua matter involved a complaint raised four or five years after construction regarding quality of workmanship and that he had taken care of the matter. As to the Putnam County case, he testified that he was unaware that a building permit was necessary at the time he did the work for which he was subsequently prosecuted. It is found that Respondent's exculpatory testimony regarding his failure to obtain a building permit or county licensing, and lack of knowledge of code violations with respect to the work performed at the Wheeler residence is not credible. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 2-6)
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a general contractor be suspended for a period of one year and that an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 be imposed, for violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. Valentine Bates, Esquire 726 NW 8th Avenue - Suite B Gainesville, Florida J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, James H. Jasperson, held registered pool contractor's license numbers RP 0028372 and RP A028372 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The former license was issued in 1976 and qualified Respondent to operate under the name, Orlando Pools. The latter license qualified to operate under the name, Pools by Jim, until February 25, 1981, when he qualified Piper Pools, Inc. under that registration number. Respondent is in the business of constructing swimming pools. In June, 1979, he began a business association with a James Lovett of Orange City, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Lovett sold pool kits for Tallman Pools. Under their arrangement, Lovett would sell a prefabricated pool kit, and Jasperson would install it. However, Jasperson assumed all responsibility for sales, construction and warranties (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), and the construction and installation were done under Jasperson's registration. Work by Jasperson on jobs procured by Lovett was performed under the name, Pools by Jim. Between August and October, 1979, Lovett and Jasperson were advised on at least three separate occasions by Department Investigator Pirtle that it would be necessary for Jasperson to qualify Tallman Pools as his agent. Despite these warnings, Jasperson never qualified Tallman Pools. The exact date on which the business relationship was terminated was not disclosed, but Jasperson did advise Volusia County building officials in writing in early February, 1981, that no agent could qualify under his registration. On or about October 25, 1979, a contract was entered into by Pools by Jim and Thomason Builders of Geneva, Florida, to construct a swimming pool at a residence in Volusia County. The contract was signed on October 25, 1979, by Jim Lovett as sales representative Pools by Jim, and by Jerry Thomason on behalf of Thomason Builders (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Jasperson signed the contract on November 8, 1979, and noted that it was "accepted." The terms of the contract provided for completion of the pool by March 14, 1980. Construction on the pool began on or about November 1, 1979. Jerry Thomason, the owner of Thomason Builders, and the contractor of the house where the pool was to be built, was a registered residential contractor in Volusia County. Thomason thought he could pull a permit from the County to construct the pool; however, he was unsuccessful. Thereafter, on November 8, 1979, a Volusia County building official placed a stop work order on the pool site. Learning that a permit was still needed, Jasperson immediately signed an application for a permit on the same date as the stop work order was posted. The permit was officially issued on November 9, 1979. Between November 8, 1979, and February 18, 1980, two more stop orders and a notice of correction were posted on the project by Volusia County officials. County records brought to the hearing did not specify the nature of the charges that formed the basis for the orders and notice, but Jasperson stated the notice of correction related to improper grounding of the wires around the pool. He also testified that this correction was subsequently made. A dispute over the amount of money owed on the project by Thomason to Lovett arose in December, 1979 (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Because of this dispute, work on the pool was stopped in February, 1980. The matter was subsequently resolved and the pool completed, with the exception of certain interior lighting. Jasperson acknowledged that Lovett was associated with him, and that the notice and stop work orders were issued on the job in question. However, he described Lovett as simply being a sales representative and not involved in the installation of the pools. He attributed any difficulties that may have arisen to a lack of control over Lovett, and poor judgment on his part in associating with Tallman Pools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent James H. Jasperson be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in Count II of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registered pool contractor's License Number RP 0028372 be suspended for 90 days from the date of the final agency order entered herein for the aforesaid violation. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER, 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 26th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James H. Jasperson 1340 South Bumby Avenue Orlando, Florida 32896 Nancy Kelly Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the state certified pool construction license number CP C008904 and the state certified general contractor's license number CG C002481 of Joaquin Vazquez should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Division A of the Construction Trade Qualifying Board held a hearing on September 15, 1976, pertaining to ten (10) charges of violating the Dade County building code against Respondent Joaquin Vazquez. At the completion of this formal hearing, Joaquin Vazquez was found guilty of eight (8) of the ten (10) charges. Charles W. Leavitt, Jr., Clerk of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board In Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, identified the minutes of the Board Meeting held on September 15, together with the charges as set forth in letters dated May 10, 1976, and August 19, 1976. Copies of these instruments were introduced into evidence without objection. The Respondent did not deny the charges at the hearing and had not appealed the finding of guilt of eight (8) of the ten (10) charges at the conclusion of the formal hearing on September 15, 1976. Briefly the charges (spanning the term from July 1, 1975 to June 29, 1976), finds and penalties are as follows: Charge 1.: Allowing permit to be applied for and taken out in Respondent's name in order for Angela J. Stevens and/or Sparkle Blue Pools to construct a swimming pool. Found guilty - letter of reprimand. Charge 3.: Similar to Charge 1 - found guilty - certificate to be suspended for one (1) year. Charge 4.: Failure to supervise, direct and control, the construction or installation of a swimming pool taken out in Respondent's name. Found guilty - one (1) year suspension to run concurrent with any other suspensions. Charge 5.: Similar to Charge 1 - found guilty - ninety (90) day concurrent suspension. Charge 6.: Similar to Charge 4 - found guilty - ninety (90) day suspension. Charge 7.: Similar to Charge 1 - found guilty - revo- cation of certificates. Charge 8.: Similar to Charge 4 - found guilty - both certificates be revoked. Charge 10.: Allowing a permit to be applied for and taken out in Respondent's name in order for Jack Goodman and/or Precision Engineering, Inc., to construct a swimming pool. Found guilty - letter of reprimand. An Administrative Complaint was filed by the Petitioner through its executive director on November 12, 1976, citing the hearing and the charges and the finding of guilt of Respondent and stating that the results of said formal hearing show a violation of Florida Statute 468.112(2)(a), willful or deliberate disregard and violation of applicable building codes or laws of the state or any municipality, cities or counties thereof. Therefore, the Board seeks to revoke the state certified pool contractors license number CP C008904 and state certified general contractors license number CG C002481 of Joaquin Vazquez, the Respondent. The Respondent did not deny the charges but presented an attack on the character and veracity of the witness, Angela Stevens, in four (4) of the charges against him. He cited the witness Angela Stevens' failure to abide by probationary requirements imposed for her acting as a contractor without a license. Furthermore, the Respondent offered his own and a witness, Mr. Gonzalez's, testimony to the fact that he was solicitated by Angela Stevens to make false testimony to the effect that Angela Stevens was an employee of his when in fact she had never been. The charges against the Respondent were brought subsequent to the charges brought against the witness Angela Stevens. The Respondent contends that the affidavits and testimony of Angela Stevens were no more than self serving statements made in her own behalf in an attempt to cover up her criminal intentions and that the charges and finding of guilt of the Respondent were based largely on the affidavit and testimony of said witness. Respondent further offered a medical report indicating that he was unable to work in the month of May, 1975, and further his testimony was that he was out of the country in mid June and July, 1975, in order to recuperate from high blood pressure attacks. Petitioner contends: the undisputed evidence presented in the finding of guilt of the charges involved in the prior hearing are sufficient to find Respondent guilty of violating Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's license should be revoked. Respondent contends: the witness against him was self serving and an attempt to cover up her criminal intentions; that he in fact supervised some of the jobs he was found guilty of not supervising; that he was ill some of the time and did not willfully violate the code. The proposed facts and conclusions of the parties submitted after the hearing herein have been considered in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Suspend the licenses, No. CP C008904 and No. CG C002481, of the Respondent Joaquin Vazquez for a period not to exceed six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jerome S. Reisman, Esquire 1515 Northwest 7th Street, #106 Miami Florida 33125 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether respondent committed those acts set forth in the amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, whether respondent's license should be revoked or suspended, or whether some other penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, the respondent was a registered pool contractor, having been issued license no. RP 0021612, by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent was first registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board in 1974. On May 2, 1984, respondent entered into a contract with Yhony Puente de la Vega for the repair of the swimming pool at the Siesta Motel located in Putnam County, Florida. The contract provided that the respondent would make certain repairs to the pool for the total price of $7,000. The contract further provided for a down payment of $2,300, which respondent received. Prior to entering into the contract, respondent had examined the pool to determine the repair work that needed to be done. However, respondent was unaware that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) required certain plans to be submitted and approved before the pool could pass inspection and become operational. Subsequent to entering into the contract, respondent learned of the HRS requirements and hired an engineer to prepare and submit the necessary plans for approval. Although respondent had performed repair work on other motel pools, he had never before been required to submit plans for approval to HRS. At some point after entering into the contract, but before he began any work, respondent was informed that he was not properly licensed to do the repair work on the pool. Due to the problem with the licensing and the HRS requirements that respondent had not anticipated, respondent contacted his son, a certified pool contractor, and asked him to take over the job. Respondent's son, Alan K. Payne, Jr., agreed to do the work. From the evidence presented, it is unclear exactly when Alan R. Payne, Jr., took over the project. Alan K. Payne, Jr., testified that he had taken over the job by the time that HRS approved the plans for the pool on August 29, 1984. However, a proposed contract for the pool repairs dated March 1, 1985, and signed by Alan K. Payne, Jr., and a settlement stipulation dated June 6, 1985, whereby the parties agreed that Alan R. Payne, Jr., would complete the job according to the original contract, indicate that the motel owners and Alan R. Payne, Jr., did not reach an agreement on the terms of the contract until June of 1985.1 Respondent's son obtained the permit for the pool repair work from the Putnam County Building Department on June 13, 1985, and he subsequently completed the repair work. At all times material hereto, respondent was a state registered pool contractor and was aware that such a license did not allow him to contract throughout the state, but only in those counties where he had met all local licensing requirements. Respondent had his wife call the Putnam County Building Department to determine if he could perform the pool work. He had relied on his wife to do this on other occasions. His wife informed him that it was "legal" for him to do the repair work. Respondent had never before performed any work in Putnam County. When a person contacts the Putnam County Building Department to determine whether he can contract and obtain permits for work in Putnam County, he has to indicate whether he is "certified" or "registered." If the word "registered" is used, the person is directed to talk with the office manager, who advises the person as to the procedure for obtaining local competency. If the word "certified" is used, the person is informed that he can enter into contracts and obtain permits for work in Putnam County. There was no competent evidence presented as to what respondent's wife advised the Building Department, but she would not have been told that a state registered contractor could perform pool work or obtain permits in Putnam County. Putnam County requires a registered contractor to have a certificate of competency or local competency in order for the contractor to perform contracting work and obtain permits to do the work in the county. Without a certificate issued by Putnam County, a registered contractor can neither perform work in Putnam County nor obtain permits for work in Putnam County. A contractor who is state certified can perform work and obtain permits for work in Putnam County without obtaining local competency. The contractor would need only to provide a copy of his state certified license to the Putnam County Building Department. At all times material hereto, respondent did not have local competency in Putnam County or a state certified license. Respondent was authorized to perform work in Volusia County. His application for registration lists only Volusia County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), by his failure to comply with Section 489.117(2), and not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. It is further -recommended that respondent be fined $250 and placed on probation for a period of one (1) year under such terms and conditions as the Construction Industry Licensing Board considers appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Albert J. Ruocco, is licensed as a registered building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RB00030112. His last address in the Department's file is 604 Citrus Court, Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951. Sometime prior to the date of the administrative complaint, the Department received a complaint from Mrs. Dale Normington that Ruocco told her he had obtained a termite treatment for the addition he constructed on her home, but that no treatment was done. DPR investigator, John Allen, told Mrs. Normington to send her back-up information. John Allen received in the mail a copy of the purported contract between the Normingtons and Rivers Edge Construction Company, Inc., Ruocco's Company. He also received a series of cancelled checks and a copy of a letter purportedly sent by the Normingtons to Albert Ruocco. John Allen checked the Department's licensing files and obtained the licensing information on Ruocco. He also personally served the Administrative Complaint on Ruocco, but did not, to the best of his recollection, discuss the complaint with him or have any other contact with him. Ruocco never responded to any investigative correspondence. Douglas Vanderpoest, owner of Slug-A-Bug, a pest control company, established that his company never treated the addition to the Normington resident. Brevard County Building Inspector, Howard Stott, knows Albert Ruocco and is familiar with the addition Ruocco installed for the Normingtons in 1985. A permit was obtained and Stott performed three inspections, including the slab, pre-lath and final on the addition. Brevard County requires evidence of termite treatment of soil for any new construction or modifications to an existing structure. The practice is usually for the inspector to require a receipt or evidence of treatment prior to approving the slab. Stott does not remember whether he required the evidence on the Normington job. The permit in those days did not have a space to indicate the termite treatment. However, Stott did approve the slab, as noted on the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint dated November 2, 1987, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Albert J. Ruocco 604 Citrus Court Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1991.
