Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a registered and certified pool contractor having been issued license numbers RP 0023613 and CP 0012607. Respondent's license number RP 0023613 has been delinquent since June 30, 1983, but his license number CP 0012607 was active and in full force and effect until he ceased doing business in approximately September, 1985. Respondent conducted his pool contracting business in the name of Hallmark Pools for approximately 14 years. The business entity "Hallmark Pools" was properly qualified and named on the Respondent's license. In 1985, the Respondent began to enter the business of designing outdoor patios and fountains, as well as pools. He wished to retain the good will he had gained operating under the name "Hallmark Pools" while gaining good will in the new name under which he planned to conduct business in the future, "Aquatic Environments, Inc." During this transition period, and until he closed his business, the Respondent's contracts and letterhead contained the names "Hallmark Pools" and "Aquatic Environments, Inc.," but that name never appeared on his licensure. On or about March 12, 1985, Respondent, through Hallmark Pools/Aquatic Environments, Inc., contracted with customers Mr. and Mrs. Allan Schaeffer to construct a screened-in pool and spa at their residence located at Archer Street, Lehigh Acres, Florida, for a contract price of $20,000. Later approximately $1,700 of extras were added to the contract. On or about March 21, 1985, the Schaeffers paid the Respondent $2,000 on the contract. On or about May 23, 1985, the Schaeffers paid another $17,000 on the contract. Approximately, $2,600 remained owing on the contract. The customers reside part of the time in New Jersey. In the contract, Respondent promised a June 15 completion date. When the customers arrived in Florida on or about June 14, they found that the project was not complete. When the customers contacted the Respondent, the work was resumed. The pool was quickly completed and was usable by the beginning of the July 4th weekend. Some punch list items remained to be done, but the Schaeffers preferred that the Respondent wait until after they returned to New Jersey in August, 1985. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent promised a June 15 completion date while knowing that he would not be able to finish the work by that date. During the summer of 1985, personal problems the Respondent was facing at the time mounted, and eventually he decided he no longer could continue to operate his business. He began to plan to close his business and have all pending matters either resolved by himself before he went out of business or resolved by his brother Chad Jackson, also a licensed pool contractor, after going out of business. He did this by assigning pending contracts to his brother. He also attempted to insure that all suppliers were paid either by himself before he went out of business or by his brother out of payments due under the contracts assigned to him. Except for the Schaeffer job, the Respondent's arrangements to close out his business did not result in any complaints. Near the end of August, 1985, the Schaeffers gave the Respondent a punch list of work still due under the contract to be done while the Schaeffers were in New Jersey. The Respondent called and told Mr. Schaeffer that he was closing his business but that the punch list items would be taken care of. At the time, the Respondent also knew that approximately $1,300 was owed to Jones Industries Screen Enclosures, Inc. The Respondent expected his brother to pay Jones out of the $2,600 due on the Schaeffer contract, leaving $700 to compensate his brother for the punch list work and any warranty work. In fact, there also was $2,705.12 owed to a company named FAFCO Solar, which had subcontracted the solar heating on the Schaeffer contract. The Respondent had forgotten about this debt. FAFCO had billed the Respondent on July 15, 1985, but the Respondent did not pay it or arrange for its payment. FAFCO's second billing never reached the Respondent. The Respondent sent FAFC0, along with his other suppliers and subcontractors, a notice on August 22, 1985, that he was going out of business and that mail should be sent to his home address. On receipt of this notice on August 28, 1985, FAFC0 mailed a second billing to the home address but it was returned on August 30, 1985, marked: "Moved Left No Address". The Respondent's brother did the punch list work to Mr. Schaeffer's satisfaction and sent him a bill for the $2,600 balance due on the contract. Schaeffer never paid. The Respondent's brother never paid the Jones Industries bill (and never got the FAFCO bill). Jones Industries put a lien on the property at 1414 Archer Street for $1,388.75, which the Schaeffers eventually paid. FAFCO did not file a notice to owner and could not claim a lien on the property. FAFC0 never was paid. Both Jones Industries and FAFCO refused to do warranty repairs because they were not timely paid. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent inadequately supervised the Schaeffer job while he was still in business or after he went out of business. After he went out of business, he assigned the contract to a licensed pool contractor, his brother. Eventually, serious problems developed in the Schaeffer's pool at 1414 Archer Street. But the evidence did not prove that the Respondent or his brother were responsible. The serious problems of which the Schaeffers now complain should have been apparent from the outset if caused during construction of the pool. Yet complaints were not registered until much later. Meanwhile, improper maintenance of the pool by the Schaeffers or their pool maintenance contractor, or damage to the pool during maintenance, could have caused the current problems. For six months after the Respondent closed his business and left Ft. Myers, he was traveling in the western part of the country and had no mailing address and did not give one to the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Then, he returned to Florida to a St. Petersburg address which he gave to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), reprimand him for the violation of (g) and fine him $1000 for the violation of (m). RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 19th day of December, 1988. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3468 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Rejected. (The license number was left blank.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. The Respondent arranged for payment of the Jones debt but disputes among the Schaeffers, Jones and the Respondent's brother led to Jones imposing a lien on the property which the Schaeffers eventually paid. The Respondent did not make arrangements to pay FAFCO, and that bill remains unpaid. 4.-9. Rejected as contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 500 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas Jackson 5203 109th Way North St. Petersburg, Florida 33708 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wesley Ash, currently holds license number CP C015871 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to authorize Ash to engage in the pool contracting business. Dodd Complaint (Count I). Respondent, Wesley Ash, doing business as Wada Pools, Inc., contracted with Jerry Dodd on or about June 17, 1981, to build a pneumatic concrete pool with skimmer and recirculation system. The contract did not include installation of the concrete deck around the pool. Dodd decided to contract with another independent contractor to install the deck at a lower price than Ash wanted for the job. Ash completed his work by approximately August 1981. He installed the concrete pool shell, finished the inside surface and installed tile along the water line. He then attached the skimmer assembly, plumbing it so that it was level and attaching it to the concrete pool shell by means of the skimmer's PVC plumbing piping. After Ash finished his work, Dodd's other contractor came behind Ash. He used some of the dirt Ash had excavated from the pool site to raise the ground surrounding the pool by approximately six inches above grade. He then poured the concrete deck but failed to encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete in the process of pouring the concrete deck. It was not Ash's practice to make any special arrangements to stabilize the skimmer assembly when he installed both pool and concrete deck. He relies on the skimmer assembly plumbing to stabilize the skimmer assembly until the concrete deck is poured. In pouring the concrete deck, Ash encases the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete to stabilize the skimmer assembly and prevent leakage. In the case of the Poland pool (paragraphs 17 and 22, below), Ash used this method to install both the pool and the concrete deck, and Poland has had no complaint of leakage at the skimmer (nor was there any evidence of leakage at the skimmer). In the case of the Priests' pool (paragraphs 11 through 13, below), Ash followed the same procedures as he did with the Dodd pool, and another contractor poured the concrete deck. As with the Poland pool, there have been no complaints (nor was there any evidence) of leakage at the skimmer. Within approximately one and one-half years after installation of the Dodd pool, Dodd began to notice what he thinks is a leak in his pool. The water level in the Dodd pool drops approximately one-quarter inch per day. But the Department's own expert witness conceded that water loss of between one-eight and one-quarter inch can be explained by evaporation. It was not proved that the Dodd pool is leaking at all. If there is a leak causing a small increment of water loss above loss through normal evaporation, the leak would have to be very small and would be very difficult to detect. Ash and others have tried but have been unable to find a leak at the skimmer of Dodd pool. In approximately summer 1985, Dodd himself dug a hole under the concrete deck to expose the bottom of the skimmer assembly. The excavation revealed an unusual amount of moisture that might be the result of a leak at the skimmer. It also revealed that the contractor who poured the Dodd concrete deck did not encase the skimmer assembly as Ash had thought he would. The Department's expert - a professional engineer with a B.S. degree in civil engineering, an M.S. degree in structural engineering and a Ph.D. degree in environmental engineering - gave his opinion that a residential pool skimmer assembly should be either (1) encased with the concrete of the pool shell or (2) encased with deck concrete which is structurally tied to the concrete pool shell. He opined that the latter method would require either a very rough surface on the pool shell concrete or steel extending from the pool shell in order for the structural tie to be accomplished. But he also conceded that it is possible for deck concrete encasing a skimmer assembly to be sufficient to stabilize the skimmer assembly even without taking any extra measures to accomplish a structural tie. There was no evidence that any building code would require a pool contractor to take these measures to accomplish a structural tie between the pool shell and skimmer assembly. Nor was there any evidence that a reasonably prudent pool contractor (as opposed to a professional engineer) would be expected to take these measures. Based on this evidence, together with all the other evidence taken as a whole, the Department did not prove that Ash was either incompetent or grossly negligent in not taking any extra measurers to accomplish a structural tie between the concrete pool shell and the skimmer assembly. Based on the evidence in this case, the contractor Dodd hired to pour the concrete deck was either incompetent or grossly negligent (assuming he was even a licensed pool contractor a fact not shown by the evidence.) He did not encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete, allowing it to "float" unprotected in the fill under the concrete deck. Settling of the fill could have caused the deck to settle and crack, moving the skimmer assembly and causing a small leak. Ash may have been able to prevent this by warning the contractor to be sure to encase the skimmer assembly with deck concrete when he poured the concrete deck. But there was no evidence that Ash had a duty to advise the other independent contractor Dodd hired or was responsible for the other contractor's incompetence or gross negligence. Ash's failure to advise the other contractor was not incompetence or gross negligence on Ash's part. Dodd has no other complaints about the pool Ash built for him. Priests' Complaint (Count II). On or about October 11, 1984, Ash contracted with Joseph and Rita Priest to build them a pneumatic concrete pool. The Contract included a warranty that the labor, materials and workmanship would be free of defects for one year and that the shell would be structural sound and capable of holding the water for ten years. Like Dodd, the Priests contracted with another independent contractor to install the concrete deck around the pool. Ash was responsible only for placement of decorative "river rock" on top of the deck. Ash finished his work in February 1985. Like Dodd, the Priests complained of water loss from the pool although the Priests noticed the water loss sooner than Dodd (approximately March, 1985). The water level was dropping approximately one-quarter inch per day more than it was dropping in a bucket used as a control. In response to the complaint, Ash sent his employees to the Priests' pool on several occasions. They found no leak at the skimmer. To determine whether the pool's "caretaker system" 1/ was leaking, Ash's employees plugged all but one pair of the caretaker heads. After waiting a period of days, they would try to see whether the rate of water loss changed. They tested all four pairs of caretaker heads on the bottom of the pool and the pair in the spa attached to the pool. No leaks could be found. They did not replace the last two (in the spa), and Mr. Priest had to replace them. As with the Dodd pool, the Department did not prove that the Priests' pool is leaking at all. The Priests continue to complain of water loss of approximately one-quarter inch per day, within the range of water loss from normal evaporation. As with the Dodd pool, a leak responsible for a small increment of water loss above water loss from normal evaporation would be very small and difficult to find, especially if the leak were in the caretaker heads or pipes under the pool leading to the heads. Now the Priests suspect a water leak at the filter. But the Department's expert witness could not find a leak there large enough to account for much water loss. The minor leak at the filter is a normal maintenance item for a pool as old as the Priests' pool. There was no evidence how long it has existed, and there was no evidence that the Priests ever told Ash there was a leak at the filter. The Priests now also complain that one of the caretaker heads does not re-seat properly. But this has nothing to do with the leakage complaint to which Ash is charged with not reasonably responding. Taken as a whole, the evidence did not prove that Ash committed misconduct or deceit by failing to make reasonable response to warranty service requests within a reasonable time, as charged. Nor does the evidence prove misleading or untrue representations, gross negligence, incompetence or fraud in connection with the Priests' pool, as charged. Poland Complaint (Count III). On or about December 9, 1981, Ash entered into a contract with James Poland to build Poland a pneumatic concrete pool and concrete deck. Poland contracted with another independent contractor to build a screen enclosure around the pool. Before construction began, one of Ash's employees asked Poland to sign an addendum to the contract for an additional $235 to pay for foundation footers required to comply with Lee County building code provisions for the screen enclosures. Before Ash signed the initial Poland contract on December 9, 1981, he was unaware of the Lee County Aluminum Code, adopted March 18, 1981. The code requires eight inch foundation footers for "aluminum additions." Another part of the code addresses "screen enclosures with screen roofs known to the industry as birdcage swimming pool enclosures." The language of the code is not explicit that screen swimming pool enclosures are required to meet the foundation requirements for "aluminum additions," and at first Lee County did not interpret the code that way. With a change of personnel in code enforcement, Lee County began to interpret the code that way, and screen swimming pool enclosures Ash had under construction began to fail building inspection for inadequate foundation footers. Ash inquired why and was told about the aluminum code and how it was being interpreted. Ash argued that the interpretation was erroneous but, failing to dissuade enforcement personnel, began to comply. As part of his compliance efforts, Ash had his employees try to secure the contract addendum from Poland. Poland refused to sign the contract addendum, insisting on an opportunity to verify that the additional foundation footers were indeed new building code requirements. There still is a dispute between the parties whether Poland ever agreed to pay the additional $235 after he verified that the footers were being required. (He never signed the contract addendum.) But, in any event, the evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct in connection with the additional $235 charge. 2/ There was some evidence that Ash did not in fact comply with the Lee County Aluminum Code, as he was told it was being interpreted, in his construction of the Poland pool deck. In two places the foundation footers were 6 and 7 inches - deeper than the four-inch normal thickness of a concrete pool deck but short of the eight-inch requirement. But Ash was not charged with failure to comply with the foundation footer requirement. He had no legally sufficient notice that he should be prepared to defend against that charge and was not prepared to defend against that charge. Therefore, no finding is made whether Ash complied with the Lee County Aluminum Code. Ash performed the Poland contract between approximately January 27 and February 26, 1982. In September, 1985, Poland began to notice that some of the tile Ash installed at the waterline around the perimeter of the pool was coming loose. As explained by the Department's expert witness, the concrete deck settled in places, cracking slightly and rotating over the fulcrum created by the wall of the concrete shell of the pool. The rotating action pulled up on the tile attached to the inside of the pool wall in places, loosening the tile. In all, less than 10 percent of the 77 foot perimeter of the Poland pool experienced problems with loose tile. The loose tile easily can be removed and replaced. The minor deck cracking and loose tile problems at the Poland pool are within the normal range for a competently constructed pool under normal conditions of ground settlement. The evidence did not prove that Ash improperly installed the pool deck or that he was incompetent or grossly negligent in the construction of the Poland pool and deck. Besides the loose tile and minor cracks in the concrete deck, the Poland pool had no apparent defects. There also was evidence that the Poland pool was finished with a coating of marcite on the inside surface of the pool shell which was mottled gray in color instead of white. Poland complained persistently about the marcite3 and insisted that Ash make it white. But the discolored marcite was a factory defect of which Ash had been unable to know before he used it. There is no way to make mottled gray marcite white. Ash tried to explain this to Poland but the customer would not be satisfied. Taken as a whole, the marcite evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct. Nor does the evidence prove any of those violations for failure to cure the marcite problem under warranty. First, as already stated, there was no cure. Second, Ash and Poland also had a running dispute whether Poland had paid the full contract price, including the additional $235 for foundation footers, so as to entitle him to any warranty repairs. In light of this genuine dispute, failure to do warranty work, if otherwise a reasonable request, still could not be found to be misconduct, fraud or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint that has been filed against Respondent, Wesley Ash, in these cases. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit number 1, which is the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board official records as they relate to Millard P. Hill, Jr., should be received into evidence. The parties noted further that there is little dispute as to facts, however, the Respondent contends that there is no diversion of funds based on the facts of this case. On June 10, Respondent advised Petitioner that he wished to qualify Master Pools, a corporation which he had applied to Petitioner to qualify as the name under which his pool contracting would be done to reflect the name H. B. Patten, Inc. as the name under which said contracting would be done. Petitioner changed its records to show this change. On July 12, Respondent entered into a contract with Manuel and Anna Bueno for a pool to be built at 6960 Northwest 4th Place, Margate, Florida, for a sum of $5,665. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference. Anna Bueno testified that a hole was dug and tar paper and steel bars were erected in the hole and the work was abandoned thereafter. Prior to abandonment, the Bueno's paid approximately $4,100 to Patten Pools. To complete the construction, the Bueno's used Hallmark Pools to finish the pool which required an additional sum of approximately $5,000. As can be seen, this is approximately $3,300 over and above the contract price. The evidence also reveals that Patten Pools, Inc., through Millard P. Hill, applied for and obtained a permit for the construction of the pool for the Bueno's on August 5. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference. On April 24, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Eskie entered a contract with Respondent for the erection of a swimming pool on their property located at 1525 Southeast 14th Court, Deerfield Beach, Florida for $6,786.00. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 4 received in evidence and made a part hereof by reference. Mr. Eskie testified that the excavation for the pool began on May 20, and on June 2 gunite services were complete. On July 9, he received a letter from Crockett- Bradley, Inc. a gunite subcontractor, indicating that it was filing a lien for $1,312 against the Eskie's property for services performed. The building permit for the Eskie project was obtained by Respondent on June 10. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 7 incorporated herein by reference. Edward Eskie paid Respondent approximately $4,778 and $1,312 was paid to Crockett-Bradley, Inc. to satisfy the lien which was placed against their property. The Eskie's completed their pool by payment of an amount in excess of $4,000 to another pool contracting firm. Prior to completing the pool and after the Respondent abandoned the project, Edward Eskie made numerous attempts to contract Respondent by phone to no avail. On June 27, Respondent entered a contract with Orlando Gonzalez for a pool to be built at his residence located at 353 Northwest 22nd Street, Boca Raton, Florida for $9,000.00. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 8 which was received and made a part hereof by reference. Orlando Gonzalez paid Respondent $3,600 through his bank toward the contract price. For that payment, Respondent dug a hole and the project was abandoned. After work was abandoned, Gonzalez made repeated attempts to contact Respondent to no avail. To complete the project, he paid another contractor approximately $6,000. On April 18, Respondent entered into a contract with Howard and Sheila Siclari for a pool to be built at their home located at 7812 Northwest 67th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $4,280. To commence the construction, Respondent obtained a building permit on June 18, 1975. See Petitioner's Exhibits number 9 and number 10 received in evidence and made a part hereof by reference. The Siclari's paid Respondent $3,456.75. Thereafter they completed the work which cost them an additional $2,500 and they did most of the work themselves. James T. Anglen, a pool salesman for Patten Pools testified that he was initially employed by Master Pools until June, 1975. A reference to Petitioner's Exhibit number 1 indicates that Master Pools registered as Brian Sales Corporation as the first entity that Respondent registered with Petitioner on January 1, 1974. He was a superintendent of Patten Pools in June, 1975 when he commenced employment with Patten. He acknowledged that he received money from the Bueno's which was transmitted to Patten Pools. He also acknowledged that the Bueno's were probably hurt most of all the complaining parties in this case. Respondent discovered that its cash flow was short approximately $40,000 to $50,000 and that that amount in checks were floating with insufficient funds to cover them. He commenced efforts to try to straighten out the firms cash flow and that for a while the bank worked along with him. Anglen also acknowledged the abandonment of the Gonzalez project. He further acknowledged that monies received from projects were used to cover deficiencies on other projects to continue Respondent's operations.
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's pool contracting license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed pool contractor in Panama City, Bay County, Florida, holding license number RP 0053231. Respondent was registered as an individual with the Board. The address given on his pool contractor's license was 3414 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida. National Pools of Panama City, Inc. was not registered or certified as a contractor with the Board. National Pool's address was 3416 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida. No clear and convincing evidence was presented as to whether Respondent had any knowledge of National Pool's unregenerate and incertitude status. On February 16, 1988, Robert D. Hay entered into a contract with National Pools of Panama City, Inc., for the construction of a pool on his property located at 1000 Kimberly Lane, Lynn Haven, Florida. The price of the pool was $9,310.92. The contract established a schedule of payments for the construction of the pool. Each payment was made upon completion of a certain portion of the construction work. The contract also provided that National Pools would pay for all work and materials used in the construction of the pool. A building permit was obtained for the construction of the pool. No evidence was submitted on who actually pulled the construction permit. The contractor listed on the building permit was Respondent and the construction was supervised by Respondent. The pool was completed to Mr. Hay's satisfaction and he paid the last installment payment to National Pools. 1/ Mr. Hay received a release of lien from Vance White. Mr. White was the president of National Pools. However, Mr. Hay later learned That National Pools had not paid for some materials which had been used in the pool's construction. The supplied of the materials filed a lien In the amount of $1,718.49 on Mr. Hay's property. Mr. Hay attempted to get National Pools to pay the lien. However, the lien was never satisfied by National Pools. Eventually, Mr. Hay was forced to pay the lien plus attorney's fees and court costs or else have the lien foreclosed on his property. The amount Mr. Hay was forced to pay in order to clear the title to his property was $2,615.41. There was no substantial evidence submitted which demonstrated Respondent's relationship to National Pools. The fact that Respondent's name appeared on the building permit does not support a finding that Respondent is the primary contracting agent for National Pools. Likewise, the fact that Respondent's address on his license was next door to National Pools does not support a finding that Respondent is the primary contracting agent for National Pools. It is just as likely an inference that Respondent was not the qualifying agent for National Pools, but was its subcontractor and it is National Pools and its officers who are violating the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of August, 1990.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Revised Joint Prehearing Stipulation4: The "Investigator's Memo" referred to in the parties' Revised Joint Prehearing Stipulation was a memorandum from Jack Beamish, an investigator with Respondent, to Bruce Campbell, an attorney with Respondent. It was dated June 21, 2004, and read as follows: On June 21, 2004 I spoke on the telephone with Neal Shniderman . . . , counsel for The Pool People. He said that James Pohl, PE (Case No. 03-0045) has retired and is in the process of moving to North Carolina. Shniderman said, "Well over a year ago the company changed its way of operating. Jim Pohl was coming in and reviewing every plan and signing them. Now that he is retired, the company has a new engineer who is signing and sealing and making sure everything is up to snuff. I'm worried about them signing the affidavit because I don't want them to acknowledge that they were engaged in an unlawful act. I don't want to let my client admit to violating the law in the past, particularly where we don't believe they violated the law, and how they will act in the future. I don't understand where my client is doing anything wrong. It is not holding itself out to be an engineering firm; it's a pool contracting firm. It contracts with an engineer to provide engineering services." I cited Chapter 471.023 and told Mr. Shniderman that it appears that the firm is directly contracting to provide pool construction and engineering services, and that in order to do that the simple answer would be to apply for a certificate of authorization. (TPP [The Pool People] is then subcontracting the engineering work out.) He stated that he thought it to be lawful for TPP to practice business as it currently is. I suggested that he talk to you to further discuss his position. I said that I would have you call him.[5] The November 18, 2004, "probable cause panel proceeding" referred to in the parties' Revised Joint Prehearing Stipulation opened with Mr. Campbell, addressing the following comments to the probable cause panel6: This investigation is predicated on a complaint filed on April 9th 2004 by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers alleging that The Pool People, Inc., was practicing as an engineering firm without holding a Certificate of Authorization issued by the Florida Board of Professional Engineering. The Pool People, Inc., which is a certified contracting business licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board, does not have and has never had a Certificate of Authorization to provide engineering services in the State of Florida. A notice to cease and desist the unlicensed practice of engineering was issued to The Pool, Inc., on May 24th, 2004. On . . . August 2nd, 2004 the Florida Board of Professional Engineer[s] obtained from the Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building Department certified copies of five permit applications and pool plans submitted by The Pool People, Inc., during the period of June and July 2004. The permit applications were submitted by Daniel Lowe, a certified pool contractor and qualifier for The Pool People, Inc., and the plans were signed and sealed by Ming Z. Huang, P. [E]. On information and belief The Pool People, Inc., employed Mr. Huang to provide engineering services, evidenced by the five sets of pool plans, included with [The Pool People's] contracts with the property owners. By filing engineering plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer employed by [T]he [Pool People] while [T]he [Pool People] did not have a Certificate of Authorization, and by providing engineering services directly to the customer while [T]he [Pool People] does not have a Certificate of Authorization, [T]he [Pool People] has therefore practiced engineering without being duly licensed.[7] The following are other pertinent excerpts from the transcript of the November 18, 2004, "probable cause panel proceeding": The [Panel] Chairman: Well, Bruce, the reason I raised the question [of whether the county knew about the cease and desist order] was that in reading their attorney's comments I am interpreting their attorney as stating, one, he doesn't think they need a CA and, secondly, I interpret that they have no intent in getting a CA. Mr. Campbell: That is exactly why we are bringing this complaint. The Chairman: [That] is why I commented about [why] I think the county needs to know there is a cease and desist so they no longer accept any plans from this organization.[8] * * * The Chairman: True. But if they had knowledge that we had issued the cease and desist order they may in turn turn the drawings right back over to them. Mr. Tomasino[9]: You would shut down every pool contractor in the State of Florida, every one. Mr. Campbell: And part of the thing here is that I think we need to go forward with this case, and it's going to be more or less a test case that, you know, we need to establish those facts before we I think go with the lesser and perhaps ineffective notice to cease and desist. Mr. Tomasino: Well, we have taken positions two different ways in the past, and I have a problem with it because we are not consistent. Certain organizations can hire an engineer and provide a product and it is okay. Certain organizations can do that and it is not okay. And I think we need to clear up the fact who is the engineer supposed to be contracting with to avoid the contractor having the CA, design build. Just about every single one of them the contractor hires the engineer and the architect and that is part of his overall fee for construction. He doesn't have a CA and doesn't intend to get one. This situation in the State of Florida in my opinion could possibly find manufacturers exempt because they're taking various components by other people and putting it together. Mr. Campbell: This is true except for the fact that they're putting it on a site and what they are using the engineer for is to put it on a site, and that engineering - - Mr. Tomasino: But - - Mr. Campbell: - -is site specific and very definitely something for the owner of the property. Mr. Tomasino: No question about that. But so is design build.[10] * * * Mr. Campbell: There may be some requirement of clarification as far as the statute, but the way the statute exists they're entering into a contract to provide engineering services and they don't have a Certificate of Authorization. The Chairman: That is pretty clear, pretty clear in the statute. And I don't know how he is - - the attorney [for The Pool People] now - - how he is interpreting it otherwise. [11] * * * The Chairman: Well, you know, his attorney's reference to 471.023 is pretty correct paraphrasing. I mean, he hasn't restated all of it but, you know, Subsection 2 says for the purpose of this section a Certification of Authorization shall be required for any business organization or other person practicing under a fictitious name, offering engineering services to the public. That is exactly what this outfit is doing that they have to have a CA. Mr. Seckinger[12]: What part of - - I will play the devil's advocate - - what part of engineering services are they offering? Mr. Chairman: The site engineering. Mr. Seckinger: Well, all they are doing is putting a pool in a level ground in the backyard. There is no engineering there. The Chairman: Why is he sealing it? Mr. Sunshine[13]: Yeah. They have an engineer sealing it for them. Mr. Seckinger: That is a good question. The local authorities require it? Mr. Tomasino: Health department probably and probably the building department. The Chairman: But that is offering engineering services without a CA. Mr. Seckinger: If we were talking about enclosed - -pool enclosures would be even more so. Mr. Tomasino: The health department is interested because of recirculating systems and filtration systems et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Seckinger: Okay. I will get off the platform I was on.[14] * * * Mr. Tomasino: I understand what the statute is saying because the Chairman made it very clear. [15] * * * Mr. Seckinger: Mr. Chair, I move that we find probable cause in the case under discussion. The Chairman: The Pool People, Inc. Mr. Seckinger: The Pool People, Inc., unlicensed. The Chairman: Do we have a second? Mr. Tomasino: Second The Chairman: All those in favor say aye. Mr. Tomasino: Aye. Mr. Seckinger: Aye. The Chairman: Aye.[16] * * * The Chairman: I mean, if there was some gray area in the wording of Subsection 2 of 471.023. I don't see there is any gray area. And - - Mr. Campbell: I don't either. As long as that is the statute I think the prosecuting attorney has the responsibility to go forward with it.[17] * * * Mr. Sunshine: Now that we have brought it [the improper use of Mr. Pohl's seal] to their [The Pool People's] attention, they have taken the steps to bring in someone to actually review these things, but they are unwilling it appears to acquire a CA.[18] * * * The Chairman: Mr. Tomasino, since you are on that page you don't have to go back to it, again, this attorney is interpreting that item 2 from 471.023 does not apply because they are not providing engineering services. They're a consumer of them, which - - Mr. Tomasino: They are using services. The Chairman: But they're putting an engineering seal on their drawings. Mr. Sunshine: They charge their client, the home owner. The Chairman: For engineering services. Mr. Tomasino: As a separate item. Mr. Campbell: Not a separate item, I don't think. Mr. Sunshine: It's a lump sum. Incorporated in our services [is] the engineering that is necessary for this project. [Y]ou pay us and we take care of everything. Mr. Tomasino: I guess that is part of my opening comments. What is wrong with someone hiring experts to help them put a package together to sell? Mr. Campbell: You know, that is just too general. I mean, certainly the manufacturer's exemptions is sort of a narrow and specific one and we recognize that. That is where it happens. You have - -you know, this is just a different situation. It is one step over the line. It's not a package that is sold in quite the same terms. It is something that is site specific and that makes the difference. Mr. Tomasino: We need to open up the bag of worms in the aluminum enclosures again, then, because that is not site specific. Mr. Campbell: Well, it has to be at some point. Mr. Tomasino: People who prepare the master plans don't ever see the site. Mr. Sunshine: We have discussed that - - Mr. Tomasino: But we are mixing apples and oranges. The Chairman: But if a screen enclosure company gets an engineer for a very specific job and seals that set of drawing that it [is] this situation, correct? Mr. Campbell: Yes. Mr. Tomasino: So the way out is for that engineer to contract with the home owner? Mr. Sunshine: The company needs to tell them we will build it. You need to acquire an engineer and you need to pay them, not us. The Chairman: Or obtain a CA. Mr. Sunshine: Right. We will give you names of who[m] we would recommend. You go to that engineering firm, you contract with them, you pay them the fee, because otherwise we could [get] hit with unlicensed activity.[19] * * * The Administrative Complaint issued in the Underlying Proceeding contained five counts.20 Each count charged Petitioner with "violat[ing] Section 471.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by practicing engineering without a license." In Count One, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about June 10, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Vista Builders, at 16326 78th Road North, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on June 9, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Vista Builders." In Count Two, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about July 7, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Toll Brothers, at 8108 Laurel Ridge Court, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on June 23, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Toll Brothers." In Count Three, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about July 22, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Jandjel, at 10265 Brookville Lane, Boca Raton, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on July 20, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Jandjel." In Count Four, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about July 26, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Shelby Homes, at 10681 Oak Meadow Lane, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on July 22, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Shelby Homes." In Count Five, it was alleged that, "[o]n or about June 24, 2004, [Petitioner], through its qualifying individual contractor, filed an application for a permit to build a pool for an owner, Anthony Rycko, at 13761 76th Road North, in Palm Beach County, Florida" and that the "application included 4 pages of engineering plans signed and sealed on June 23, 2004, by Ming Z. Huang, P. E.," whom Petitioner had "employed . . . to provide engineering services included in its contract with Anthony Rycko." With respect to all five counts, Petitioner alleged that: [Petitioner] engaged in the practice of engineering in one or more of the following ways: by filing engineering plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer employed by [Petitioner] while [Petitioner] did not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes; by providing engineering services directly to a customer while [Petitioner] d[id] not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes. In the "Conclusions of Law" portion of the Recommended Order he issued in DOAH Case No. 05-0382, the undersigned stated the following, among other things: The specific allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 05-0382 are that The Pool People, in connection with each of the Five Pool Projects, practiced engineering without a certificate of authorization from the FEMC in violation of Section 471.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging "in one or more" of the following activities: by filing engineering plans signed and sealed by a professional engineer [Mr. Huang] employed by Respondent while [it] did not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes [hereinafter referred to as "Allegation a."]; by providing engineering services directly to a customer while [it did] not have a Certificate of Authorization as required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes [hereinafter referred to as "Allegation b."]. It is asserted in Allegation a. that The Pool People was required by Section 471.023, Florida Statutes, to possess a certificate of authorization from the FEMC because it engaged in the practice of engineering through a licensed engineer, Mr. Huang, who was acting as The Pool People's employee when he signed and sealed the engineering plans that were subsequently filed by the Pool People in connection with each of the Five Pool Projects.[21] The FEMC, however, failed to present clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing establishing that there existed an employee- employer relationship between Mr. Huang and The Pool People. Indeed, the record affirmatively establishes that Mr. Huang was not an employee of The Pool People, but rather acted as an independent contractor, free to exercise his professional judgment in a manner that was not subject to the control of The Pool People. See Harper v. Toler, 884 So. 2d 1124, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)("The 'extent of control' . . . has been recognized as the 'most important factor in determining whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee.' Of course, employees and independent contractors both are subject to some control by the person or entity hiring them. The extent of control exercised over the details of the work turns on whether the control is focused on simply the 'result to be obtained' or extends to the 'means to be employed.' A control directed toward means is necessarily more extensive than a control directed toward results. Thus, the mere control of results points to an independent contractor relationship; the control of means points to an employment relationship.")(citations omitted). A corporation, such as The Pool People, that retains FEMC-licensed engineers to provide engineering services on an independent contractor basis is not obligated to obtain a certificate of authorization from the FEMC inasmuch as Section 471.023's certificate of authorization requirement is triggered only where the licensees are acting as "agents,[22] employees, [or] officers" of the corporation. To construe Section 471.023 otherwise would add words to the statute not placed there by the Legislature. This neither the undersigned nor the [Board] may do. See Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999)("We are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature."); PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 1988)("The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another."); Cook v. State, 381 So. 2d 1368, 1369 (Fla. 1980)("According to a longstanding principle of statutory construction, this list should be presumed to be exclusive and any omissions to be deliberate."); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976)("[W]here a statute enumerates the things on which it is to operate, or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned."); Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Company, Inc., 288 So. 2d 209, 215 (Fla. 1974)("To say, as the employer would have us do, that in merger cases the true meaning of s 440.15(3)(u) is that disability for purposes of that section is the greater of physical impairment or loss of earning capacity only if there is a loss of earning capacity is to invoke a limitation or to add words to the statute not placed there by the Legislature. This we may not do."); Herrera-Lara v. State, 932 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)("Because the legislature did not include the terms 'temporary tags' or 'temporary license plates' in section 320.26, we must assume the legislature did not intend for section 320.26 to apply to those items."); and Childers v. Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc., 898 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)("Courts must give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, and is not at liberty to add words that were not placed there by the legislature."). The accusation made in Allegation b. that The Pool People "provid[ed] engineering services directly to a customer" in connection with each of the Five Pool Projects is likewise not supported by clear and convincing record evidence. The record reveals that The Pool People was a direct recipient, not a direct provider, of engineering services. What it contracted to provide "directly to a customer" in each instance was not any engineering service, but rather a newly-constructed residential swimming pool, a contractual obligation its certificate of authority from the CILB authorized it to assume. To fulfill this contractual obligation, it had to have engineering plans signed and sealed by a FEMC-licensed engineer. It needed these plans to apply for the building permit required to commence construction of the pool. The Pool People obtained these engineering plans from a FEMC-licensed independent contractor, not from one of its "agents, employees, [or] officers," and it then used the plans to apply for the required building permit. In doing so, it did not run afoul of any requirement of Section 471.023, Florida Statutes. Because the specific allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case No. 05-0382 are not supported by clear and convincing evidence, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
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 the holder of currently active General Contractor's license No. RG-0023888. On January 18, 1977, Norwood W. Hope (hereinafter "Developer") entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a commercial swimming pool. Respondent was to have been paid the amount of $43,346.40 under the contract for construction of the pool. The contract amount was to be paid pursuant to a five-stage draw schedule as follows: 1. Framing and steel draw paid $10,836.60 2. Gunite draw paid 10,836.60 3. Mancite draw 7,224.40 4. Equipment set draw 7,224.40 5. Final approval draw 7,224.40 Respondent made application for an Alachua County building permit for the swimming pool project on February 23, 1977. The permit application was approved on February 25, 1977, and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, the project received Alachua County approval on a temporary power pole inspection on June 1, 1977. An interim inspection of the property was made by Alachua County officials on November 7, 1977, with no deficiencies noted. A final inspection on the electrical work on the project was made, with satisfactory results, on November 8, 1977. The Alachua County Building Code, by incorporation of the 1973 Southern Standard Building Code, 1974 Revision, provides, in part, as follows: 108.2--INSPECTIONS REQUIRED The Building Official shall inspect or cause to be inspected at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building or structure upon completion, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Section 109. * * * (c) The Building Official upon notifica- tion from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections of buildings and such other inspections as may be necessary, and shall either approve that portion of the construction as completed or shall notify the permit bolder or his agent wherein the same fails to comply with the law: * * * Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. (Emphasis added). The contract entered into on January 18, 1977 between the Developer and Respondent called for Respondent to construct the swimming pool according to the plans and specifications admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Associated construction, including construction of concrete pool decking, a pumphouse and a fence surrounding the swimming pool site were either completed by the Developer or by other sub contractors. By invoice dated October 12, 1977, Respondent requested a final draw on the project in the amount of 87,000, which, if paid, would have left only $224.40 unpaid under the contract. This draw request indicated that a balance due for extra time and materials would be billed ". . . upon acceptance of total pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4). On October 25, 1977, the Developer paid $6,000 of the $7,000 requested to be paid by Respondent's invoice of October 12, 1977. The Developer contested Respondent's expressed intention to bill for additional time and material, asserting that the Developer had not approved any additional sums for extras. In remitting the $6,000 payment to Respondent, the Developer indicated that "[t]his leaves a balance on our account of $1,224.40, which will be paid upon checking out the pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). (Emphasis added.) An invoice for back charges on the swimming pool project in the amount of $274 was forwarded to the Developer by Respondent by invoice dated November 8, 1977. In addition, on November 8, 1977, Respondent also invoiced the Developer for a final draw on the project in the amount of $1,224.40. At some time after notification from the Developer's representatives that tile targets in the racing lanes of the pool were improperly located, Respondent returned to the job site after November 9, 1977 to relocate the targets. Respondent performed this work as a result of a written request from the Developer dated November 9, 1977. Respondent completed primary construction of the pool prior to submission of the final draw request of October 12, 1977. At that time, back- filling around the exterior of the pool structure preparatory to the pouring of the concrete pool decking had not been completed. Although by October 12, 1977, Respondent had removed much of the excess dirt and debris from around the edges of the pool. There were still areas of exposed piping which would, in due course, be covered with back-fill and tamped by the decking subcontractor. Respondent did not attempt to back-fill or tamp any areas around the pool's piping system. At some time subsequent to October 12, 1977, which date is not clearly reflected in this record, a separate sub- contractor completed back-filling work around the pool, and poured the concrete decking. Neither the Developer nor his subcontractor advised Respondent that the back-filling had been accomplished and that the deck was to be poured. Prior to October 12, 1977, Respondent "pressure tested" the pool's piping system, and determined that the pool would hold water at a level above its scum gutters. The results of this testing indicated that, at least as of October 12, 1977, there was no leakage from the pool. Standard practice in the pool construction industry dictates that a minimum of three pressure tests be made of a pool's piping system during the course of construction. The first of these tests should occur immediately after installation of the pipes, and a second test should be performed immediately before final back-filling to cover the pipe system. A final pressure test should be conducted after tamping of the fill and prior to the pouring of concrete for the pool deck. The obvious purpose of this system of pressure testing is to discover any water leaks before concrete pool decking is poured to avoid having to cut out sections of the concrete in order to locate leaks. Because the Developer and his subcontractor failed to notify Respondent of further work being done on the pool. Respondent was unable to perform a pressure test either after back-filling was completed, after the back- fill had been tamped and before the concrete deck was poured. By letter dated January 17, 1978, Respondent was furnished by the Developer with a "punch list" indicating several areas of deficiency that needed to be corrected in the pool. In that letter the Developer requested that Respondent complete the necessary work within seven days. The Developer forwarded a second letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978 advising Respondent that the punch list items had not been corrected, and urging Respondent to complete the work described in the punch list as soon as possible. From receipt of the punch list in January of 1978 through the middle of March, 1978 Respondent had workers on the job intermittently making the corrections indicated in the punch list. Respondent satisfactorily corrected fifteen of the eighteen items listed as defective n the punch list. Some of the items were repaired by other subcontractors. Respondent had difficulty obtaining some items of equipment, which he was required to back-order. When the back-ordered equipment was slow in arriving, the Developer opted to obtain these items from a source other than Respondent. Respondent replaced a defective pump associated with the pool construction at some time subsequent to January 18, 1977. The last work performed by Respondent on the pool project occurred some time between March 10 and March 16, 1978. At no time thereafter was Respondent ever advised by the Developer that any work performed under the contract was either unsatisfactory or incomplete. The pool received a final State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services inspection on July 13, 1978, at which time all necessary permits for operation of the pool under applicable regulations were issued. Respondent at no time requested that Alachua County officials come to the job site to conduct the necessary final inspection of the project, nor did he advise the Developer of the necessity to do so. At some time during 1979, subsequent to the completion of the swimming pool project, the Developer discovered that the pool was losing water at a rate of approximately 2,100 gallons per day. During this period, the water level inside the pool would drop to a level equal to the piping running around the exterior of the pool shell and under the pool decking. When the Developer was unable to ascertain the cause of the leak, an outside subcontractor was hired to check the pool. This sub- contractor performed pressure tests on the pool's piping system in an attempt to determine whether the leakage was occurring through the pipes. These tests apparently showed no leakage through the piping system. The Developer then caused the concrete decking around the edge of the pool to be removed in order to more closely inspect the interior piping. At this point it was discovered that there existed flaws and breaks in the neoprene piping surrounding the exterior shell of the pool. After repairs to the damaged piping, the pool decking was repoured and there has been no subsequent leakage problem in the pool. The Developer incurred expenses in the amount of $2,288 in removing the decking around the pool and repairing the neoprene piping. Because of the fact that several subcontractors in addition to Respondent worked in the pool area during construction of the pool project, it is impossible on the basis of this record to determine the cause of the damage to the neoprene piping. Respondent's testimony is uncontroverted that pressure testing performed prior to the conclusion of primary work on the pool in October of 1977 showed no leakage through the pool's piping system. Further, at the conclusion of the primary work in October, 1977, much of the pool's piping system was left exposed and could have been damaged either by the Developer's own workers or by employees of other subcontractors in the course of back- filling and tamping fill material preparatory to pouring concrete decking. The Developer's failure to advise Respondent of the schedule for back-filling, tamping and pouring of concrete deprived Respondent of an opportunity to properly pressure test the piping system at appropriate stages of construction. Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a registered pool contractor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP 0029202. (Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, Item 2: Pet. Exh. C) On or about December 5, 1984, Respondent, d/b/a Miller Pools, contracted with Terry Kilpatrick to construct a pool at the Kilpatrick residence. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 9-10) The contract provided for a contract price of $10,963 for the construction of the pool and $1600 for the installation of fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10) Under the provisions of the contract and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent was responsible for all aspects of the pool construction and Kilpatrick was responsible for the installation of the fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10-11) As part of the contract, Respondent gave Kilpatrick a one-year warranty on the construction of the pool. (T. 19-20) The Kilpatrick residence was located in Putnam County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 37) In December 1984, the 1982 Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect in Putnam County, having been adopted by county ordinance. (Pet. Exh. E, F; T. 40- 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 required that a building permit be obtained before the commencement of construction of a swimming pool at a residence in the county. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 42) Respondent obtained the necessary building permit for the Kilpatrick pool job. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 also required that certain inspections be done during the course of the construction of a swimming pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 43) Among the required inspections was an electrical inspection and a final inspection. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44-45) It was the responsibility of Respondent as contractor to request the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department to conduct the necessary inspections of the pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44) The purpose of requiring the various pool inspections, including the electrical and the final, was to make certain that the pool had been constructed and was operating correctly and safely. (T. 45) Respondent was aware that certain inspections were required by local law. On three occasions, December 19, 1984, January 7, 1985 and January 10, 1985, inspections were performed on the Kilpatrick pool at Respondent's request. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43) Respondent did not make arrangements for the electrical or final inspections to be performed on the Kilpatrick pool. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43-44) During the construction of the Kilpatrick pool, Respondent was at the job site infrequently. (T. 12-16, 18, 19, 22) Almost immediately after the pool construction was completed, Kilpatrick began to experience problems with the pool, problems which included pitting of the marcite finish, leaks in the tiled area of the pool, and chipping of the brick and coping. (T. 24-35) The problems experienced by Kilpatrick were problems related to the construction of the pool and were covered by the one-year warranty on the pool given to Kilpatrick by Respondent. (T. 19-20) Respondent failed to take any action to correct the problems until after Kilpatrick had contacted the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department and the Department of Professional Regulation to complain about the problems with the pool. (T. 25-28, 35-36, 46-50) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Kilpatrick continued to experience problems with the pool leaking around the tile. (T. 31-31, 34) By Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed an administrative fine of $1000 and suspended Respondent's registered pool contractor's license for five years as a result of Respondent's default in a disciplinary case in which Respondent had been charged with failure to supervise a swimming pool construction project and/or performing said construction in a grossly negligent and/or incompetent manner. (Pet. Exh. C)
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1000, and that his license be suspended for an additional year after the suspension imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Terry, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jimmy G. Miller 706 Southeast 35 Avenue Ocala, Florida 32671 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is subject to discipline for permitting his general contractor's license to be used by another person to construct a swimming pool, thereby conspiring with an unlicensed person to avoid statutory licensure requirements, and by failing to oversee the quality of the work performed by that person under Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible to prosecute administrative complaints under Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules implementing those statutes. At all times material to the complaint, Raymond Hurley was licensed as a certified general contractor, holding Florida license CGC 000773 and served as the qualifying agent for Capital Resources and Development, Inc. Kenneth R. and Lucille M. Clopper, of Fort Pierce, Florida, entered into a contract with Fred Humberstone, doing business as Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, Inc., on September 21, 1987, for the construction of a pool and screened enclosure at the Clopper's home. The contract price was $15,500. Mr. Humberstone has never been a qualified contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida. Mr. Hurley became authorized to do business as a contractor in St. Lucie County, Florida, on September 29, 1987, when he provided a copy of his state certified general contractor's license, a certificate of insurance for worker's compensation and general liability property damage insurance to St. Lucie County. St. Lucie County Permit No. 44574 was issued to Capital Resources and Development, Inc., on October 9, 1987. The permit application had been dated September 24, 1987. The application bore Mr. Hurley's contractor license number. In the space for the name of the company, the application had originally been written in the name of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast, of Stuart, Florida. The name of the applicant had been scratched through, and the name of Capital Resources and Development, Inc., was written over it. The application bears a handwritten signature which reads Raymond S. Hurley, but it is not his signature. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application, or authorize anyone to sign it for him. Mr. Hurley knew Mr. Humberstone, the owner of Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. Humberstone had difficulty with his corporation because his qualifying contractor had left, and Humberstone owned approximately $150,000 worth of equipment which he could not use without a qualifying contractor. Humberstone made a proposal to Hurley to become the qualifying contractor for Southern Fiberglass Pools of the Treasure Coast. It was about this time that Mr. Hurley first qualified to engage in the business of contracting in St. Lucie County. Mr. Humberstone must have pulled the permit for the Clopper jor, using Mr. Hurley's licensure in St. Lucie County. This is likely because at first, the line for the permit applicant had been filled in with the name of Humberstone's business, Southern Fiberglass Pools by the Treasure Coast. Mr. Hurley had become licensed in St. Lucie County because he was contemplating going into business with Mr. Humberstone. What cannot be determined from the evidence in the record is whether Mr. Hurley had agreed with Mr. Humberstone to make his licensure available to Mr. Humberstone so Humberstone could continue in the pool contracting business in St. Lucie County. Mr. Hurley did not sign the application for the permit at the Clopper's home. He never went to the Clopper's home to see the work or to meet the Cloppers. Had he gone into partnership with Humberstone he would likely have participated, to some extent, in the work. On this matter, the Department's proof is insufficient. After the construction at the Clopper home began, there were a number of delays in completion of the pool, and the contractor failed to install stress relief for the pool deck which resulted in cracking of the pool deck. The pool itself had three leaks. The problems with the pool remained unresolved and the Clopper's finally settled with Mr. Humberstone for payment for $1,020 in exchange for providing Mr. Humberstone with the release of liability. Ultimately, the Cloppers spend $1,659 to repair the problems created by Mr. Humberstone's inadequate work. Mr. Hurley was never at the job site, and the Cloppers never knew anything about him until after their pool had been completed; all of their dealings had been with Humberstone.
Recommendation It is recommended that the administrative complaint filed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Raymond Hurley be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of January 1991. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4233 Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner: 1-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as there is insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Hurley, although he knew Mr. Humberstone, had entered into any agreement Humberstone to become a qualifying contractor for Humberstone's corporation. While that is one inference which could be drawn from the evidence, the evidence is not strong enough to permit such finding, at the level of certainty required for clear and convincing evidence, to be made. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent: 1-6. Adopted 7. Rejected. There is insufficient evidence in the record to make specific finding with respect to handwriting exemplars, but the testimony of Mr. Hurley that he did not sign the St. Lucie County permit application has been accepted. Copies furnished: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Glenn N. Blake, Esquire BLAKE & TORRES Strange Building 500 South US 1 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Robert E. Stone, Esquire SULLIVAN, STONE, SULLIVAN LaJOIE and THACKER 100 Avenue "A", Suite 1F Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
